EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1400

That terrorism is justifiable

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (PRO)
The debate resolution is: "That terrorism is justifiable." It is important for this debate for us to understand what terrorism is and if it is justifiable.
The Oxford Dictionary definitions of terrorism and justifiable are below.

Terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims[1]"
Justifiable:"Able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible[2]"

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/terrorism
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/justifiable

I will offer an opening argument this round and support my points in the following rounds. Terrorism is justifiable for the following reasons.

1. Why Terrorism?
Terrorism is often associated with Muslims of Arab descent whom violently attack their enemies. But terrorism itself has nothing to do with Islam in particular. Terrorism should be associated with rebels and guerrilla fighters whom lack the means to utilize legitimate political force.  Under such associations, we may include the United Empire Loyalists,  Native American tribes, the Bolsheviks, FLN, many minority political factions,and many other revolutionary factions. We are not discussing the "rightness" or "wrongness" of each individual movement or faction. This debate is about whether terrorism is justifiable. I would argue that many different factions have proven "terrorism is justifiable." I will elaborate further in the next round.

2. The Outcome of Terrorism
 Terrorism has been used to achieve peace treaties, liberation, decolonization, and it has also been used to peace. I will explain further the next round.

3. Terrorism is a method not an end
There inevitably will be complaints from some parties that terrorism is encouraging violence. If they are against encouraging violence then they should also be against war. Violence is merely means to achieve an end.Terrorism should be treated as one tactic to be utilized rather than an end. Terrorism may be considered an undesirable tactic but it should be considered an option. 

This is only my opening argument; I will support all claims the next round.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-14 03:54:38
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (CON)

Terrorism is immoral. It has destroyed many many people, and people have been killed by murdering terrorists. Look at the 9/11 incident attack alone. Even that has managed to kill almost 3,000 people! (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20100916051327/http://media.www.theonlinerocket.com/media/storage/paper601/news/2008/09/12/News/Lost-Lives.Remembered.During.911.Ceremony-3427598.shtml)

We now hate the terrorists. How can this make peace? Obviously not. We are now more than ever at war with terrorism, the opposite effect of what my opponent claims. There is no way my opponent is right. He has offered no support for his contentions, nor any evidence that terrorism can do good. I maintain that terrorism is unjustifiable.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-14 18:41:54
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (PRO)
I will explain my points thoroughly once my opponent explains what he is implying here and offer some clarification of his points. He stated something about "immorality." On what basis is he defining what is "moral" and "immoral?" Then, I am also somewhat confused since he mentioned 9/11 Attacks in America. Were not many of the founding fathers of the United States terrorists?

There was one American named Malcolm X who stated "Democracy is hypocrisy."  My opponent has said "terrorism is immoral" and he mentioned the 9/11 Attacks in the United States. If "terrorism is immoral" as my opponent put it, is the United States founding not immoral? After all, the road to the American Revolution was paved by those who engaged in terrorist acts. The American Revolution was started by the Sons of Liberty.  The Sons of Liberty were rebels who plotted to undermine the British throughout the American colonies. The battles of Lexington and Concord happened as result of the Sons of Liberty's behavior. The British wanted to seize their weapons and hang several of their members(Samuel Adams and John Hancock[1].) 

Were the Sons of Liberty not terrorists[1]? 
Was the Boston Tea Party not a terrorist act? 
Or how about when the Sons of Liberty burned down the Massachusetts Lt Governor Thomas Hutchinson's mansion, was that not a terrorist act? 
Was the tarring and feathering of tax collectors and public officials not terrorist acts? 
If "terrorism is immoral," does that not mean the very spark that lead to the founding of America is immoral as well?

[1]http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html
[2]http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/sonsagitate.html

If my opponent does not state that the Sons of Liberty were terrorists, then let it be known "democracy is hypocrisy" as Malcolm X said. The Sons of Liberty match the very definition of terrorism I provided in Round 1. The Sons of Liberty used "violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims." He would be stating that it  is acceptable for poor colonial Westerners to utilize terrorism but not Muslim militants. That is implicit of bigotry and prejudice if he is stating it is OK for the Sons Liberty to do it but not Hezbollah or ISIL. It would also be a fallacious double standard on his part as well to deny the Sons of Liberty were terrorists.

"Look at the 9/11 incident attack alone. Even that has managed to kill almost 3,000 people!"
That is an appeal to emotion fallacy[3] to dismiss this argument strictly because it is unpleasant.  If my opponent is against violence, he must explain why it is "wrong" since that is what he is implying.  If he is against violence he is also against America's founding as well since it was founded during a violent and bloody revolution.

[3]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

"We now hate the terrorists."
Does my opponent hate the Sons of Liberty?

"We are now more than ever at war with terrorism"
Who is this "we" my opponent refers to?

"He has offered no support for his contentions, nor any evidence that terrorism can do good."
Was the American Revolution not "good"[1]?

I would argue the American Revolution was "good." The United States was the first country to be founded on liberal ideals. As one of America's founding documents states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[3]." I would argue this has been proven to be satisfactory for most American citizens who have legal protections and many benefits that the United States has to offer. Some of these benefits include strong corporations who produce high quality products, political freedoms, and an efficient country overall.

