The Instigator
JBJB1029
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Can the proper education end the recruiting process of all radical organizations, in the World?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 59368
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

JBJB1029

Pro

Terrorism poses a real and serious threat to the security and safety of the Alliance and its members. It is a global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion " a challenge that the international community must tackle together. NATO"s work on counter-terrorism focuses on improved threat awareness and preparedness, developing adequate capabilities and enhancing engagement with partner countries and other international actors. However, When Leaders Die, Terror Still Thrives, because evidence shows that killing terrorist leaders " or "decapitating" terrorist organizations, in military parlance " rarely ends violence on its own and can actually have adverse consequences. Indeed, killing prominent leaders can motivate their followers to retaliate and increase sympathy for the militants" cause among civilians. Simply focusing on the leadership of a terrorist organization rarely brings about the group"s demise. My study of approximately 300 cases of singling out the leadership of 96 terrorist organizations globally " including Al Qaeda and Hamas " between 1945 and 2004, shows that the likelihood of collapse actually declines for groups whose leaders have been arrested or killed. For established terrorist organizations that are more than 20 years old, the likelihood that eliminating leaders will destroy the organization declines significantly. In fact, it becomes counterproductive as a group becomes more established. Large groups can bounce back from the removal of leaders; this almost never cripples groups with more than 500 members. Also, religious and separatist groups are difficult to destabilize. In fact, religious groups that have lost their leaders are less likely to fall apart than those that have not. In the case of Al Qaeda, these patterns suggest that the deaths of high-ranking members may destabilize the group in the short term, but will not be effective in bringing about its decline. Al Qaeda, formed in 1988, is more than 20 years old, an age at which groups become more stable. It is also a religious organization, making it more resistant to attacks on its leadership. And finally, many observers believe that the group has more than 500 members " which puts it over the threshold at which terrorist organizations become more resilient and capable of surviving leadership attacks. This is not to say that Mr. Awlaki"s death is insignificant. Mr. Awlaki had a unique ability to motivate would-be militants in the West and was linked to the shootings at Fort Hood, Tex., in November 2009, the plot to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Dec. 25 that same year, and the 2010 attempted bombing in Times Square. But Mr. Awlaki"s killing is unlikely to weaken Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in a significant way. The organization has a leadership structure in place that should be unaffected by his loss, and his death will not hinder the group"s ability to attack targets in Yemen. Indeed, the political crisis there has provided an opportunity for the group to expand. And while it may be difficult for Al Qaeda to replace someone with Mr. Awlaki"s unique ability to attract and inspire militants in the West, it has an ideological resonance that transcends leadership. The doctrine upon which the group is based is not dependent upon leaders, like Bin Laden or Mr. Awlaki, for its reproduction. The decentralized nature of Al Qaeda"s organization " with its regional affiliates operating largely independently " further increases its ability to withstand leadership attacks. A weakened affiliate would not have long-term implications for the operational capacity of the organizational core. While Mr. Awlaki"s death was a major tactical victory, research suggests that over time, Al Qaeda will survive this and other recent attacks. Focusing on leaders alone is not enough to undermine it. It is important to follow up these attacks in ways that will weaken a group"s ability to attract new recruits. Withdrawing ground forces from Afghanistan could undermine one of the causes for which the organization has been fighting. Moreover, providing critical social services in communities where Al Qaeda and other militants operate could eliminate opportunities for them to gain further local support. Undermining the local support upon which groups depend, rather than focusing primarily on killing their leaders, should be a cornerstone of Washington"s counter-terrorism policies.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent is clearly passionate about this topic, which gives me great excitement as I look forward to an invigorating and challenging debate.

I. Cost of educating terrorists

The first and foremost issue I see with educating would-be terrorists would be the short and long term costs of implementing and maintaining such education efforts. Not only would the nations who are implementing such actions have a large financial burden in regards to allocating the funds, but would need to allocate such funds for things like:

building the education facilities,
paying educators,
retirement funding for employees,
insurance fees,
maintenance of said facilities including water & electricity,
and land fees such as property taxes.

