EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Malaysia should help the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements achieve unification with the state

1 point
4 points
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
I thank the opposition for agreeing to do this debate. This debate is over whether the Sovereign State of Malaysia should aid the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements in achieving unification with the country. As specified in the rules, this debate will be argued in what best fits the interests of Malaysia.  Therefore, the central idea of the debate can be narrowed down to "Will this resolution help the State of Malaysia?" My side intends to prove that Malaysia will benefit from having the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements united with the rest of the country.  

Map of Malaysia with Kalimantan and Patani 

Kalimantan Secessionist Movement 
The Kalimantan secessionist movement, is an active movement for independence or unification with Malaysia. Kalimantan is the term that refers to the Indonesian territory on the island of Borneo. Borneo is an island divided between three nations. Malaysia, Brunei, and of course, Kalimantan Indonesia. Kalimantan is occupied mainly by three ethnic groups. The Dayak, Malays, and Chinese. Two of the ethnic groups, the Malay and Dayak, have strong ties with the nation of Malaysia. Malay ties are rooted in the ethnic and cultural heritage they share with their home country, Malaysia. The Dayak are strongly tied to Malaysia do the large population of Dayak tribes living in the country. Almost every Dayak in existence lives in either Malaysia or Kalimantan. Both ethnic groups have advent support for unification with the rest of the Malaysian archipelago. 

Kalimantan Nationalist Flag

Patani Secessionist Movement 
The region of Patani traces its history back to the Pattani Kingdom, also known as the Sultanate of Patani Darussalam. The Patani dynasties ruled over the country for almost 400 years, before being annexed by Siam under the Rattanakosin Kingdom. For decades PULO, Palani United Liberation Organization, has been working to regain their independence from Thailand. Fully realizing that the PULO objective is impossible without foreign support, PULO has began seeking alliances with contacts in Malaysia. The PLO even added to their goals unification with Malaysia as an alternative to independence. 

PULO Troops 

Eventual unification with Malaysia is made more likely, given that the region of Patani and its people are mostly of the Malay ethnic group, and influenced by Malay culture. With support from ethnic Patani's and Malaysian irredentists, PULO's goal doesn't sound as unrealistic as it did in their early years. Without full Malaysian support, the Patani people may never capture their dream of being apart of a unified Malaysian state.

PULO Flag: Note the heavy similarities between the Patani and Malaysian Flags 
bottom bar of PULO flag is white

How Can Malaysia Help?
Malaysia can help by doing a number of productive, but effective things. The Patani and Kalimantan peoples are passionate about their causes. The problem is that most people haven't heard of their cause, making it impossible for the Patani and Kalimantan peoples to achieve their objectives. Malaysia is a vast country with plenty of resources. They have what the Patani and Kalimantan don't. Resources, money, and connections. Malaysia should help the secessionist movements by raising awareness of the struggle, sending money and weapons to militias defending their territory, and finally, being an advocate for the Kalimantan and Patani on the world stage.  

Poorly trained PULO militia's are incapable of defending civilians from radical terrorist cells and government aggressors

Why Should Malaysia Help? 
The Malay people have suffered loss after loss of their ethnic land zones. Malaysia must do something to counter the tide. There are hundreds of sovereignty movements across the globe. Malaysia knows better than most the intense challenges that come with post colonial independence. By reaffirming the rights of ethnic Malay and Dayak people to be in communion with their own people, is the greatest step Malaysia can take in reaffirming her sovereignty and independence. The money, resources, and personnel that comes contingent with the new regions, is just another motivating factor of why Malaysia should take steps to expand her influence and power. 

It is time for a new Malaysia to rise! A stronger Malaysia!

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-28 01:20:50
| Speak Round
Unbelievable.TimeUnbelievable.Time (CON)

I sincerely thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I would like to praise him by building up such a good case.


I will make my opponents’ case clearer by dividing them into a few points.

1. +Eventual unification with Malaysia is made more likely, given that the region of Patani and its people are mostly of the Malay ethnic group, and influenced by Malay culture+

This shouldn’t be the reason why Malaysia should help. Just because they are the same race does not mean that they should help. I would like to point out that the people of the country (Malaysia) is mostly religious that is Christians, Muslim, Buddhist and Hinduism. My opponent did not know that the PULO is not religious. You can see it here. The religions of PULO and Malaysia are different.

‘The main thrust of PULO is not religious but rather ethnic and nationalist’


2. + Two of the ethnic groups, the Malay and Dayak, have strong ties with the nation of Malaysia +

Nope. I don’t think so. An Indian living in Malaysia is having strong ties with Indians from US. That is not the reason why US should help. This is not ‘a’ reason yet for Malaysia to help. They can be the same race but they are having different ideology. They (PULO) are terrorist. Malaysia doesn’t terrorist you can see that a terrorist from Malaysia which is ‘Chin Peng’ is not welcomed here.