[4]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-16 03:57:17
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (CON)
The American Revolution was in fact very unfair. It remains evident that King George really was no "tyrant" and that in fact they lived in a constitutional monarchy, and had to pass laws through the Parliament. In fact Great Britain turned into a constitutional monarchy long, long ago before King George even was born. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom )
Not only so, even with all those Acts he imposed upon them, they still actually would have been cheaper in comparison to within Britain. In fact, as the source following this sentence shows, "By 1714, British citizens in Great Britain were paying on a per capita basis 10 times as much in taxes as the average "American" in the 13 colonies." [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/03/tea_taxes_and_the_revolution ] This shows how unfair the people living in America were. They were treated much nicer than even in Great Britain, so why in the world would they revolt? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not only so, the Britain didn't even tax the Americans until their wars, and even that was justifiable from the British's viewpoint, since they were in debt and needed some money to fight off the war. Not only so, the colonies' populations' complaints were actually tried to be passed on by Great Britain. As the source following this sentence states, "There was a proposal by Lord Chatham to recognize the legitimacy of the Continental Congress, there was a proposal by Edmund Burke to repeal all of the hated acts since 1763 and work out a new imperial system, and after Saratoga (too late, the French were already committed) the British were willing to concede almost everything that the Continental Congress had wanted to stave off independence." [http://my.firedoglake.com/stewartm/2014/07/04/american-independence-1776-a-good-thing-or-not-reflections-on-the-american-revolution/ ]
As you can clearly see here, the British were willing entirely to change their ways without the citizens' terrorism to the government. 
Furthermore, the Britain were actually the moral ones. The previous source mentioned also states how one reason the war broke out was because "the British offered slaves manumission in return for service, something that horrified Washington and other patriot members of the slave-owning class." Obviously slavery is bad, as later decided by the famous Abraham Lincoln within his massive speech and his Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the civil war resulting in Anti-slavery winning. So in this case, the American revolution, the Britain were the ones actually fighting for "human liberty and dignity". 
As the article further notes, the same effect of democracy could have reached over a compromise. This compromise, bloodless, violence-less, kills much less people than the American revolution and is far more moral. Based on utilitarianism, terrorism is in terribly immoral, and therefore unjustifiable.
To note just as a connection, if America hadn't weakened Britain so much, maybe German wouldn't dare attack Belguim and start World War one. And without WWI, there couldn't exactly be a World War Two. 
As you can see the American Revolution, the perfect example of terrorism, has terrible, immoral consequences, whether explicit or implicit. Great Britain was dignified, and the Americans were the wrong ones. My opponent's example of terrorism is unjustifiable.

As to rebut the 3,000 people....we can safely assume most of them were innocent. Killing innocent people is immoral, unjustifiable. 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.

In conclusion...
-The american revolution was, in fact, immoral and unjustifiable. There were better solutions to the war that started and went on for no good reason.
-9/11 was still immoral and unjustifiable.
-Terrorism is unjustifiable.

Back to you, Darth Vitiosus.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-16 20:52:49
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (PRO)
My opponent has thundered the same points line after line but refused to answer my question in Round 2. My opponent has offered no premise to stand on in this debate as you will find out in my explanations below. Thus forward, I will repeat my Round 2 question again:

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[1]. 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?

[1]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

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[2]. 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.

[2]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

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. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-18 18:27:29
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (CON)
On what basis is he defining what is "moral" and "immoral?"
I think we understand what is objectively or even relatively moral or immoral. To put it into simple words, if something has benefits that overall outweigh the harms, then it is "moral". If it is the other way around, with harms outweighing the benefits, then it can be considered "immoral". This is also how utilitarianism works and it makes perfect sense, and it must be noted that usually what is "immoral" is far less effective or helpful than "moral". For example, killing an innocent person not only destroys a life, but also has no backing up reason to it, and the harms here are obviously outweighing the benefits, showing us that indeed utilitarianism works out on a basic level at the very least.  

According to whom is slavery "bad?" Who dictates what is bad and good?
We have abolished slavery long ago. It has been decidedly racist, unfair, and terrible. As most people nowadays agree, the government in particular, that slavery is immoral, it isn't considered "moral" at all for slavery to be used.  We know in our hearts that slavery indeed strips all human dignity, since being a slave, you have to follow all your master's orders without any hesitation or rejection, no matter how absurd or mean. Being the slaves they are, some of them don't even get paid. 

I never made the claim nor point about September 11 either way of being "moral" or "just." My opponent says.
Therefore, you did not justify the 9/11 attacks, and as a result, you have conceded this argument and shown how terrorism in this case was unjustifiable.

My opponent notes that he has "...been arguing that terrorism is "justifiable" in the sense that terrorism is "reasonable" and "defensible." But I have shown the other side of the American revolution. He has failed to show the reasonable and defensible part of the 9/11 attack. I have shown how unreasonable terrorism was and how unfair--and indefensible-- the American revolution was.

My opponent tries talking about the practicality of terrorism, but terrorism isn't practical at all in these situations. There were better ways to solve the problems, and the 9/11 attack didn't have to happen at all. Similarly, terrorism was completely pointless within the American revolution because they already were treated much better than the British; their complaining about the "unfairness" was utterly unjustified. 
It looks like the Americans' point were very biased, and their message was nice, but the Britain didn't exactly commit the crimes as heavily as the Americans accused them of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg

Mr. Darth has failed time after time to justify terrorism. He cannot possibly uphold the resolution with my two arguments and examples holding up strong. 
Vote me.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-18 23:32:07
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
9spaceking9spaceking
wow. I was surprised to see the other side of the American revolution.
Posted 2014-10-16 20:54:27
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
Hallo to you too
Posted 2014-10-12 21:18:07
9spaceking9spaceking
oh hello, Mr. Vitiosus.
Posted 2014-10-12 18:34:36
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 3 days
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29