Argument: Force does more harm than good.

The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect.

Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare.

Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction.

For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths [1] .

If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them.

[1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. &lt; http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html&gt; .

Candidate 1: "This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families."
Candidate 2: "Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world."
Candidate 3: "Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs.

Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions."

Although there are some subjective elements of rights, there is generally a consensus amongst most people that fundamental human rights, such as being alive, are universally good. Although we should not impede sovereignty for subjective things, genocide, ethnic cleansing and other systematic abuses of human rights are things that are universal and thus should be protected for all people around the world.
