A few things off the bat- We will be continuing with the counter policy of

the Status Quo.

- Sushy, I need you to talk about the holy war
that may occur
DURING THE DEBATE
- I will write on a piece of notecard the Props
policy and pass it to Sushy with a few rebuttals. Be
sure to integrate it into your speech!
www.facebook.com/events/687670101333690/
Motion: This house would work with Assad to defeat ISIS
We are Opp. We do not want to work with Assad to defeat ISIS.
Speakers:
First: Mateus
Second: Se Young (R)
Third: Ansh
BASIC OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM (Im including this
here so you guys can understand the concept better as this
motion is slightly complex.)
Heres a live map of the conflict for background info :
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
Who is Assad?
Assad is essentially a murderous Syrian dictator. In the Arab
Spring revolutions his people tried to rise up against him (around
2011), and to quell the rebellion he committed atrocious acts
against humanity. Assad was, interestingly, also accused of
possessing chemical weapons (a direct violation of the Geneva
convention) and received international flak for his actions.

What is ISIS?
Basically a terrorist group that occupies a large area in Syria. It
is Sunni, and is known for frequent beheadings of journalists and
generally being pretty bad. We want to shut them down as they
have claimed responsibility for numerous acts of international
terrorism, are rendering the Middle East unsafe, and steal tons
of our/Iraqs oil (for sale to Turkey)
Why do we care?
ISIS currently occupies a large area in Syria. We want to stop
ISIS and therefore must go to Syria. Assad governs Syria.
There was that time when for some reason the US decided it was
a good idea to train Syrian rebels, but that didnt go so well.
Thus we need to look to other methods to take out ISIS - and
Assad may be one of them.

HOUSEKEEPING
Definitions:
This house: The international community
Assad: The current Syrian dictator.
ISIS/ISIL: The Islamic State, a terrorist group with roots from Al
- Qaeda.
Defeat: To destroy completely
Tag Line (Principle): Cant fight fire with fire b/c more
violence is caused and problem is exacerbated (explained
in substantive)

Yardstick: The side that ensures the most effective solution to

destroying ISIS as well as maintaining the welfare of civilians
should be the winning condition.
Characterization/Narrative: We write something about a Syrian
soldier named Mohammed who suffered atrocities under Assad
(mentioned in Mateus speech), joined ISIS (mentioned in Se
Youngs speech) and ravaged the region (mentioned in Anshs
speech)
Counter-Policy: The status quo is working just fine. Why change
it?
Substantives:
1] Questionable Motive
2] Ineffective (pls consider changing to Minimal Return)
3] Exacerbation of Conflict
SPEAKER 1: SUSHMIT
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/siege-of-madaya-40000starving-syrians-trapped-by-assad-regime-forced-to-make-soup-from-grassa6800811.html

{Narrative on Mohammed }.
Prop defeat strongest terrorist

IM OFF TO BED. SEE YOU TOMORROW.

Good night! :)
See you tomorrow Mr Bisset! :)
Short term (prop) vs. long term
(opp)
Yardstick:
causing the
least amount of casualties

 Definitions: House is
international community, defeat = neutralize
Thesis - Assad = dictator violated
rights not be trusted Explanation follows:
Assads background
people tried to
rebel + has chemical weapons
Motives of Assad not in
line:
Assads
primary target - FSA not ISIS
ISISs primary
target - not Assad
FSA primary
target - Assad
ask second good side of
Assad
Assad = Pol Pot
Evidence - Theres
no difference..... our side isnt denouncing
all dictatorships, but dictators misused
power
Tie back - unreasonable to join
forces with someone who doesnt have an
understandings of human rights
Substantive 2 - Religious warfare
Thesis - go for the efficient and
well-planned out solution or EXACERBATE
Explanation Religious warfare
Assad = Shia
and ISIS = Sunni
Don
t want to aggravate the the
problem (short term vs. long term)