Financial burdens such as the ones listed above need to be funded one way or another. I would go so far as to say that most countries that would require such efforts to be implemented are already facing financial woes. I will allow my opponent the opportunity to list these countries and the manner in which they can fund such efforts before I extend any further on this point. As it stands, the financial burdens that I raise as an issue but be resolved by Pro for him to fulfill his own BOP of maintaining the affirmative position on this resolution.

II. The UN or NATO as sources for funding

If my opponent is proposing that such organizations as the United Nations or NATO fund such efforts, I again would ask that he list or expand on how such organizations would fund such efforts and more importantly why said organizations should do so instead of the nations in which such efforts would be carried out?

III. Who would the educational efforts target?

Another highly important question that needs to be answered by Pro is how such efforts would be carried out. Although I have already expanded on the importance of listing what nations would require such efforts as well as who should fund such efforts, Pro must explain who these educational facilities would target and under what guidelines? For instance, would they be built in nations where those who are perceived as terrorists are most active? How would the educators or recruiters pick out which children need to attend these educational facilities? Can their guidelines be justified?

IV. Safety

This issue will be the last that I expand on in this round due to quickly diminishing character limit. Clearly these proposed educational facilities are meant to undermine the efforts of the terrorist cells located around the various nations that my opponent will surely list in the next round. Not only would we need to figure in the cost of security for these locations where such education efforts are to be carried out, but we would also need to secure every individual life of the participants involved. Surely the terrorist cells would target any and all efforts that wish to undermine their own, especially on their own territory. I would expect my opponent to figure in these additional costs of implementing and maintaining such efforts both financially and in terms of safety.

In Conclusion,

I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and patiently await as he provides counter-arguments and rebuttals against the contentions I have raised in this round. I now return the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
JBJB1029

Pro

I. Yes, The Cost of Educating Terrorists will be more expensive than taking them out, but it will be worth it in the long run.
II. The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)
III. The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults.
IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. "...It will be worth it in the long run."

My opponent completely bases this statement on speculation. My opponent failed to provide a list of which countries such efforts would take place in, as well as failed to justify the cost of implementing such efforts. My opponent needs to show how is will be worth it in the long run. Until that is done by my opponent, such claims hold no weight in this debate. I can just as easily say that it won't be worth it in the long run, but without justification of such claims they are meaningless statements of speculation. As Pro, my opponent has the burden to justify his position. I ask now that he do so, because at this point my contention has not been met with a satisfactory rebuttal.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".

Not only has my opponent failed to provide an example or means in which the nations themselves would fund such efforts, but my opponent is now attempting to say that indeed the U.N. & NATO will fund it AS WELL as the worlds billionaires. This is another statement made based on pure speculation. My opponent needs to explain how:

1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.
2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.

I can just as easily say that the worlds billionaires will build me a palace and fund my lifestyle until I die, but there is no weight to such a baseless claim.

How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments?
How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?

These are all questions that my opponent must answer in order to provide not only reasoning but justification to such claims.

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."

Thank you for that response. Unfortunately, what I meant was how will they target these individuals? Even if I grant you the freedom here to say that they will only target children, which children will be chosen for these educational efforts? Will they be the children of deceased terrorists? Will they be the orphans surrounding the districts in which these educational facilities will be built? Will they be the children of the handful of wealthy residents?

Once again, these are all questions that need to be answered. It is unreasonable to say that they will target children without a set standard for which children they will target. Is attendance mandatory? Is it mandatory by local law or international law? I would ask that my opponent focus on these questions as they are all obstacles which block his affirmative position.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

What police? You haven't even listed what regions these educational facilities will be built in. Are we to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children? How are we to get tax-payers on board for this? According to you, everyone is going to be paying for this and you've yet to justify why ANYONE should.

The funding question stands just as strongly here as it does in my previous rebuttals.

V. My opponent Plagiarized his entire first round.

This was brought to my attention by a fellow member of the site in the comment section of this debate. It appears that my opponent plagiarized nearly his entire first round.

