On what basis is he defining what is "moral" and "immoral?"
Yet he has hammered down the "immorality" point about terrorism over six times in this debate. This can not be excused any longer. My opponent has offered little support to these "immoral" claims. The closest he came to defining what is moral and/or immoral was in Round 2.
"Based on utilitarianism, terrorism is in terribly immoral, and therefore unjustifiable."
This is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. I don't have to accept any claim that utilitarianism makes and neither do the readers of this debate. The more my opponent continues the more I get confused about what he is arguing about. There are several questions we must ask after my opponent made this claim about utilitarianism.
1. Does utilitarianism actually state "terrorism is immoral?' If so where? Who defines what is utilitarian and who doesn't?
2. Why should the readers or I accept utilitarianism as the best guide for morality?
3. Most importantly,on what basis is utilitarianism true?
My opponent has made claims with no evidence and we are left with more questions than we were to start with in this debate. Look at the unsupported statements(the statements are numbered) my opponent continues to offer below. A good amount of which are fallacious in nature.
1."Obviously slavery is bad"
According to whom is slavery "bad?" Who dictates what is bad and good?
2."we can safely assume most of them were innocent."
Who decides who is innocent? My opponent? Me? Or perhaps the readers? Maybe a Rabbi in a New York Synagogue? Or is it a Mullah shouting incantations against America in Cairo? Ultimately, who gave my opponent the authority over the rest of us unenlightened backward peoples to decide who is innocent and who is not? I can safely state with resounding authority I never gave him the authority to christen who is "innocent" and who is not.
3. "Killing innocent people is immoral, unjustifiable."
There is no basis offered to reach this conclusion as shown in the previous statements.
"What makes my opponent think that killing 3,000 random people is moral or just? Of course it's neither.My opponent hasn't given any evidence that killing these 3,000 people is justifiable nor is it moral."
Another fallacy, my opponent has committed, this time a straw man. I never made the claim nor point about September 11 either way of being "moral" or "just." This is misleading on the part of my opponent. I want my opponent to apologize for typing a libelous comment that he made asserting that I claimed "killing 3,000 people is moral or just." That is inflammatory in nature and an appeal to emotion fallacy that my opponent keeps using. I never asserted such a thing nor implied anything of the kind. My opponent should apologize for asserting something so outlandish. But I never brought up the point about the 9/11 Attacks nor have I brought up an argument on the matter either. I only pointed my opponent's fallacy and questioned the validity of his claims. So why should I make a statement about it either way? It is not my claim to support, it was my opponent's point he brought up in Round 1. He brought it up, he must defend it, not I. But now since he has asked a question to an a non-existing assumption, I will respond. I never made a claim about the "morality" of terrorism. I have argued from practicality. My opponent should go back and look at the definition I offered in Round 1.
At this point, I would ask readers to go back and look at the Round 1 definition I offered about "justifiable." I have been arguing that terrorism is "justifiable" in the sense that terrorism is "reasonable" and "defensible." My opponent is arguing about the "rightness" and "wrongness" about terrorism in this debate. I have not argued in support of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of terrorism nor will I begin. I am here to debate the "reasonableness" of terrorism not the morality of it.
My opponent has made this a debate about morals. I rejected this altogether when I posted my first round argument. This debate is about practicality, not morals. If this debate is about morals as my opponent has suggested, than he is making the argument that there are absolute morals we must all adhere to. If he claims this than he must provide evidence showing that absolute morals exists. Then he must show why we all must follow said morals. Finally, we must accept the morals which make the claim that terrorism is "immoral." My opponent has done none of this, therefore his moral arguments are inconsequential since there is no basis for morality nor any reason for us to accept this non-present morality that he has chosen.