 Denous props
case - impossible in our world due to
the reasons stated above
Tie back - supporting Assad to
defeat ISIS is ineffective
SPEAKER 2: SE YOUNG
Begin with a short narrative that builds on the one Sushmit
gave.
Next, start with, To begin, I will rebut the 2nd Props
arguments.
First, you begin with, No, his/her point is wrong because
Second, you state, But even if he is correct, this will cause
problems because
Take down each of their Substantives.
Then, you say, Now, I will move on to our Substantives.
ISIS crisis = must be suppressed + prevented from
escalating any further
Substantive 3:

Label: Exacerbation

The thesis of my substantive is that by

working

with

Assad

in

defeating

ISIS,

we

are

essentially exacerbating the issue: escalating tensions

among the Syrians in the Civil War as well as giving
opportunities for ISIS to strengthen.
backfire in both Syria as well as Iraq
ISIS only group that will protect the Sunnis
in Syria, Iraq, etc from the Shias, specifically Assad.

Thus, giving ISIS more power as the

group will have more followers and recruits - fueling
fire to the already existing fire.
escalating

tensions

among

the Syrians, whom are already fighting a Civil War.

By siding with Assad in fighting ISIS, the international
community is declaring a partnership with Assad.

Assad commits atrocious crimes against the

Sunnis the international community has no choice but
to remain neutral due to the partnership.
This is exactly what

the

Syrian

government and Assad wants. It is clear that Assads

priority is not ISIS.
if Assad truly wanted to defeat ISIS, he
could have taken more action, taking note of the
chemical weapons he owns (as mentioned by my 1st
speaker).

Thus,

ISIS

is

perfect

distraction, where Assad can continue his acts and

strengthen Damascus - eventually leading to the
goal of Assad: the recognition of himself as the
official leader of Syria.
Assad is driving the civil war in Syria which is essentially
sustaining ISIS, therefore as long as Assad is in power, ISIS will
exist. Thus, we are proud to oppose.
SPEAKER 3: ANSH

Division on Ethics (more ethical option, we are helping the

people)
POIs (From PROP SIDE)(POIs from other team):
1) Does ethics truly outweigh the global, international
problem that terrorism poses?
2) ISISs outreach is international, wouldnt working with
Assad be the fastest way to combat this global problem?
POIs (OPP) What we ask them.
3) Is Assad a cruel, tyrannical dictator?
4) What has Assad got to offer us? - How is this different than the disastrous way the US
supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq-Iran conflicts?
- Do you believe Assad is a bellicose, cruel dictator?
Notes During the Debate 1/14/16
POIs
Dropped Points/Loopholes
Prop 1
recognize moral conflict
valuing safety over public image
whichever side proves that their solution w/ long term
stability
we recognize this man is a threat, so why not use his
resources?
Assad is the best bet.

How can one shift alliance without

acknowledging the repercussions.
POI from us can be
given...

 they didnt discuss working with

those outside of Syria, only addressed three of
multiple options
Assad will connect us globally
being supported (military) by
China, allies w/ Russia
by working with him, we will have
worldwide support and be able to better defeat
ISIS
POIs given by us + response:
- Do you consider Assad a murderous dictator.
- Prop stated yes but with no reasons given.
OPP 1 (Sushmit):
Rebuttals:
Prop stated that their policy was to keep Assad in power,
but when asked they said that Assad was a cruel dictator. they
are only thinking in the short term without giving heed to the
potential long term effects of letting Assad remain in power.
Good connection to religion.
Good division of the house.
The more humane side.
POIs given by Prop:
- Free Syrian Army + ISIS
Prop 2
says that we SHOULD be working with dictators
Contradiction: How can we ensure these goals with
somebody who is completely devoid of such values.
Sunni and Shiite issue addressed.
Instead of removing Assad from power, we will support
him so we can get to know him (??)
Does this power vacuum outweigh the logistical mess that
this conflict would produce.