This member kindly provided the sources in which my opponents "words" can be found from their original sources, I will share the comment made by that user here:

He first takes much of his argument from NATO's page (the bold) http://www.nato.int...... and then copy and pastes almost entirely from a NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com......). I may have found two sentences of his that weren't plagiarized. -JMK

As the audience can clearly see now, both in the comment section and here, my opponent plagiarized.

In Conclusion,

It would be wise for my opponent to apologize publicly for this foul conduct and continue this debate henceforth in his own words.

I will now return the floor to my opponent and eagerly await his rebuttals to each point, thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
JBJB1029

Pro

It's True, I did plagiarized my entire first round, but what could I do, because of my Mental Disorder called Autism, I had trouble trying to create my own thing. Would just saying, "Can the proper education end the recruiting process of all radical organizations, in the World?," No! I had to give details of the debate, and trying to create my thing would take days, weeks, months, or maybe even years to do, time, I did not have, so I had to take a shortcut, and plagiarize my entire first round, overall, I am deeply, sorry for what I have done, and if you hate me I understand. :'(

I. "...It will be worth it in the long run."
How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Also, we'll turn Internment camps (Example: Guantanamo Bay detention camp) into a Reeducation camps.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".
1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.
Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell.
2) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.
Through the Buffett Foundation (which is a charitable organization formed by Omaha, Nebraska investor and industrialist Warren Buffett as a vehicle to manage his charitable giving. It was renamed Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation in honor of his wife Susan Buffett after her death in 2004.)
3) How will the Billionaires be convinced that this is worth their investments?
It's only a matter of time before a Radical Organization who want's money, decides to take action against the Forbes Billionaires.
4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?
Through Donation Programs is how the nations will fund themselves in such efforts, and also by Increasing Taxes on The Rich, while (at the same time) decreasing Taxes on the poor.

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."
Every single Child on the Planet will be taught through every single type of School in the World. Attendance is mandatory by both local law and international law, if a member of your Family is a Radical.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.
As I said in Number I. How about in the Countries that are ranked as a Potential superpower (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and in Countries that are Ranked "Not Free," because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. Yes, we are to expect tax-payers to fund the military playing the role of security guards for anti-terrorist schools for children. We'll convince the tax-payers to board with this by asking them this, "What would you rather live in: A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos and Violence?" And if that doesn't work, we'll just explain that it's only a matter of time before the War against Radical Organization comes knocking at their door, and it will be the Radicals who are doing the knocking.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to thank my opponent for admitting that he plagiarised and for his apology. I do wish to say one thing though about your excuse of having Autism. I've debated people on here before who have autism and they didn't have to plagiarize. You are the first autistic person I've met who has used his mental disability as an excuse to plagiarize. I would caution against doing so - because plagiarising is a conduct offense no matter what circumstance.

I. It will be worth it in the long run.

My opponent states that the potential superpowers and countries ranked as "not free" will be where these education facilities will be located. Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world. Furthermore, my opponent lists countries ranked as "not free" but doesn't name those countries. Which countries are to be considered "not free"? I can take a wild guess here but it would be nothing but speculation until my opponent lists specifically which nations should build these education facilities.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".

1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.
"Yes, No, Maybe, I really don't know, on;y time will tell." - Pro

This is an awful response. As Pro taking the affirmative stance it is your burden to provide answers to these rebuttals. Saying you don't know is unacceptable and completely fails to uphold to BOP.

2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.

My opponent states the Buffett foundation will pay for this and then goes on in point 3 to state that they will fund such efforts because if they don't it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. All of this is speculation, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable.

4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?

My opponent states this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts. Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil?

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."

My opponent states that every child on the planet will be taught through every single type of school in the world. This is ludicrous, nay, impossible. Not even now do we have a system in which every child on the planet is taught in schools, how on earth can such a massive effort be undertaken now? My opponent needs to think this comment through because there is no possible way in which every child will be able to attend every school in the world. Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

My opponent states that the countries he listed in Contention 1 will act as security because we all know what dictators do to terrorists. I don't believe "we all" know what dictators do. In fact, unless you yourself list every action that every dictator has done to a terrorist, I'd go so far as to say that not even you can possible know all of that. Tax-payers will be incentivized to pay these taxes to fund such efforts because we'll ask them a fear-mongering question? How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes? We are already being told such things more or less, so are you expecting the same message that has already been over-played to inspire more motivation to pay higher taxes? This doesn't seem very reasonable. As Pro, you cannot rely on speculation to justify your arguments.