‘Chin Peng died at the age of 88, inBangkok, Thailand. Prior to his death, he was living in exile in Thailand and had not been permitted to return to Malaysia contrary to one of the conditions of the 1989 peace agreement.’


Again, I would like to note that half of my opponent’s case is irrelevant to the debate. The money and resource will be part of my case.

Malaysia won’t be a ‘suitable’ country to help.

1. PULO is a violence group.

‘In 2004 the group conducted bomb attacks on urban targets as well as conventional guerrilla attacks on Royal Thai Military posts and convoys; village, tribal, and government leaders; Buddhist, priests; and government civil servants such as teachers and officials. The group typically utilizes small-scale bombings, or drive-by shootings to carry out terrorist violence.’


Malaysia is not a violence country. So, Malaysia won’t help. The PULO has rejected democracy and used violence to achieve their whatsoever objective. So, do you think helping PULO is good? I have proven that PULO is bad and why we should not help them. This is not morally right for Malaysia to help. If Malaysia does help, then Malaysia will have to fight with other countries. Then, by that time Malaysia will have to back off.

2. The Muslims do not want to separate the South

‘The largest problem is stability in the region. It is known that the majority of Thai Muslims do not want a separate state. Therefore, Thailand must focus on providing stability in the south, mainly by enforcing laws on terrorist punishment.’


To summarize this, that is the ideology from PULO that they want to separate.

Problems of Malaysia.

Malaysia is facing economy crisis which is not known to other country. I will explain. My opponent claims that Malaysia has money in his previous round. I will debunk that statement. By constantly providing money to the secessionist movement large amount of money is needed. But, now the DEBT problem will come into play.

1. Debt crisis.



We can see that the debt is increasing over time. Thus, it is not advisable for Malaysia to give a hand. Helping others will indeed not benefit Malaysia but will be a problem for Malaysia to do so. WE can see that it would not be economically better for Malaysia to help in the long run.

Also, we can see that in the case of MH370.

‘At the time of Flight 370's disappearance, Malaysia Airlines was struggling to cut costs to compete with a wave of new, low-cost carriers in the region. In the previous three years, Malaysia Airlines had booked losses of:RM1.17 billion (US$356 million) in 2013, RM433 million in 2012, and RM2.5 billion in 2011.[216]Malaysia Airlines lost RM443.4 million (US$137.4 million) in the first quarter of 2014 (January–March).[217]The second quarter—the first in the aftermath of Flight 370's disappearance—saw a loss of RM307.04 million (US$97.6 million), which represented a 75% increase over losses from the second-quarter of 2013.[225]Industry analysts expect Malaysia Airlines to lose further market share and face a challenging environment to stand out from competitors while addressing their financial plight.[216]The company's stock, down as much as 20% following the disappearance of Flight 370, had fallen 80% over the previous five years, which contrasts with a rise in the Malaysian stock market of about 80% over the same period.[218]

Many analysts and the media suggested that Malaysia Airlines would need to rebrand and repair its image and/or require government assistance to return to profitability.[226][227][228][229][230]The loss of Flight 17 in July greatly exacerbated Malaysia Airline's woes. The combined effect on consumer confidence of the loss of Flights 370 & 17 and the airline's poor financial performance ledKhazanah Nasional—the majority shareholder (69.37%)[231]and a Malaysian state-run investment arm—to announce on 8 August its plan to purchase the remainder of the airline, therebyrenationalisingit.’


2. Malaysia is not stable and still dependent.

Countries involve in the search of MH 370.


An official with the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority says the missing plane did not enter Chinese airspace. The Chinese Defence Ministry and Foreign Ministry didn’t immediately respond to questions on radar information. China has deployed nine navy ships and civilian patrol vessels and a variety of fixed wing and rotary aircraft, along with a team of experts dispatched to Malaysia.


A P-8A Poseidon, the most advanced long-range anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare aircraft in the world, has been searching in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy also has deployed the destroyer USS Kidd with two MH-60R helicopters.


Indonesian air force spokesman Hadi Tjahjanto says military radars on Sumatra island found no trace of the jetliner and that data requested by the Malaysian government had been handed over. He says that search efforts have shifted from the Malacca Strait to the corridor stretching from northern Sumatra to the Indian Ocean.


The director general of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, Muhammed Yousaf, says radar recordings shared with Malaysia found no sign of the jetliner.’


We can see that in the case of MH370. Malaysia gets help from other country in the search of the missing plane. With that being said, Malaysia is ‘incapable’ and ‘need help’ from other country.

Conclusion: We can see that there is a heavy problem with Malaysia being a country to ‘help.’

