The United States should end Plan Columbia
Pro side: DeLashmutt-Bencomo wanted to end plan Columbia because of their main claim that the United States foreign policy main goal is to improve human right. They are no signs that plan Columbia is protecting people from human right violations. Since plan Columbia has been in place over eight hundred thousand people have reported to be victims of violence like rape and assault. Plan Columbia has also funded the Columbian military billions of dollars for weapons. These weapons have caused hundreds of extrajudicial civilian killings. The consumption and buying of illegal drugs has also gone up. We should remove this plan because it has not improved human rights or the narcotics war.
Con side: Kandan
…show more content…
Data: Since plan Columbia has been in place over eight hundred thousand people have reported to be victims of violence like rape and assault.
Warrant: human rights are the main purpose for plan Columbia.
Backing: the military carried out hundreds of judicial civilian killings.
Con side
Claim: United States Foreign policy has improved individual’s human rights in the country of Columbia.
Data: Violence and kidnapping has also gone down by 50%.
Warrant: less violence shows improvement in a country
Backing: Army sergeant John f said plan Columbia rescued Colombia from its failed state.
Each party has evidence and connective data in their argument.
The con side: Kansan – Gupta made more of a pragmatic argument. They made their argument more sensibly and realistically when they asked the other team if they considered murder to be a violation to human rights. The other team said no, then they responded back so would you rather your human right be violated or dead.
Pro side: DeLashmutt-Bencomo made more of argument from cause –effect reasoning. They stated multiple times how drug use has increase and the military is getting funded more money which is giving them the power to carryout more extrajudicial civilian