 if he is removed from power, a power

vacuum would open, he could be much worse
if he is kept in power, we know how to
negotiate with him, if he help him it will help him
become more amenable as well
Liberalization Substantive??
Rebuttals
even if we are supporting a dictator whos against
human rights, he is the lesser of two evils
ISIS has a global reach, Assad is only in
Syria
However they cannot deny the fact that
Assad is still evil opposed to a possible counter policy.
since ISIS is threatening Assads power, its in his best
interest to defeat them
Points that should have been brought up/things to improve:
- spend less time on housekeeping
- use fewer facts and spend more time on
reasoning/analysis
Ansh - Good POI - How is a religious war a small manner.
Opp 2 (Se Young):
- Rebutted the Assad is the lesser of two evils.
- Rebutted w/ use of characterization - went back to the
bark eating village.
- Introduced how Prop policy is going to backfire.
- International community should remain neutral.
POI Given:
- How can will the religious conflict be much of a
problem for Assad whose wife is a Sunni.
Prop 3:
First Clash - Assads ability + reliability.

Second Clash - Is the long term going to backlash.

Commonalities:
Peace, safety, agree ISIS must be crushed, Rebel groups not
reliable.
Assad knows Syrian ground, but still provides a
foundation.
First Clash

we believe Assad is reliable, he is not the

opposing coalition
even if his goals arent to destroy ISIS, we will
force him to address the issue

China and Russia are big superpowers better coordination.

No clear counter policy from opposition.

EXAMPLE - Post world war II.

Ansh POI
we will persuade Assad to step down or include
more sanctions for human rights
Second Clash

this is not a religious war, its secular

the Islamic State is not Islamic

Opp 3:
Brought up counter policy - how in fact are they going to add
humanity into Assad.
Quick vs long term.
- Proposed very quick solution - no other alternative. In
a delicate situation we must look to the long-term.
Efficiency vs ethics.
- Human rights issue would continue.
Reply Prop:
Imagine a worlds where...
DROPPED POINT/THINGS TO IMPROVE:

- opposing coalition we did not exactly address this,

although they brought it up in the first speech
- we let characterization carry all the way through to the
final speaker instead of clearing it up by second prop
- we brought up the specifics of our counter policy far
too late into the debate
- both sides agreed that he was a dictator from the first
two speeches, and yet every speech continued to drag it out
- we focused too much on what Assad would do with his
power; the debate was about the best way to defeat ISIS
- Assassinate Assad seems kinda uncalled for.
- so much about human rights violations - This was
one of the only ways we rebutted Assads personality.
- Use 2 worlds speech during Reply.
- points we dropped:
- we missed their point about long-term
democratization of the middle east that would occur
after defeating ISIS
- the FSA is a terrorist group that ISIS came
from
- NO METAPHORS
- come up with a clear counter-policy next time and flesh
it out
TIPS:
- Make sure substantive labels match the
substantive
- More POIs, especially during first PROP.
- Use the motion as a prompt and put because after it
to find labels, theses and substantives
- (Clarity) ALWAYS SAY: the thesis of this substantive
is
- Avoid one liners - bigger problems w/ Assad, not
elaborated on.
- if you make a statement, immediately
afterwards walk the judge through the logic behind it,
explain it

- always make the other team prove their

statement
- saying something doesnt make it true
- More focus on principles.
- Evil vs Good, can we make the deal with the devil
(Question).
- Take what the other team says and use it against them
(local vs. international conflict, we made the scope
international)
- What does Assad have to offer us?
- hes barely hanging on, we dont have
anything to gain from helping him
- if hes valuable, why does he need Russias
help?
- Focus on the whole dictatorship idea.
- Get them off their own principle and use it against
them
- Lots of freedom for policy.
-

Opp 1 speech:
40,000 people trapped, starving and suffering in the city of
Madaya in Syria are forced to make soup from grass as they have
already finished eating every dog and cat in the city. Ladies and
Gentlemen, this is the regime that the proposition is trying to
support to defeat one of the strongest terrorist group in
mankinds history, ISIS. They are trying to take the easy way out
on this problem however they are doing this at the risk of
millions of lives. The prop believes in short term solutions,
however we the opp believe in long term solutions and dont
think that we can fight fire with fire. Thus our side would like to
set the yardstick to be: the side that resolves the problem with
causing the least amount of casualties wins todays debate.
Moving onto our definitions, we would like to define the house as

the international community and defeat as to destroy completely.

