DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

Pro concedes that “Clearly [it is accurate], from a moral standpoint” to aid those in need, but he contends that it isn't moral to help others by “violating [other's rights]”, or if you cause more damage than good. This is an interesting argument, but an inaccurate one – rights are not absolute and without limits, and certain rights are voided as part of agreements such as the social contract and international law. What do I mean by this? Under my opponent's logic, it would be wrong to use prison as a punishment as it violates the right to movement. [1] However, because individuals have subjected themselves to the social contract, government has the right to impose just punishment for crimes. Similarly, if I am robbing a bank and I got shot by cops, my right to life has not been violated because I was threatening the lives and property of others. In a similar matter, a state cannot have their right to sovereignty violated if an international coalition comes in and tries to stop a genocide, because they voided their right to sovereignty by abusing their citizens and violating agreed-upon international laws. My opponent next tries to refute my argument that government's job is to protect the people. He asserts first off that I am arguing R2P opens up any nation facing any human rights abuse to intervention, and that thus any government with any human rights issue voids their right to sovereignty. This is a gross oversimplification – R2P states that each nation is “responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”, and that “when appropriate, the international community should assist States in exercising that responsibility”. Only in cases of a state “manifestly failing” can others directly intervene. [2] Clearly, R2P isn't what my opponent says it is. Also, the idea that governments with any rights abuses whatsoever void their right to sovereignty is ridiculous. Governments voided their right to absolute sovereignty when they signed treaties that established a higher power. Con also asserts that rights abuses occur worldwide, and that most are caused by insurgents. This is the case, yes, but under governments are still obligated to protect their people. An insurgency in a country that isn't responded to is a violation of international law, similar to how I am obligated by law not to harbor fugitives, even if I'm not directly involved with their actions. [3] This is because insurgencies don't just affect one country – they affect others. For example, the ISIS has legs in both Iraq and Syria. [4] If Iraq refuses to stop them, the violence could naturally spill over into Syria. Con also asserts R2P is not codified international law and thus cannot be applied. This is incorrect; UN Security Council Resolution 1674 “Reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document”. [5] What do paragraphs 138 and 139 say? “Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. .. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability. .. we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner. .. on a case-by-case basis. .. should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations”. [6] The 191 countries that were attendees of the 2005 World Summit agreed to this as well. [7] Who do you trust more on international law – the UN, or some random wordpress blog? My opponent questions why the US is responsible for the rights of someone in Myanmar. This is a red herring; this debate is not about an obligation to intervene in any circumstance, because, as my opponent states in his opening, "Permissible means allowable. .. not necessarily encouraged or obligated”. I am not required in this debate to agree all intervention is a good idea, that all intervention has been good, or to defend US foreign policy - all I am required to establish is that intervention is not prohibited on moral principles. My opponent tries to rebut my arguments about intervention being effective. He says “Pro cannot pick and choose what types of intervention he wishes to defend. He is required by the resolution to defend the broad idea of intervention, which includes support for opposition parties and such, but it also includes military intervention”. This is another red herring. I am indeed supposed to defend the broad idea of intervention as being morally acceptable, yes. I have repeatedly justified appropriate and effective military action in this debate, but what is wrong with me noting a certain type of intervention is more effective and thus the best type to use? That's like saying in a debate about whether medicine is good or not that I should be required to equally defend all types of 'medicine', including faith healing and voodoo witchcraft. I am obligated to defend a moral principle – not any particular action or type of action. Con asserts I have disproven the idea of sanctions for him, but he is taking my words out of context; he ignores the bit at the beginning where I say “Embargos, trade sanctions and removal from international groups can pressure countries to stop their abuses”. I wasn't saying sanctions are bad, but that they are ineffective in some situations (namely, those with a country that has a fast-developing internal economy or that is already self-sufficient enough to handle sanctions) and there are downsides. My opponnent also accuses me of cherry-picking Poland and South Africa as examples of successful intervention. This is silly, but since my opponent has decided to go down this path, I'll point out he has 'cherry-picked' examples of 'bad intervention' while ignoring obvious examples of intervention that was effective (like WWII and the Gulf War). He doesn't refute my key argument of effectiveness (namely, that the intervention in those countries led to a bloodless revolution, end to abuses and transition to democracy), and instead asserts US intervention in Syria was bad. Once again – I'm affirming that it is not immoral to intervene, not whether it is always a good idea. I happen to agree that the intervention used in Syria was ineffective, but how does that prove it is immoral to ever intervene? All it proves is that arming Al-Qaeda is a bad idea. I also find it odd he says that it was good for the US to prop up Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak to protect our interests. What were the interests we were protecting, exactly? It was preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power and enforcing Sharia law. [8] In a way, propping up Mubarak was humanitarian intervention – Mubarak's Egypt was bad, sure, but not as bad as one where you can get your hand chopped off for forgetting to pay for a refill. I find it odd my opponent is saying it is morally OK to prop up a dictator but not to stop genocide. To conclude his debate my opponent makes a few new arguments. He asserts that intervention isn't always in the best interests of a country, that it isn't morally permissible to intervene is some, but not all countries, that locals don't always want help, and that interventions supersedes sovereignty. The first consists of the previously-debunked regional wars article, asserting it isn't always in the best interests to help. This may be true, but practical interests don't disprove the morality of intervention. The second point is interesting, but ultimately fails – although my opponent asserts aiding some people but not others places those you are aiding as more valuable than those you are not, that is as silly as accusing someone donating to a fund to help breast cancer victims of placing their lives above other cancer victims,. When intervening, you have to consider whether you would actually be of help, whether there are already people there, or whether there are pressing needs elsewhere. The third is certainly one to consider when intervening, but it has nothing to do with the morality of it – it is situational, not universe. The fourth isn't a new argument, but rather a mix of my opponent's misconception about R2P stripping state sovereignty with his earlier statement that intervention would lead to countries being attacked for minor abuses. In reality, nations never had the right to do whatever they want inside their borders without anyone stopping them (and even if they did they lost it when they agreed to international law that says they can't do that), and support for war is low, even to stop dictators. In conclusion, it should be very clear my opponent has failed to undermine my case. I have established why intervention is moral and that it can be safe and effective. In doing so, I have met my burden of proof (to show that intervention for human rights abuses is not morally impermissible). In contrast, my opponent has mainly made situational objections to intervention (ie. intervention might be bad if. .. ), but hasn't actually made any real, substantive arguments on how intervention is universally wrong. As I have fulfilled my BOP, I urge a vote for Pro. References:1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights2. . http://www.un.org...3. . http://definitions.uslegal.com...4. . http://www.independent.co.uk...5. Security Council Resolution 16746. 2005 World Summit Outcome Document7. . https://en.wikipedia.org...8. . http://www.bbc.com...