Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War

Welcome, welcome to my last round of this wonderful debate where I am going to focus on concluding and closing out in a strong fashion. In Ultimate Conclusion...I want to reaffirm that no group has the capacity to judge another state as to whether or not they are adequately defending their citizen's rights. In the case of the Assad regime, they will say they are protecting their loyal citizens from the rebels. Who is to say otherwise? Syria is a nation of 22 million people [1] who is to say that Assad isn't trying to protect the loyal majority from the radical minority? "highlights the necessity of carefully determining when and under what circumstances those powers which have the capacity to intervene ought to intervene in defense of human rights"This is a perfect quote from my opponent as to why intervention is being argued against. In the case of Syria, as I have pointed out this debate, after careful consideration the circumstances of intervention are not strong enough. This war has strayed far from the black and white issue of simple human rights violations and has traversed into a sovereign civil war. Both sides have violated human rights. My opponent says you don't have to pick sides in order to prevent human rights violations but I beg to differ. How do you get them to stop without resolving the war? In order to resolve the war you have to pick a side which is not desirable in this case. My opponent drops statistics that look large but when looking at the overall picture, there is still more than 90% of the Syrian population in Syria. What if the majority want the Assad regime? What if only a minority of the population is having their rights violated? Do we have the right to intervene and change the fate of 22 MILLION people on the whim of the First World to feel high and mighty? I doubt it. This sovereign people has a right to decide it's own destiny. It's not about nations and leaders, its about people. This group of people, the Syrian nation, borders and leaders aside, have a right to choose their fate without interference from powers whom they are unfamiliar and uncaring for. My opponent heavily sites the "good" in intervention. However, this good is ambiguous as I have shown. How do we know intervention will truly lead to good? How do we know that the rights of the Syrian people will actually be secured? What about their right to act and choose their own fate as a sovereign people? That right isn't discussed by Pro-intervention people."Moreover, letting the conflict "play out on its own" is only what it easy -it is not what is right."I think it is harder to let this civil war rage and do the actual right thing which is to NOT intervene and allow the Syrian people to decide their fate on their own. If this was a gross majority being suppressed by a tiny minority it would be a different story but this civil war is split. Do you have the right to stomp on the sovereignty of the Pro-Assad people because you feel the rebels are more "right"? There are people on both sides and both sides have to have their humanity respected and humanity comes with the freedom to choose and that freedom includes the political freedom to support and fight for whichever side you choose without interference from high minded, wealthy First World powers.The Syrian people must be respected and allowed to decide their fate on their own!Thank you. [1] https://www.cia.gov...