There are many different fields to this debate thus our side would
like to focus on the three major ones. I will take care of the first
two substantives, questionable motive and ineffective solution
and my second speaker will talk about our third substantive,
Exacerbation.
As I mentioned the label for our first substantive is
questionable motives of Assad. Our thesis for this substantive is
that Assad is a dangerous dictator who has violated many human
rights agreements and thus can not be trusted into an allegiance
to defeat a terror group that attacked three continents in one
week. First of all let me provide a brief background of Assad.
Assad is essentially a Syrian dictator. In the Arab Spring
revolutions in 2011 his people tried to rise up against him, and to
calm down the rebellion he committed acts against humanity.
Assad was, interestingly, also accused of possessing chemical
weapons, which is a direct violation of the Geneva convention,
and has received international flak for his actions. Furthermore,
Assad does not see ISIS as his primary problem. The regime
fears the Free Syrian Army, not ISIS. Furthermore, the FSA state
their goal is to remove the President but ISIS doesnt say that.
They have never directly threatened Damascus. If the regime
were serious about getting rid of ISIS, they would have bombed
Raqqa by now, which is an economic hub for ISIS. Instead they
bomb other cities, where the FSA is strong. Additionally, a senior
diplomat stated in his interview in the Time Magazine that ISIS is
an asset for Assad. Thus I would like to ask the second speaker of
the proposition to enlighten us about the good side of Assad that
no one sees? To make things crystal clear let me show you the
similarities between Assad and other dictators, that Assads
regime supports and interestingly writes poems about. Many
suggest that Assad has joined the league along with Hitler and
Hussein, after Sec of State John Kerry provided evidence that
suggested that Assad used deadly sarin nerve gas on civilians.

Furthermore, while shaking hands with Assad, prime minister of

Turkey said Theres no difference between shaking hands with
Assad, or with Hitler, Saddam, Karadzic, Milosevic. We would
also like to clarify that our side isnt denouncing dictatorship, but
the dictators who misused their power and went against basic
human rights. To tie back, it seems unreasonable to join forces
with someone who doesnt have an understandings of human
rights and motives that do that even match ours.
The label for my next substantive is ineffectivity. Our thesis
is its always more efficient and important to solve problems in
the long term than making quick short term solutions that arent
well planned out. Our side has already provided evidence that
prove the fact that Assad has questionable motifs, that can be
dangerous for the international community. Furthermore, our
side believes that its infeasible and ineffective to fight fire with
fire when there can be better solutions that cause less
destruction in the society. Another factor that will affect the
region if Assad joins forces is the religious warfare between the
Sunnis and the Shias. To clarify, Sunnis and Shias are two sub
groups of Islam who support different beliefs and thus dislike
each other. Thus if ISIS, a Sunni group who assinates Shias, finds
out that the international community has joined forces with
Assad, a Shia that assinantes Sunnis, then the warfare is just
gonna get more aggravated which will lead to more deaths. And
just to remind everyone, this warfare is in real life, not in a Call
Of Duty game where your objective is just to annihilate the
opponents. In the real world you dont get life lines. Thus the
props solution is effective and amazing, but just in the gaming
world. Whereas, our side wants to provide a solution that solves
the problems by causing the least amount of casualties, as our
side understands the importance of a life. To tie-back, supporting
Assad to defeat ISIS is ineffective as there are many other
solutions.