In conclusion,

I have provided rebuttals for each argument presented by Pro. I have explained how such a burden requires actual justification, and have accepted his apology for plagiarising with a word of caution against using Autism as an excuse based on my experience with other autistic members who do not plagiarise.
Debate Round No. 3
JBJB1029

Pro

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run.
Yes, when my opponent said, "Unfortunately, not many potential terrorists group up in these developed nations like America, EU, China, Russia, or Brazil. I see no point in building such facilities in these developed nations when the main terrorist activists are in other regions of the world." He does have a point there. Also, you can find a list of countries "Not Free," Here: (http://www.freedomhouse.org...) (Examples: Russia, China, and Iran. I propose that the Major Superpowers (Example: The United States, European Union, Russia, China, India, and Brazil) build these education facilities.
II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".
1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.
Not sure, because no one has ever present this to the U.N. or NATO before, Am I right or Am I Wrong? If they say No, then we'll convince them that this strategy/tactic is the best way forward to World Peace. And if they still say No, then we'll just find another Regional Organization (RO) that will sign up to fund this so called endeavor.
2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.
Yes, you are right, there is no evidence whatsoever presented by Pro that this is what will occur at some point in the future. As you stated, "I can just as easily say that the terrorists will start killing celebrities instead of the billionaires and it would hold an equal amount of weight - both are unacceptable." However as Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "Anything is Possible." Which is why they can't let their guard down where ever they go. If they say No, then we'll convince them that it's only a matter of time before they become targets themselves. And if they still say No, then we'll wait patiently until that time comes.
4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?
When my opponent stated, "this will happen through donations, but provides no means in how such donations will actually be presented to the public or how the public would be incentivized to donate to such efforts." Will ask them this Question, "What is would you rather live in, A World filled with Peace or A World filled with Chaos? My opponent has also stated, "Furthermore, my opponent proposes raising the taxes on the rich while lowering the taxes on the poor, and that that will also fund the efforts. I would ask my opponent to explain how exactly these changes to the tax systems are to be carried out without causing political turmoil?" Have you ever considered that since America is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends because tax revenues, it cannot keep up with government spending, so, as a result, hundreds of America's wealthiest households are paying no income tax at all! So in other words, almost 1,500 Millionaires Do Not Pay Income Tax, and if word of this gets out, the poor will think that the rich are cheating them, and will create turmoil in the streets.
III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."
Easy, make it a requirement for students to Graduate from High School. However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and that is a concern, because there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and if that's the case, the kids will have to put with another family. Also, when you said, "Furthermore, he states that attendance will be mandatory by local & international law if a family member is a radical. The issue with this is that we have no means of knowing who every radical is in this world, such technology does not yet exist. There is no way of guaranteeing that such efforts will actually catch every child who has a radical family member." You forgetting about The National intelligence agencies, they will be to tell you how is a radical or not.
IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.
In Countries that are labeled "Not Free" If Terrorists fail to be re educated they will be executed in the worst way possible. I think what they fear most, is a Slow and painful death than a quick and painless one, Correct? When you said, "How do threats of potential terrorist invasions convince anyone to pay higher taxes?" Think about it, If the Communist Government China was suddenly ousted from power, China's Security will be severely weakened, thus leaving China open to invasion by terrorists from Afghanistan and Pakistan, since they are right next door to China. This is just an example, by the way. Also they don't have to pay higher taxes, they can do it all through Donations, or something similar to War-Bonds. Note: In Countries that are "Not Free," they will give you a Choice, "Either you will help us, or we will perceive you as though you are trying to help the terrorists!"
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run.

My opponent conceded to the first half of this contention, instead of providing a rebuttal, he stated "that I have a good point". This is a concession of this point by Pro.

