Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.
Debate Rounds (3)
I would have to strongly disagree with this. Do you feel that everyone that celebrated Hitler's death is on the same level as him? If that is the case, by celebrating Ghandi's death, does that raise me to the same level as him?
Celebrating a death =/= killing (on a moral scale).
Anyway, going to my argument. Different deaths mean different things to different people. The execution of someone that murdered my uncle (not a true story for me) can be closure for my lose, and so benefitial to me. The death of someone that commits global atrocities can be benefitial to the people of the world. Celebrating benefitial things is prefectly acceptable and should actually be encouraged.
I'll leave it at this for now and let my opponent build their own argument.
I hope I didn't make a mistake with the title. I will tell you what I meant but just for the record, if you thought I meant just being glad I will concede. What I meant was, in America I have heard people had parties to celebrate his death and it even spread a bit into the UK. They made it into some special event like D - day where they were all celebrating and having a good time over his death. If you understood what I meant or wish to argue that that is right then I would love to continue this debate. Because I am not sure as I can see the title was a bit ambiguous I will continue now with my reasons but if you confirm that I was not clear enough in making this debate and you don't think that having parties over his death and celebrating like that is right say in round 2 and I will concede.
Here's my reasons in case you wish to argue this subject.
1.I think that by celebrating the death of a person whose done something wrong, unless it ends a massive war your involved in and your celebrating that like WW2 because you used the example of Hitler it lowers you from the moral high ground. e.g. Osama Bin Laden.
2. It created more tension and a higher risk of terrorist attacks from the death and the celebrations which followed.
3. I find it hard to be happy about it when I think he should have been put on trial and justice should of been done.
I will elaborate more if you are willing to argue against me in your turn. If so, please tell me why you think people should celebrate in the way I described.
I will address my opponent's arguments each individually.
"1.I think that by celebrating the death of a person whose done something wrong, unless it ends a massive war your involved in and your celebrating that like WW2 because you used the example of Hitler it lowers you from the moral high ground. e.g. Osama Bin Laden."
The death of Hitler didn't actually end the war, though it was a key step towards ending the war. The same is true in our current case. We like to call it a "war on terror" or whatever other fancy name we can give it in order to make it seem more justified, but it is a war mainly against Al Qaeda (as well as any other groups that step to the plate). In order to defeat Al Qaeda, Bin Ladin needed to have been killed or captured (and neutralized in some manner). Killing him doesn't end it in itself, but it is a major step that is needed.
"2. It created more tension and a higher risk of terrorist attacks from the death and the celebrations which followed."
I would disagree. Saying that it puts a higher risk of terrorist attacks is like saying that if the Red Army killed Hitler, that would increase the risk of German soldiers (or the hitler youth) attacking the Red Army. The German soldiers were already engaging with the Red Army. And Al Qaeda is already trying to find ways of attacking the US, that much is clear from the data that we pulled from hard drives in the raid (from assassinating the president, to terrorist attacks in the elections).
"3. I find it hard to be happy about it when I think he should have been put on trial and justice should of been done."
As seeing as he has already admitted it, taken credit for it, and we've captured others that have confirmed that Al Qaeda (lead by Bin Ladin) was the financer of the attacks, a trial is not really needed. We already know that he did it, he doesn't deny it, all that is left is to deliver the punishment for the crime.
For a start a will address your first two points:
you compared killing Osama Bin Laden to killing Hitler. Well, Osama Bin Laden is one of many individuals who could take his place. In fact, I think someone has. He was vain and demanded credit for his works which made him a target but killing him wont make a difference.
It's funny how everyone says, 'killing Osama Bin Laden will end terrorist attacks,' and then immediately after, 'be prepared for a terrorist attack in response.' You know as well as I do that if he was put on trial he would not be able to do any more harm than he can now, but instead of capturing him, NATO, with their gun - ho attitude shot him dead.
If he could have been prosecuted it would give the victims a chance to see him fairly brought to justice but what has been done I think has proven nothing.
To answer your third point,
I find it all terribly sick that when I fellow human being is killed (no matter how bad) we should celebrate his death. I ask you this: Osama Bin Laden wished for many people death and showed no sympathy on his victims. He was happy at the thought of people suffering because of what he did. Unlike him we should show that we are above such acts and should not laugh and party as if it is a time for celebration. I am not saying mourn his death but I am saying mourn his victims deaths and maybe prove that we are the west are not all savages as I'm sure he thought. When you laugh at a human death what does that make you?
There were also individuals that would have replaced Hitler had he been killed before the end of the war. The only reason Hitler wasn't replaced was because the Red Army was in control of the capital and everyone (nearly) viewed the war as lost much sooner than Hitler. Simply because a replacement is available does not mean that there is no value in killing a threat.
"It's funny how everyone says, 'killing Osama Bin Laden will end terrorist attacks,' and then immediately after, 'be prepared for a terrorist attack in response.'"
Neither of those are arguments that I made, so they don't really apply to this debate.
"You know as well as I do that if he was put on trial he would not be able to do any more harm than he can now, but instead of capturing him, NATO, with their gun - ho attitude shot him dead."
I would disagree. There would be a chance of his supporters making attempts to resue him, and even if they failed at that goal, if they killed a single person in their attempts, then it would be a negative.
"...maybe prove that we are the west are not all savages as I'm sure he thought."
Killing him doesn't show that we are savages. He committed a crime, and he paid for it. If he has a view that defines that as "savage" then I want us to be "savage."
"When you laugh at a human death what does that make you?"
It makes you human, as do all our emotions. A non-human responce would be an emotionless response.
My opponent has tried to affirm the resolution, but has not been able to defend it adequately. The comparison to Hitler's death (and celebration of) was never refuted, merely tried to imply that they were not comparible.
I'll pass this to the voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not carry the burden of proof and assertions such as celebration are immoral were not properly supported. Decent back and forth though, 3:2 for OreEle.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.