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-28 04:51:38
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Helping the like minded 
Why do nations exist? Nations exist to protect those to passionate about their free will from hurting that of the whole. Governments are instituted to regulate and contain our humanly passions. Not everyone agrees on what should be regulated. Not everyone agrees on what passions should be contained. This is why there are 195 governments, and not one universal government. People have different beliefs! People feel they deserve to live out different passions! Thailand and Indonesia are not allowing Malaysian Muslims the rights they warrant and need. This is leading to unnecessary bloodshed,  uncontrollable unrest, undeserving injustice!

Malaysia shouldn't only help Patani and Kalimantan secessionist movements because it makes them stronger as a nation. Malaysia should help the endless struggle reach its conclusion, because it is the honorable thing to do!

Are secessionist movements playing nice 
Yes, PULO and the KBLF resort to dirty tactics. They are desperate! They are in war! PULO in particular has been subject to martial law, unlawful arrests, and even extrajudicial murder from the new authoritarian government. PULO has started bombing convoys and destroying public property. Even after all these desperate attempts at winning an impossible war, PULO  and the KBLF refuse to harm a single citizen. Malaysia needs to help its seceding neighbors out. Give them more options in achieving their goals. Malaysia has power, influence, and money. Malay peoples looking to be reunited with their homeland can put that to good use. 

No one is claiming Malaysia should declare war on Thailand and Indonesia. That is madness! How about we try to resolve this conflict by giving recognition to  that these movements even exist? Something Malaysia can and is willing to do!

Resummary of why helping secessionist movements helps Malaysia
  • Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations
  • Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports
  • It is the right thing to do, and Malaysia could use some honor
  • The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-06 17:01:52
| Speak Round
Unbelievable.TimeUnbelievable.Time (CON)

I would like to thank my opponent for setting up such a good case despite he is not free and post it in the last day.


+Helping the ‘like-minded’+

Like minded is defined as =having similar tastes or opinions. =


The word ‘like’ does not mean that it is ‘right’. The word does not imply what they are thinking is right but only same. The minority of the nation thinks that stealing is good. (This implies that they, the minority, think alike) But, in fact, it is bad for humans to do so. We, the majority, all know very well that stealing is a criminal act. And, whoever does that shall be punished or jailed. We cannot, for sure, just, because of the minority thinks it is right and then we shall follow that. I, again, have proven that we shall not help them because they are very violence. If we give supplies like money, food and so on to a violence group, they might become stronger and able to cause harm to other nations to achieve their goals (No one can guarantee that won’t happen). Later on, it will be a threat to other countries which are peaceful.

+This is why there are 195 governments, and not one universal government+

We have to look at the majority voice in a country. My opponent thinks that little countries’ decision can outweigh or is better than the rest. We cannot claim that the part of something is better than the whole. There are so many governments also show that 195 brains/minds are better than one. We cannot have one united government because each country is having different types of democracy and policy like America-Dictator.

+ Malaysia should help the endless struggle+

Helping does not mean ending. No one not even me or you can say that if we have helped them to achieve their goals, then they might come out with new goals like taking on other countries. Would you dare to prove that this will never ever happen? If we help one side then we cannot ensure that the other side will satisfy with the result. Or, the other way, the PULO achieves what they have been wanting for so long and the other side starts war again. This will not be a good and sufficient reason for Malaysia to help.

+ PULO and the KBLF refuse to harm a single citizen +

If they refuse to harm any single citizens, then why would they be war? War involves people fighting with each other. Then, what I state earlier is right that they are violence and causes a lot of trouble to the country. Citizens refer to the people who live in certain area. In this case, it means the Patani’s people. As I have stated earlier, the ‘priest’ and ‘teachers’ are harmed. Don’t tell me that a priest and a teacher is not a local citizen. Thus, the statement made by my opponent is wrong and has no value to be trusted. Lastly, they also do some small scale bombings, we cannot assert that a small scale bomb will not harm or threatens others’ life.

P 1: A bomb can kill.

P 2: They use some small scale bombing.

C: The citizens can still be killed/injured due to the bomb.

I try to prove that bomb still can kill no matter how big and small it is. Thus, they are still violence because the ways they take still harm people. BOMBING is a violence act.

+ How about we try to resolve this conflict by giving recognition+

Just now, my opponent says Malaysia should supply money and so to them. Then, we give them recognition. Giving recognition is something like agreeing what they are doing is right. They have played dirty tactics and harm citizens. My opponent says that it is because of the desperation causing them to play dirty tactics. I don’t agree what it is being said.

P 1: Either a human is desperate or not.

P 2: If a human is desperate, then he will harm people.

P 3: If a human is not desperate, then he still harms people.

C: In both case we can see that desperation will not affect the desire to harm people.

Desperation is not the main factor if causing a person. ‘Purpose’ is the main factor. Their purpose is to harm the whole country who does not agree with them.

