The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Certain acts of terrorism can be justified.

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...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,140 times Debate No: 7111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

I stand by the quote that " one mans terrorist , is another mans freedom fighter ".

I am not saying that it is acceptable to kill , but I am saying that , If somebody freedom is being oppressed then it is acceptable , to start attacking the oppressors by any means possible. Even if that means taking civilian life's.

I am in no way what so ever , talking about terrorist acts like 9/11 , if anybody brings that up saying something like , " Hey man so you think 9/11 was ok ?? ".

what I mean is that The world should not hate all terrosits , who kill with a reason and do it for their freedom and country's freedom , but should only hate those terrorists who do it for publicity , money and just because they don't like another country.

I am referring to acts of terrorism such as the British occupation of Ireland which caused the IRA to start setting off bombs in England. Or even as far back to William Wallace fighting the English. Please however I am not interested in Iraq and Afghanistan I mean more significant and meaningful acts of terrorism.
rougeagent21

Con

Well, since my opponent sadly does not define any terms, I will take the liberty myself.

Terrorism-"The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Just-"Guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness." Dictionary.com

So, when dealing with whether or not something is justified, one must look to whether or not the act adheres to all aspects of justice. We now ask ourselves, is terrorism truthful, reasonable, just, or fair?

--TRUTHFUL--
It is fairly obvious that terrorism is not truthful. Do terrorists ask you if it is ok to blow up your house? Or what time of day you would like them to do it? It is obviously not so. How can terrorism be truthful? Mu opponent MUST answer this to win the debate.

--Reasonable--
Again I ask, do terrorists ask you if they can set a bomb off at your house? Will they anyway if you say no? Terrorism is in NO WAY reasonable to the victim. My opponent must also answer why terrorism is reasonable to win.

--Just--
This is what we are debating. This can also correlate with fairness, which I will address next.

--Fair--
OK, so you walk home one day, and your family has been murdered by a terrorist because of your political beliefs. Is that fair? My opponent must also answer why terrorism is fair to win the debate.

I await my opponent's rebuttals. In his next speech, he must prove why terrorism is truthful, reasonable, just, and fair. If unable to do so, then surely he has lost the debate. That being said, I conclude the first round of the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for posting the definition of terrorism , I presumed you all knew what it meant but thank you anyway.

now you say I must answer these questions in order to win ? I have but I shall answer them in more detail.

No , no its not fair on any innocent victim of terrorism , no terrorists don't ask if they can blow up your house. Think about it though , if your fellow countrymen were being killed , there freedom taken away by this other country , your family might have been killed by this other country . Your country cannot fight back as it is to weak , the only answer if nobody else will help ? terrorism . The IRA proved that , when the other country is suppressing your freedom and killing your people sometimes , why should these " terrorists " or as I will refer to them as freedom fighters , as I believe when you are fighting anther country with a good cause you are not a terrorist , you are a freedom fighter .

Sure it is never good when innocent people are caught up in this , but think about it . If this freedom fighter forms a group to try attack the other country's government , but due to lack of resources and this other country's extreme protection of government buildings. This person has no other option but to start killing innocent people in this country , till the government starts taking notice . This is a harsh and scary truth about life. Now this sounds like this man who has done this would be no better than a murderer ,some people may argue this . However just imagine you were in his position , your countrymen killed , maybe your family , its government brought to its knees by another invading country etc nobody will help and you cannot directly attack the government there , I wish for you to answer why this man should not be allowed to seek revenge on this country's people innocent or not till he and his people gain freedom. Now pf course you have said how would you like it if it was your family getting killed by this man , I admit I would be devastated and full of hate etc . But you have to understand there is a harsh truth about life , this " terrorist" might be killed himself and has already lost his family of he does not take drastic action , There is a in old saying " kill or , be killed ".
rougeagent21

Con

While my opponent does not specifically address my points, I will attempt to address his appropriately.

My opponent agrees to ALL of my arguments, but then comes back by saying: "Well, think about it! If you were..."
Nonetheless, he agrees with my definitions, and with the fact that terrorism violates the term "just." IT IS IN THE ETYMOLOGY! Consider the word: Terrorism. "The unlawful use or threat of violence." Now consider the word: Just. "Guided by truth, reason, etc. according to the law." Key words there-According to the law. Terrorism is against the law by definition, and therefore is, by definition, unjust. That being said, terrorism CANNOT be justified, since the words are polar opposites. Every example my opponent gives you IS STILL BREAKING THE LAW. Therefore, it is UNJUST. That goes directly against the resolution. For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

i agree to an extent with your arguement i never said i agree ... dont try to make it look that way .

im going to finish this with the same example i have been using all the way through this debate.

if somebody supresses your freedom your right to live , you must take matters into your own hands , i dare say it at the risk of vote bombing , but whats the lifes of a 100 maybe a 1000+ comapred to the lifes and freedom of millions , the only acts of terrorism that cannot be jusistified are those that are not in the name of freedom for yourself or fellow countrymen.
rougeagent21

Con

Well, my opponent can't seem to make up his mind. Does he agree, disagree, partway? He does not attack my case, so I can only assume that he does. Given that, I will now attack, again, his repetitive example.

"im going to finish this with the same example i have been using all the way through this debate."

...That I have already attacked.

"if somebody supresses your freedom your right to live , you must take matters into your own hands , i dare say it at the risk of vote bombing , but whats the lifes of a 100 maybe a 1000+ comapred to the lifes and freedom of millions , the only acts of terrorism that cannot be jusistified are those that are not in the name of freedom for yourself or fellow countrymen."

OK, lets take a real-life situation here. Middle-eastern radicals feel oppressed by US presence. They want "freedom." They want justice for "fellow countrymen." What do they do? Terrorism. How is it felt by innocent bystanders? 9/11. Its that simple. Terrorism is unjust by definition. (Which my opponent did not contend) In addition, it kills innocent people in the name of "freedom." Was 9/11 in the name of "freedom?" Sure, why not. Was 9/11 just? Absolutely not. Since the resolution specifically states whether or not certain acts of terrorism can be justified, one can only negate it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
True. Had that been brought up, I would have addressed it.
Posted by JPRieux 7 years ago
JPRieux
Rangersfootballclub, I have never witnessed a more pathetic attempt at debating this issue. The entire time I was reading the debate, I wanted you to do well. I wanted you to stick daggers in rougeagent's arguments, Lord knows there were enough of them, but you failed to at every turn and continued beating your dead horse of the IRA.

Also, rogueagent, the act of war itself may not have been terrorism, but the habitual tar and feathering of supporters of Britain and the Boston Tea Party are both terrorist acts.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Correct terrorism?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Actually, that was not terrorism, EVEN by today's standards. As was defined, terrorism is used against the public. CIVILIANS. We did not go around shooting British citizens, but rather fought their military. That is WAR, not terrorism.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Hey rougeagent21, I gotta agree with rangersfootballclub on this one. Our revolutionary war and our declaring our freedom is an act of terrorism by today's standards. It's the only way sometimes. Although there is no form of correct modern terrorism.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rangersfootballclubrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
rangersfootballclubrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
rangersfootballclubrougeagent21Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rangersfootballclubrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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