The Instigator
fesuj
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 16814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

fesuj

Pro

This debate is about celebrating Osama Bin Laden's Death. Just to let you know, although I'm not sure exactly all that he's done I do not condone killing or harming any innocent people, or inciting hate. My point is that no matter how bad a person is, to celebrate a persons death is lowering yourself to their level. Good luck!
Ore_Ele

Con

"My point is that no matter how bad a person is, to celebrate a persons death is lowering yourself to their level."

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.
Debate Round No. 1
fesuj

Pro

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.

Anyway...

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.
Ore_Ele

Con

I understand the resolution about celebrating being the topic, however the root emotion to celebration is happiness (or being glad). Celebration is simply a way of expressing happiness (usually a large amount of happiness).

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.
Debate Round No. 2
fesuj

Pro

OK, thank you for your arguments but I have to disagree with you.

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?
Ore_Ele

Con

"you compared killing Osama Bin Laden to killing Hitler. Well, Osama Bin Laden is one of many individuals who could take his place."

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.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fesuj 5 years ago
fesuj
I did try to make that defence. I tried to said was that when celebrating they were celebrating the end of the war.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I think a better defense to the Hitler comparison would have been that we shouldn't have celebrated Hitler's death either.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
fesujOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
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.