+ Malay peoples looking to be reunited with their homeland +

I have proven that the majority of the people do not want to have a separate state. It is PULO’s personal idea that they should be separated. Thus, this is somewhat personal and we must follow the norm. We are living in a democracy society not a terroristic world. Just because of one’s idea, we put the whole world in danger. Would it be beneficial? And, there is no any proof that it is Malay peoples’ homeland. The state is near to Malaysia does not mean that they are directly related to Malaysia. This is a very bare reason and it is unsupported by any explanation.

+ No one is claiming Malaysia should declare war on Thailand and Indonesia +

Yes. But, it is possible to have war with them when Malaysia is helping PULO out. We cannot ignore that possibility.

+Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations. +

Would it be economically better if they are separated? Separation from its nation would hamper their advancement of technology and so on. Why don’t we just put them under the same nation rather than separating them? Forming natural barriers won’t ensure that there is no any riot.

+Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports. +

Abundant resources and trade ports cannot be a reason. By that time, will PULO or any other groups from Patani wants the resources from Malaysia by bombing in order to reach agreement? PULO still can be a threat to Malaysia and other country since they have done VIOLENCE before because the other country is not giving them what they want. Can we ensure the safety of the local people? Or, can anyone make sure it?

+ The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples+

Not necessarily. I have proven that the majority of them do not wish to separate. If they wish why don’t the majority of them agreeing with the secessionist movement. This means and shows that they are not wanted to be reunited with the people. The people, themselves, still, remains unsupported with the secessionist movement.

As a whole, the resolution is negated thoroughly.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-11 12:48:00
| Speak Round
Christmas Stag : Do you agree that Malays living in Kalimantan and Patani are more susceptible to the idea of uniting with Malaysia?
Christmas Stag : Do you concede that Patani is predominantly Muslim?
Christmas Stag : Then what religion would you classify the majority of Patani as being?
Unbelievable.Time: I am not sure but one thing they are mostly Malays
Christmas Stag : Yes, but what religion do the majority of people in Patani follow? Would you concede that it is Islam?
Unbelievable.Time: I am not sure about that. Maybe Islam.
Christmas Stag : Do you agree that Malaysia is governed predominantly by Islamic law?
Christmas Stag : Can you research that and give me a yes or no later?
Unbelievable.Time: I think some not all.
Unbelievable.Time: not mainly but some.
Unbelievable.Time: Main religion is Islam
Unbelievable.Time: Law I am not sure if it is main.
Unbelievable.Time: Some of the Islamic rules are not applied here.
Christmas Stag : What religion is the majority of Thailand?
Christmas Stag : Yes, Buddhist. Since Thailand is predominantly Buddhist, and Patani is predominantly Islam, would you concede that their is a religious divide in the conflict?
Unbelievable.Time: Not necessarily.
Unbelievable.Time: Religion won't divide people. But, in fact it unites people.
Christmas Stag : Can you elaborate?
Christmas Stag : Are two people of different religions more likely to be united or divided?
Unbelievable.Time: i am not sure. I don't know them.
Christmas Stag : Take a look at this map
What country does Patani border?
Unbelievable.Time: An atheist brother and a religious sister can live together.
Christmas Stag : BTW, you can ask me questions too
Unbelievable.Time: Just write whatever you think is reasonable in the next round.
Unbelievable.Time: I don't like to ask. That is my style.
Christmas Stag : Great! Can you answer my question? What country does Patani border?
Unbelievable.Time: WHAT IS THE ANSWER
Unbelievable.Time: Ohh, after reread it it is Either Malaysia or Thailand.
Christmas Stag : Yes, both
Christmas Stag : Does Patani's location make it more susceptible to being apart of either country?
Unbelievable.Time: Nope. I disagree.
Christmas Stag : Is the fact that Patani is in Thailand discredit that belief?

Return To Top | Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Unfortunately this debate snuck up on me. My rebuttals might not be extremely thorough because of that. At this point I'm completely done with PULO. I brought up PULO as a subpoint, but this debate is becoming completely dominated by PULO. The affirming position does not need PULO to prove Malaysia should help nearby secessionist movements. 

We're getting too caught up on PULO 
The opposing position has spent the entire debate getting caught up on PULO. It was a mistake to have even shifted attention to PULO in the first place. PULO is one of a dozen groups working for independence from the Thai government. Several of which, including PULO, have expressed a desire at joining Malaysia. The National Revolution Front, is the largest patani secessionist organization, and the largest advocate for joining with Malaysia.

It really doesn't matter how Malysia helps these secessionist movements. Just that they help them wisely and efficiently. If arming militias doesn't suit people,   I really see no reason why media broadcasting and international recognition wouldn't have an even stronger effect. 

Refuting the contention that war with Thailand is a possibility
It is very unlikely that an actual war will develop between Malaysia and Thailand. Nations have been supporting resistance groups behind others backs since the dawn of the century. Nothing changed, nor will it ever. At the end of the day, secessionist groups will be the enemy, and Malaysia just a helping hand. To think a war would happen though. Absurd! 