Furthermore, I saw no list of "not free" countries on the link my opponent shared. Can you please specifically point out where in that link I will find the list of countries that are "not free"? Otherwise, that link should not count as it has no list of countries that are "not free". I also find it weird how you consider Russia & China as "not free" but then go on to call them "superpowers" in the next sentence. Those countries cannot be both "not free" and a Major Superpower. Please expand on this and clarify otherwise it is a self-defeating point.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".

1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.

My opponent claims he doesn't know because this has never been presented to them in the past. He then goes on to say that if they say no, we will convince them and if that fails we will find a regional organization for funding. This, once again, is nothing more than pure speculation by my opponent.

2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.

Convincing the billionaires that there lives are in danger is no reasonable way to get funding from them. Billionaires already have private security firms which already protect both themselves and their homes. [1] [2]

Betting that terrorists will attack them and cause them to desire such facilities is ludicrous due to the fact that billionaires already have more effective and immediate security forces for use.

[1] http://www.forbes.com...

[2] http://www.torchstoneglobal.com...

4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?

Asking the public a question like "would they rather have peace or a world filled with chaos" is not a question that will get them to donate. Even if they did say they wanted a world of peace, this does not mean they will give money. Stating a desire and giving money to efforts are two completely different things. The public would need a much stronger incentive to actually persuade them to pay into this or have higher taxes due to funding such efforts.

Furthermore, what does government spending have to do at all with the wealthiest households paying no income tax?That entire point is incorrect due to the lack of a real connection between those two elements. I'd ask my opponent to expand or clarify this point; prove that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes.

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."

Making it law to graduate from highschool would be a political effort in the differing regions, not one that can be implemented by the international community. There is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community.

My opponent then ends this statement by saying we'd have to put home-schooled children into other homes due to their parents possibly being radicals. My opponent is talking about forced removal and adoption of home-schooled kids just to guarantee they will graduate from highschool and terrorist awareness schools. This idea would cause alot of problems:

Psychologically to the children,

emotionally for all parties involved,

and possibly physically if either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, etc.

On balance, that is an awful idea. One that would most likely not work-out and actually cause more harm and resentment towards the international community that would hypothetically be forcing these standards on the regions that my opponent has still yet to clarify (please see Contention I.) Also, the National Intelligence agencies don't have those capabilities - my opponent must prove that they do. This is why I said earlier that those technologies don't exist. Unless my opponent can prove they do - this point fails.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

What countries are labeled as "not free"? You've still not listed them yourself nor shown where the list was on the link you shared.

You still haven't shown how we will even be able to identify these supposed terrorists - so the entire point on what would happen if they fail to graduate is nothing but baseless conjecture. Furthermore, these are potential terrorists - why would we execute them if they fail to graduate when they've yet to commit any acts of terrorism? My opponent is talking about unjustified murder - this is totally unacceptable. Also, most terrorists do not fear death. [3]

[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
JBJB1029

Pro

This is the Final Round, and I'm determined to Win You and the Public over in this debate.

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run.

Isn't that what your supposed to do in a Debate?

Click on the link (http://bit.ly...) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: (http://bit.ly...) to see the proof that both Russia & China are Potential Superpower, Click here: (http://bit.ly...) and here: (http://bit.ly...) to to see the proof that both Russia & China are "Not Free" Countries.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding (example: The World's Billionaires)".

1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.

It's true, because I don't know the entire History of the United Nations of what they done since they founded to today. I suppose you got a better idea.

2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.

Good Point, and if you have a better idea to get the worlds billionaires to fund this efforts, then I'm all ears. However, Terrorists/Radicals are always probing the system, trying to find the weakest link, looking for a way into the Billionaires private security firms/forces which they use to protect both themselves and their homes.

4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?

If you got a better Idea that will actually persuade them to donate, then I'm all ears.

Here's the proof that all those millionaires aren't paying income taxes, click on the link: (http://read.bi...)

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children, since it will have a hard time working on Adults."