Prop 1 speech:
November 2015. 200 people and 3 continents were attacked
by one terrorist organization that has put fear in the hearts of
political leaders around the world, ISIS. This group has gained
power of not only the middle east, but the the whole world by
setting my small branches in almost all sovereign nations
through social media. Furthermore, they have declared war on
human beings by calling the whole world their enemy. Todays
motion of supporting Assad to defeat ISIS is one step towards
defeating ISIS and saving humanity. The opposition today dont
understand the severeness of the problem, there is no doubt that
they consider ISIS a problem, however they arent able to realise
the fact that some problems are bigger and more crucial to solve
than others. Thus today the proposition would like to help and
teach the opposition to learn the skill of setting priorities. Now I
would like to move on to some housekeeping. Our principle is
that global security is more important than public image. We
would like to define the house as stable countries working in
conjunction with Arab countries and countries who will be able
to mobilize and send resources to help the cause of defeating
ISIS. We define work as negotiating and providing resources
such as military favors and ISIS locations in the common goal of
combining forces and defeat our common enemy. Assad as the
Dictator of Syria and ISIS as the Islamic State. Our policy would
be organizing a summit of the house with Assad and agree for
cooperation on a joint venture against Daesh through our prior
definition of work. We would like to set the yardstick to be the
side that ensures better global security wins todays debate. Our
first two substantives will be taken care by me and they will be
setting a scale and best alternative. Our third and fourth
substantives will be addressed by the second speaker and they
will be avoiding a power vacuum and International collaboration
precedent.

Moving onto my first substantive. The label is setting a

scale. Our thesis is that some issues can have greater
consequences than others and thus its important to set
priorities. In todays debate the question is choosing between a
population of 7 billion or the Syrian people. And to this question
our side strongly resides on saving the majority. The opposition
might characterize us as inhumane beings however just to clear
things out we are not saying we dont care for the Syrians, its
just desperate times calls for desperate measures. Furthermore,
The Syrian civil war is an regional issue whereas the ISIS attacks
are global. And going with our definition of the house, it just
doesn't seem logical for the international community to stab in
their back their own people, and helping others. Moreover, going
back to the scale, if we compare ISIS and Assad, ISIS turns out
to be the worse of the two evils for two apparent reasons. #1
ISIS is a global threat whereas Assad is just a regional one. #2
We know Assad. We have negotiated with him and sometimes it
had work and if im not wrong thats a 100% improvement from
ISIS as we have never really negotiated with them. One of the
greatest examples to support this argument can be found in
World War II. During the war the allies shook hands with Stalin
as they knew the power of the Soviet Union even though he was
a communist leader. And the results of the war are the world we
live in today. The allies knew that logically, if Germany is
attacked from both the fronts then the war would end and
Hitlers torture would come to an end. If we can shake hands
with Stalin, a man that disregarded human rights more than
Assad due to his communist beliefs to fight Germany, then why
cant we work with Assad to defeat ISIS. We study history to
learn from it, then why ignore it. To tie-back, for the sake of
global security its more important to limit and stop ISIS as soon
as possible than thinking about the doings of Assad. Our common
enemy is the more serious enemy.

Our label for the next substantive is best alternative.

Our thesis is that working with Assad is the best of the last
remaining alternatives to defeat ISIS. Many people think that the
question being asked is: Is Assad cruel?. However the real
question we need to ask ourselves is What does Assad have to
offer us and why would he support us?. First of all ISISs
stronghold and arguably the origin are both Syria, interestingly
Assads country of rule. Its true Assad doesn't have a good
relation with his people, but he doesnt throw parties when ISIS
takes down one of his cities. Thus he wouldnt oppose this joint
venture. Moving to the second question about his advantage, this
warfare is being fought on his very own home ground, literally
where he was born so it just seems logical to have him on our
side to get a quick solution to this problem. As we have tried all
the alternatives of the status quo but none of them are having
major impacts. For example, when we last tried negotiating with
them, they shoot another on of the journalists. Furthermore, we
are already working with the Kurds but that too isnt having
much impact. The opposition might say air strikes as they have
taken down some high profile criminals like Jihadi John.
However, just to remind them in ISISs quarterly report their
exports havent had a drastic impact. Moreover, opposition's
support for the status quo and air strikes is double standards as
before they were not willing to work with Assad to save Syrians,
but know they are willing to sacrifice their lives. Just doesnt
make sense. To tie back, we need to do something about this
problem, and the best solution we have right is Assad.