Hopefully the opposing position will drop all these arguments about PULO (one of 30 or so active groups). They are beating around the bush of the real point. Malaysia stands to benefit from helping secessionist movements, and secessionist movements stand to benefit from being helped by Malaysia. Besides fearmongering, what has the opposing position done to prove helping secessionist movements wont be productive for Malaysia? Absolutely nothing.

Therefore we must accept that Malaysia should help Kalimantan and Patani achieve unification with the state, simply because Malaysia should do the right thing. It has been proven that Kalimantan and Patani deserve secession and eventual unification with the state. It is up to a true hero to give them that freedom. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-18 03:25:17
| Speak Round
Unbelievable.TimeUnbelievable.Time (CON)

1. Resolution:

P 1: The resolution is being shared.

P 2: Either Pro or Con can fulfil the resolution.

C: Either of us will win the debate.

The resolution is what best fits the interests of Malaysia. So I will be arguing that they have no interest in joining with Malaysia or Malaysia has no interest in helping case. My opponent needs to prove both cases. Why so? It is because they are correlated. If either case has been negated by me, then the whole resolution still fails and not yet fulfilled. If they wish to join Malaysia but Malaysia has no interest in agreeing to help them. Thus, the resolution still cannot be fulfilled. If Malaysia wishes to help but they don’t want to receive the help. It is a futile effort. On the other hand, my opponent intends to prove that Malaysia will benefit from having the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements united with the rest of the country. My opponent needs to prove both positive effects from these two countries. I have proven that PULO in Patani will cause a bad harm to Malaysia. Still, the arguments are not refuted. As I have proven in my case, mainly. I have proven that PULO is a bad group which has caused harm and terrorise some part of the Thailand. With that being said, the PULO is a threat to Thailand because they are still a part of Thailand. If it has become a part of Malaysia or a separate state, no one will doubt that things will happen to the neighbouring country. In addition, we can see that PULO does some small scale bombings because they are still being kept controlled under the laws of Thailand or the government of Thailand. Or, we can say that they are suppressed by the country. Imagine if they have gone out of hand. What will happen? War, stealing, criminals or even more.

2. My case:

What was said by opponent is still insufficient to debunk my case.

I will define what the word –should- mean according to free dictionary.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should

-Used to express obligation or duty

-Used to express probability or expectation

Malaysia has the duty to help or probably would help the secessionist movement. These have been negated by my points that Malaysia isn’t a suitable country to help in Round 1. My opponent completely ignores whatever that I have said and they are not refuted in any previous round. This means they are true and valid about Malaysia. A person can only fulfilled his duty if he/she can help but because of problems of Malaysia in round 1 too, they cannot carry out the duty. I would probably help them if I can. But the thing is that I cannot because of circumstances that I am in, limitations of myself and so on. So, Malaysia won’t help because of xyz in round 1. This has clearly shown that it is not advisable for Malaysia to do so. Money and resources can’t be provided by Malaysia. I have seen that Pro asks Malaysia to give recognition to these movements because it is an honourable thing to do. How honourable it is? Yes, Malaysia can give but does it help any of these secessionist movements? It is an honourable thing to help ISIS. No because ISIS has conducted violence and inhuman things. I know this is like comparing apple to oranges. Pro needs to prove that these movements are positive and a respectful thing for Malaysia to help.

3. Interests:

Does Malaysia really have interest? My opponent still not yet proves that Malaysia has any interest in that matter or has he? He only claims that they have strong connection with Malaysia. What makes them having strong connection? The race. My opponent has shown that. So, neither has the Patani and Kalimantan have interest in that particular subject matter was proved by him.

P 1: A and B have same interest.

P 2: A is a Christian whereas B is a Muslim.

C: Interest in human is not because of race or religious force.

I don’t see any interest of Malaysia or their interest.

4. Helping.

I have proven that helping does not mean ending. If we help one side then we cannot ensure that the other side will satisfy with the result. The main reason is the Malay does not want to have a separate state in the south. This might lead to another possible war, bloodshed, etc if they are separated. To illustrate this:

R 1: A leads to secessionist movement as they want a separate state.

R 2: B leads to no secessionist movement because they do not want a separate state.

Is it possible that secessionist movement will still occur if the state is separated? I would dare to assert that it is possible to happen. Again, there would be war or even violence group behave like PULO. This is still not the best solution for A or B if the state is separated/ not separated. A and B stands in contradictions. If we help A, then B won’t satisfy. Then we must also help B again, and then A still won’t satisfy. The same problem will continue to happen and can never be evaporated because they are in contradiction position. If my opponent can achieve both benefits the people of Thailand, secessionist movement, and even Malaysia, then he has met with his resolution. There still be war. My opponent has not given any evidence to proof that they want a separate state. It is mainly that secessionist movement. And, I have proven that they will hamper the advancement in round 2.