True, there is no guarantee that each region will implement such requirements when their own education systems are different from the international community. However, with Radicals on the rise, all over the World, I think they'll make an acception. You misunderstand, the keyword is, "IF" as I said, "However, some students that are being Home Schooled, and there is a good chance the parents are radicals, and IF that's the case, the kids will have to be put with another family." Solution to those problems:
1. If they are so young it probably won't affect the Children's, Psychologically
2. We'll ask them this Question, "Would you rather risk a Radical Uprising in our country?"
3. If either the parents or children refuse to abandon their family members, then relocate the family.
I suppose you got a better idea. Uh, Ya they do, Case in Point: The National Security Agency (NSA), click on the link (http://bit.ly...) and there will be your proof.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

Click on the link (http://bit.ly...) and go to page 20, there you'll find a list of "not free" countries + countries that are "Free" and "Partly Free," as a bonus. Click Here: (http://bit.ly...) to see the Seven Signs of Terrorist Activity that will help people identify supposed terrorists. Failing to be re-educated, (depeneding on what country you live) can result from relocating to death. In Countries that are "Not Free" they wouldn't care if your a potential terrorist or a full blown terrorist, they will execute you. Terrorists have to fear something.

In conclusion,

The World has 2 choices, they can either:
1. Re-educate the Radicals (The Bloodless Way)
2. Purge the World of Radicals, just like how The Nazis tried to Purge the World of anyone with Non-Aryan Descent (The Bloody Way)
Blade-of-Truth

Con

First and foremost, you did indeed plagiarize, which is never acceptable conduct in any debate setting.

I. It will "Still" be worth it in the long run.

If you go back to Round 2, the main issue was that you have not shown how it will be worth it in the long run. All you've managed to do is finally provide the list I asked for. You still have a majority of that burden in regards to showing how, which you have now failed to do throughout this debate.

Furthermore, there were 54 countries in total that were listed as not free. These are countries that aren't considered free based on the standards used by that one study. Key words - one study.My opponent is attempting to use the standards of one study so justify building educational facilities that will force children who are somehow considered potential terrorists from unverified terrorist families to attend and then graduate or face death.

This is ultimately my opponents position. My opponent has failed to show how it would be worth it in the long run - ultimately failing to defeat the original contention.

II. "The UN or NATO won't be the only source for funding, there will other sources of Funding.

1) The U.N. & NATO will sign up to fund such endeavors.

My opponent basically concedes by stating that I must have a better idea. It was your burden to show how or why the UN/Nation would fund such endeavors. My opponent has failed to do this. I do not believe they should or even could fund these endeavors based on the current economic hardships we are already facing. My opponent did not show how we could allocate or find such funding.

2 & 3) The worlds billionaires would invest in such efforts.

Again, my opponent basically concedes this point. He then attempts to save face by making a claim about terrorists always probing the system which includes private security firms. Such claims need evidence to validate them, otherwise they are nothing but baseless conjecture. This point failed to be upheld by Pro.

4) How will the U.N. & NATO find the necessary budget funds for such short and long-term costs?

My opponent completely drops my incentive arguments here by providing no reply to it. My opponent also fails to show the connection between government spending and 7,000 millionaires who didn't apparently pay income tax. This entire point fails to uphold any burden my opponent had on himself. All he did was show data that some people didn't pay their income taxes, no relevancy was established and therefore these statistics are void in this debate.

III. "The educational efforts would target mostly Children..."

My opponent concedes again by agreeing that there is no guarantee these efforts will even be carried out by the regions in question. He then, again, tries to justify it based on nothing more than conjecture. The keyword of "if" makes no difference because you've yet to fulfill the burden of showing how we could determine such things in the first place.

Solutions:

1. What age does the psychological effects become damaging? Without defining such things your point falls short. Unless the child is below the age of 3-4 it is generally going to be a traumatizing event to be taken away from your family by force under the actions of international efforts.
2. You need to show how that question will be effective in getting the answer you desire. You cannot expect people to automatically side with you and then provide that speculation as an argument. It doesn't hold.
3. Now you are talking about relocating the entire family? Where will THAT money come from? And if they really ARE terrorists, wouldn't relocating them simply give them a free move and accomplish nothing more? You see, these responses you provided don't truly give us any answers.

