US should intervene in Libya

==My Case==Ob. 2Con: It costs a lot, like Iraq and Afghanistan1. Since we are the worlds reserve currency we have the ability to rack up a large debt, as can be seen. 2. Plans are already in the process for bringing down the debt. As such, I wont link into any harms you might bring up.3. This is non-responsive to the poin of Ob. 2. Thus, you concede the Observation. This means if you dont uphold your end of the BoP, presumption goes for a Pro ballot. 4. You give no arguments that say another war is undo-able. C1: Human RightsCon: What human rights are being violated?1. Well, after Qaddaffi started bombing his own civilians, even ones not part of the rebellion, by not intervening (e.g. setting up a no fly zone) we are allowing the violation of the right to life; established as a human right according to the UN Charter.2. Moreover, the Qadaffi regime had violated right to liberty such as free speech and press. Con: US and Europe to blame1. Wrong action in the past by the US does not justify inaction. 2. TURN: We have an obligation to protect the people we have put in harms way. Ths is the only way to compensate for our wrong doings in helping a tyrant. Con: Military intervention kills people1. Military intervention is reactionary to the wrong doings of Qadaffi. If he governed justly then we would have no obligation to step in. 2. Long run not acting will result in worse harms. E.g. more State violence and bombings against citizens, continued repression of freedom, and excerbated civil war. (1) Borders are arbitraryCon: No they arent - e.g. Vietnam1. My opponent misses the point. This is saying that borders are determined by humans, like Vietnam. However, people do not choose where they live, i.e. in which borders. Thus, "nationality" is not a determining factor of moral obligation because that would make morality based on chance. Thus, we cannot punish people for something they did not choose, such as to live in Libya. Therefore the US has an obligation to protect those people. Con: We just want oil1. Doesnt matter what are intentions are. My argument is that an obligation exists to intervene. Now if the US recognizes this obligation, I dont care because it doesnt matter. (2) Equality1. His argument doesnt respond. Thus he has dropped that rationality makes people inherently equal and worthy of the same protecion. As such the US has an obligation to protect innocents against the oppression of Qaddafi. C2: Democratic AdvantageA) DPTCon: Libya isnt a democracy...1. Thats the point. The rebels have called for democratic insitution in Libya. Thus, the US by aiding the rebels is helping to further democracy throughout the world.Con: Looking for democracy is selfish1. So? Whats the impact to this argument2. It isnt selfish because the rebels WANT democracy. 3. The benefits of democracy outweigh any possible theoretical objection you bring up.Con: Let them do it1. We tried and thats when Qaddafi started bombing his own people into submission.2. They cant win without air support. Thus, the US and Europe can provide this necessary step in the fight for democracy(1) Ideological(2) Structural 1. He conceded both of these internal links. This means that promoting democracy does lessen thechance for war. AND this is a damning concession because the Pro has access to the impact of less war. This will outweigh any negative argument. MAgnitude: less people ill be dying. Probability: He has conceded the links, so it has to be taken as true for the round.B) Reduction of State ViolenceCon: Changing system is impossible1. It has succedded in Iraq under Bush and Obama. So no it isnt impossible.2. We have the support of a plurality of the population so the issues we have faced in other areas wont come to be since it isnt an imposition as some have stated. Con: Oil and Osama1. This is completely non-responsive to the argument. I am nt arguing for an oil benefit or for killing Osama,2. He has conceded the substance of the point. Promoting democracy reduces state violence. Thus, less people are dying in the Pro world. *Dont let him try and back track. His silence in these issues are consent*==His Case==C1: Oil1. This isnt an offensive argument. It is simply a preempt assuming I would argue for oil. So this point doesnt matter. But I have the time....Soooo IMPACT TURN - High oil prices good. tratfor, 1/8/2008. "Annual Forecast 2008," web.stratfor.com/images/writers/STRATFOR_Annual_1_08.pdf. "Oil prices sustained strength continues to shove a great deal of cash into the hands of the world's oil exporters — cash that these countries cannot process internally and that therefore will either be stored in dollars or invested in the only country with deep enough capital pools to handle it: the United States. Add in the torrent of exports from the Asian states, which generates nearly identical cash-management problems, and the result is a deep dollarization of the global system even as the U.S. dollar gives ground. The currency steadily shifts from the one of ﬁrst resort to the true foundation of the entire system."2. He conceded in the last speech they need to be freed. Thats enough to vote Pro. Remember, conceded Ob. 3? As long as I prove SOME obligation exsts, you vote Pro. Well....its his own words - they need to be freed. 3. He doesnt tell you what the economic risks are. Plus, non-unique. If the risks are so bad we would be feeling them already. But that isnt the case.C2: Alternatives1. PERM - do all. Military action and non-violent solutions are not mutually exlusive. You can vote Pro and still use other methods. 2. Your burden. You need to prove how other methods work. Analytics and empirics would be necessary.C3: Terrorism1. Qadafi gave up on terrorist groups awhile ago. It wasnt inhis best interest. The last one was the Lockerbee bomber. 2. Terroism against his rivals is non-unique. They are in a civil war. Do u think they care if they are being killed from a terrorist or a Qadaffi military fighter? No, not really. [1]C4: Not our fight1. Again OIL DOESNT MATTER IN THIS ROUND. However I did impact turn it. So thats offense from your side of the flow for me2. People already think the US is greedy, so non-unqiue. 3. IVe shown an obligation exists, and even you said so as well.4. No warrant as to the fact that they will actually get a democracy. You just asserted that they will get one.5. US aid is needed to gain democracy because as is shown it was only until after the no fly zone did the rebels gain the advantage. [1] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org...