5. Pro’s case

·  Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations

·  Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports

·  It is the right thing to do, and Malaysia could use some honor

·  The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples.

·  The affirming position does not need PULO to prove Malaysia should help nearby secessionist movements.

·  The National Revolution Front, is the largest patani secessionist organization, and the largest advocate for joining with Malaysia

·  It really doesn't matter how Malysia helps these secessionist movements

·  Just that they help them wisely and efficiently. If arming militias doesn't suit people,

·  media broadcasting and international recognition wouldn't have an even stronger effect.

·  resolve this conflict by giving recognition to that these movements even exist.

I consider this as my Pro’s point in the previous and 2nd round. Maybe I have missed out some. I just want to summarize that PULO is also one of the groups which have done bombing and others. If Malaysia admit or give recognition to one of those movements, then they also must agree on what PULO has done so far as they are involved in the secessionist movement. Unless, my opponent shows that they are not violence. I have shown that violence movement of some will not entirely benefit either position.

6. National Revolutionary Front:

<On February 22, the rebels captured the country's second-largest city,Cap-Haïtien. By February 25, nearly the entire north was in rebel hands, and the rebels were threatening to attack the capital,Port-au-Prince. Aristide left the country under protest on February 29, and the rebels announced that they would welcome foreign peacekeepers in Haiti.>


See. Until they achieve what they want only satisfy.

7. It is very unlikely that an actual war will develop between Malaysia and Thailand. At the end of the day, secessionist groups will be the enemy, and Malaysia just a helping hand.

This sentence fails because Thailand does not agree with violence and Malaysia is not a violence country. Thailand disagrees with the secessionist movement. Since Malaysia, Thailand and so other countries in ASEAN are having the same ideology in the sense of peace. If Malaysia were to help that means that they are not agreeing with what Thailand is doing at the current time. Malaysia is involved in that secessionist movement, so Malaysia will be part of them. Involvement means joining. This will leave the people of Malaysia and economic unsafe. Let’s say if they decide to exile all the secessionist movement. Malaysia is involved. Can the people of Malaysia allow entering Thailand? Or, either way. This will lead to great economical droppings.

8. Helping the like-minded

My opponent needs to show that what they are thinking is right and acceptable by the majority.

<Thailand's military junta putg new security measures in place on June 22, 2014 in a bid to calm the country's restive southern region, where fighting with Muslim separatists had claimed more than 5,000 lives in the past decade. The most frequent targets of insurgent attacks are ethnic Thai Buddhists and ethnic Malay Muslims in the provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala. Brutal attacks on teachers and state officials by insurgents have led to accusations of extra judicial killings by authorities, perpetuating a cycle of violence…. Although the majority of the country's Muslims were ethnically Malay, the Muslim community also included the Thai Muslims, who were either hereditary Muslims, Muslims by intermarriage, or converts... In the past, the Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand, as well as the Communist Party of Thailand, dabbled in drug trafficking to raise funds to support their political and operational objectives. As of 2000 there was little if any data linking indigenous terrorists to drug trafficking in Southeast Asia… During 2000, authorities responded with military force and legal action to separatist activity in the south. In February 2000, security forces dealt a severe blow to the New Pattani United Liberation Organization, a Muslim separatist group, when they killed its leader Saarli Taloh-Meyaw. Authorities claimed that he was responsible for 90 percent of the terrorist activities in Narathiwat, a southern Thai province. In April 2000, police arrested the deputy leader of the outlawed Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), another southern separatist group, in Pattani. The case was still pending before the court at the end of 2000. Authorities suspected Muslim separatists conducted several small-scale attacks on public schools, a government-run clinic, and a police station in the south.… In 2004, the Thai government officially recognized attacks in Thailand as terrorist acts performed by the various insurgent groups that were in the country. Massive killings occurred throughout the mid to late 2000s and as of 2010, nearly 4,000 people had been killed due to insurgent violence.>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm

9. Has Malaysia met those requirements (eligible) to help?

10. Malay peoples looking to be reunited with their homeland

There isn’t any proof for us to believe this idea. How about those Singaporeans looking to be reunited with Malaysia?