In regards to the E. Snowdan revelations of NSA capabilities/link, it still doesn't prove that the NSA actually has those capabilities - it simply shares reports that claim that they do. There is a big difference between having those technologies and one media source claiming that they have them. My opponent has not proved nor shown that the NSA can track every terrorist that these educational efforts would target. Especially not in every one of the 54 not-free nations.

IV. The Police, The Military, The UN Peacekeepers, etc. will be in charge of Safety.

My opponent dropped the fear point by replying with more conjecture by saying they "have to fear something". Still failed to show where the extra funding would come to pay these security forces salaries, and ultimately failed to respond to my question on why we should kill potential terrorists who have yet to commit a crime. Why would it depend on which country they live in? Such statements need clarity.

In conclusion,

1. Opponent plagiarized.
2. Unjustified murder.
3. No realistic funding plan.
4. Most responses were nothing more than conjecture.
5. Irrelevant statistics in regards to millionaires/income tax.
6. Unverified claims.
7. Dropped several points.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
RFD Addendum

Yup, I decided to award the 7th point to Con, lol. Not that it matters entirely at this point or that S&G is really something we should take seriously and score on a regular basis, aside from severe anomalies. There are a few reasons I decided to award this, though: first, to make a point that plagiarism is wrong and should not be tolerated; second, it's a bit difficult to judge spelling and grammar when the sample size for Con is significantly larger than Pro's, in light of the fact of course that Pro's entire round 1 was thrown out; and, third, because Con's case was much more polished, and it was evident he put more time, effort and research into it.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
RFD (1/1)

I'm pretty much inclined to agree with whiteflame and spaceking that plagiarism from Pro is pretty much enough to award this debate to Con. I was tempted, actually, to award all 7 points to him -- and at this point I still may in fact do that. I'll expand a bit on my RFD, if only so that Pro can hopefully learn from his mistakes.

CONDUCT:

This obviously goes to Con because Pro plagiarized. I've never seen autism used as an excuse for plagiarism. I didn't know whether to be feel bad or offended that it was used as one, but I do think Con handled the situation exceptionally well by continuing the debate. A lot of people wouldn't, so major props to him on that.

ARGUMENTS:

I don't think there is much to say; Pro had the BOP, and his entire first round was disregarded. Moreover, he didn't provide a single source or shred of evidence as to how his plan would work in practice, so Con was able to effectively take down his rebuttals.

SOURCES:

Only Con provided sources, and Pro plagiarized, so that's enough for me to award him source points.

I'm willing to expand on any part of this RFD at any time.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Wow, good eye JMK!! I would have never even thought to see if it was plagiarized. I will be sure to point that out in the next round.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Well, I'd hate to be the one to point this out, but Pro's entire argument is plagiarized.

He first takes much of his argument from NATO's page (the bold) http://www.nato.int...? and then copy and pastes almost entirely from a NY times article (http://www.nytimes.com...). I may have found two sentences of his that weren't plagiarized.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
If you shorten the voting period, I will gladly accept this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
JBJB1029Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, I want to say I loved the passion of Pro in this debate. However, passion is not going to win a debate, facts and rational thinking are going to win a debate. As such its clear Con has to win the debate as the arguments and rebuttals presented were concise and clear and followed rationally from one another. For this reason I am awarding argument points to Con. Regarding conduct points, I am awarding these to Con as Pro plagiarized the first argument. While Pro did apologize I feel its the honorable thing to do to obey the rules and deduct conduct points. Source points must go to Con, as Pro provided sources but they were difficult to follow. In contrast Cons sources were easily to relate to the argument. If I can give Pro a hint for future debates, organize and structure your arguments like your opponent did. It makes it easier to read when presented in paragraphs and sub headings. You have the passion you just need the structure.
Vote Placed by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
JBJB1029Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JBJB1029Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: plagiarism by pro
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
JBJB1029Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It's rare for me to vote on plagiarism alone, but when the whole opening round utilizes it, I'm afraid there's little I can do. Pro, autism is not an excuse for this. At the very least, you could have posted the links. I realize that you apologized for it later, but that doesn't erase what happened. As such, I'm awarding arguments, conduct and sources to Con. While I'm sure the arguments have merit, this is an entirely unreasonable way to present them.