I would like to place a big gamble on the Resolution part. Pro must resolve the matter by showing that he has fulfilled the requirements of the duty of Malaysia.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-22 03:10:05
| Speak Round
Unbelievable.TimeUnbelievable.Time (CON)
My opponent has not met with his resolution of this debate. Onto the voters now. Thanks for reading. Just judge the arguments which are presented in the earlier rounds.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-12-31 06:01:26
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
It is okay.
Posted 2014-12-31 07:09:45
Hey man, I am sorry. I thought I was good for a couple days after that taxes debate.
Posted 2014-12-31 06:35:42
Posted 2014-12-31 06:05:46
Oh shit, did I forfeit?
Posted 2014-12-31 06:04:03
love this cross examination!
Posted 2014-12-23 17:35:21
No wonder.
Posted 2014-12-19 11:22:49
btw that was sarcasm. I am Thai, and apart from that, I have family members in the area.
Posted 2014-12-19 11:08:46
And, nice to meet you. :)
Posted 2014-12-18 15:03:47
You seem very knowledgeable. Seriously.
Posted 2014-12-18 11:57:43
Posted 2014-12-18 10:52:25
no...I come for Russia!
Posted 2014-12-18 10:52:11
I would much rather you just remember not to vote, Krit. I have features to code. :)
Posted 2014-12-18 10:42:59
Krit you seem very familiar with what is happening in Thailand. Are you from Thailand?
Posted 2014-12-18 08:09:47
btw I pledge to not vote on this debate, as my feelings and attachment to this issue at hand is biased. If I vote, admin please remove it. Thanks!
Posted 2014-12-18 07:58:49
Apart from this, Malaysia clearly via state policy does not want to quarrel with Thailand. BRN, PULO and many other terrorist organizations in the Deep South are recognized by the International Community as terrorist groups. Helping them would be equal to helping terrorists, and this would be highly detrimental to ASEAN, to Malaysia's Relationship with Thailand, and ultimately to Malaysia's Relationship with USA.


btw, Malaysia's official position now is that it wants a Thai Patani, not a Wahhabi Patani.
Posted 2014-12-18 07:55:48
Wow, pro: there are 12 active insurgents group in Southern Thailand, who all work for a separate state from both Malaysia and Thailand. i.e a "Patani Caliphate". Patani deserves succession, to a country that never owned them, and to an authority they never established? If Patani deserves succession, then Thailand rightly deserves huge swathes of Cambodia, the entirety of Laos, and a huge chunk of Southern Burma. I don't get why Malaysia would even benefit from helping the terrorists in South Thailand. In 2008, they bombed a hotel in the deep South that killed many Malaysians. They terrorized the Malaysian border, and they are still scavenging. Your case about the Patani Secessionist movements are wholly false and illogical.
Posted 2014-12-18 07:52:13
Wow, pro: there are 12 active insurgents group in Southern Thailand, who all work for a separate state from both Malaysia and Thailand. i.e a "Patani Caliphate". Patani deserves succession, to a country that never owned them, and to an authority they never established? If Patani deserves succession, then Thailand rightly deserves huge swathes of Cambodia, the entirety of Laos, and a huge chunk of Southern Burma. I don't get why Malaysia would even benefit from helping the terrorists in South Thailand. In 2008, they bombed a hotel in the deep South that killed many Malaysians. They terrorized the Malaysian border, and they are still scavenging. Your case about the Patani Secessionist movements are wholly false and illogical.
Posted 2014-12-18 07:50:38
Do you mean National Revolutionary Front instead of National Revolution Front?
Posted 2014-12-18 06:10:50
3 round is still for rebuttals right?
Posted 2014-12-18 04:03:03

You know that is a picture of Thai police officers after a suicide bombing by the PULO right?
Posted 2014-12-16 03:13:03
PULO has no interest in joining Malaysia. Malaysia is a much more moderate Islamist country than the ideology of the PULO. PULO oughts to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the areas.

Posted 2014-12-16 02:52:03
PULO has no interest in joining Malaysia. Malaysia is a much more moderate Islamist country than the ideology of the PULO. PULO oughts to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the areas.

Posted 2014-12-16 02:51:18
I was showing the devastation of PULO villages. PULO has sought intrest in joing Malaysia.
Posted 2014-12-16 02:40:40
@Stag: you crazy or something. the picture you posted was of a group of army officers during the 2006 coup!
Posted 2014-12-16 02:26:14
+PULO does not want to unite with the Malaysian state. PULO merely wants a creation of a Patani Caliphate or something like that.
Posted 2014-12-16 01:38:08
You do know that PULO is fighting to establish an Islamist Caliphate in the areas? It will go to war against both Malaysia and Thailand. Won't be fun, m8.
Posted 2014-12-16 01:33:06
Posted 2014-12-16 01:31:21
btw the cross examination did give me *abit* of cancer. "What country borders Patani? Yala!" Yala is a province in Thailand lol.
Posted 2014-12-16 01:30:55
Yeah, I agree that PULO isn't that great, but saying that doesn't exactly help my case at this point
Posted 2014-12-16 01:30:20
Yeah, I agree that PULO isn't that great, but saying that doesn't exactly help my case at this point
Posted 2014-12-16 01:30:15
If Malaysia helps the PULO, it will be equivalent to declaring war on Thailand. The United States and other ASEAN countries will be highly opposed to this, and would even consider an invasion. Apart from that, Malaysia would probably incite age-old sectarian violence within itself.
Posted 2014-12-16 01:29:03
This is so wrong. After the Insurgency started, more people have been killed by thug-like attacks from the PULO (which, I would like to say, is well-trained from experience) and other like terrorist groups.
Posted 2014-12-16 01:27:59
This debate........... gonna be epic
Posted 2014-11-27 01:45:03
Thanks nzlockie
Posted 2014-11-26 07:00:06
Unbelievable, you get 1 week to post your argument. In between each round you will both have 2 days worth of cross examination. It just looks like the shout box on the main forum page. Basically you guys can ask each other questions and comment back and forth. Check out some of the recent debates and you'll see it in action.
Posted 2014-11-26 06:48:44
What is Time for cross-examination? Can you explain that for me.
Posted 2014-11-26 04:49:08
Do you need more time?
Posted 2014-11-26 04:48:42
What is Time for cross-examination? Can you explain that for me.
Posted 2014-11-26 04:47:11
So, I can have one week to write the argument?
Posted 2014-11-26 04:45:25
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-01-04 06:22:45
MikeMightyJudge: MikeMighty
Win awarded to: Blackflag
2015-01-05 02:08:11
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Unbelievable.Time
This debate had three issues.

First, the debate was about whether Malaysia would be able to give a substantial amount of aid to make a significant enough difference to render the model worthwhile, especially in the light of con's analysis that Malaysia is in a tough place right now. I actually liked how con brought in other state actors also, though he never really analyzed how those state actors would react. Nevertheless con brought out extended analysis on what Malay intervention would actually mean and, in his words, "Why Malaysia is not a suitable country to help". Though this issue was carried by con, it lost traction as the debate wore on and became a more minor issue. Con's point about provoking war also weakened this point.

Second the debate was about whether the movements wanted this aid. Although con parried a lot of the issues here, pro's analysis emerged marginally stronger. The idea that the groups wanted unification with Malaysia was critical and never completely rebutted. Though pro carried the issue, it too lost a lot of traction. Pro's eventual concession of points related to specific groups further really harmed this point as I wasn't sure how far this analysis could be extended.

The most important point was about the impact on Malaysia. While pro did much to establish Malaysia is honor-bound to help, con did well to disestablish much of the premises for this. Con's counter-analysis was much more real and carried through much more strongly. I felt the impacts on Malaysia economically and in terms of IR were still unclear at best at the end of the debate, and thus pro didn't meet what they initially set out to show.

As should be clear by now, I saw this debate as a narrow neg win.

Pro had an OK opening. I think he needed to do more to establish that there was a problem in the present state of affairs, and in addition, how the model he proposed would solve that problem. I got the impression that the existence of the movements in the first place, given that unification would effectively end them, was what he wanted to overcome, but this was really unclear. On the other hand he also seemed to argue for the best outcome of Malaysia as his primary question, as opposed to the movements. So is his problem Malaysia not doing as well as it could? I really don't know what pro's model was primarily supposed to achieve that was bad about the status quo.

Con's opening was decent, and quite rebuttal-focused. It was hard to follow structurally and a little more signposting would have helped this. I also felt like most of the MH370 analysis was only tangentially related at best. I got the points, but I felt a much stronger link needed to be drawn between them and the issues of the debate. I further really didn't understand the point about "The Muslims do not want to separate the South" - wouldn't this play into pro's unification analysis of less states? I did really like the parrying of the issue of race or culture, though this could have used a little more extended analysis.

Pro opened round 2 with a principle point, and this was awesome. It should have come out sooner. I also felt like the rebuttal missed about half of con's analysis. It was short and not very thorough, though still very easy to read.

Con should have extended their analysis a lot more in response. Point for point was hardly the best way to do the rebuttal too - pro's case was very thematic and thus should have been easy to structure. Some of the counter-arguments felt a bit awkward. Like, the idea that the PULO was going to harm Malaysia since they're so inherently violent. That needed more analysis, like to say, what sort of person does this kind of movement attract? I REALLY liked the clear implication that perhaps these movements are TRYING to lobby Malaysia for assistance by lying to them about seeking unification, as made clear around the "there are 195 governments" argument.

Pro got caught up too much on minor points in round 3 and ended up making a rather poor concession (in that it kind of undermined much of their own original model), at a time when con was still extending their case. Although pro started much stronger, they were unable to run the distance.

Con's last rebuttal round was much like their second. Some of it was unclear or needed additional causal links, and I felt like the structure was not the best for attacking pro's contentions. Con also had a fair number of grammar mistakes that made rounds like this a little difficult to parse sometimes.

Finally the concession by pro really sealed the deal.

In conclusion:

Pro, I feel like you ran out of time. Make sure you cover everything.

Con, learn to structure.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
Great judgement
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 2 days
The debate will be done in favor of the interests of Malaysia
Don't accept this debate unless you're Unbelievable Time