The Instigator
th3pr3tz3l
Pro (for)
Tied
32 Points
The Contender
stand4something
Con (against)
Tied
32 Points

Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,059 times Debate No: 4975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (19)

 

th3pr3tz3l

Pro

I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist. This is not about global warming, this is about a simple definition. Please do not vote based on opinion, vote on the debate.

Now while I await an opponent to accept, I will bring up some of my main points.

Here is the defintion fo terrorism the United States government uses:

"To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

By this definition Al Gore is a terrorist.

I Believe Al Gore used his film, An Incovenient Truth, to scare the masses into a panic about global warming. He showed images of some of the countries largest cities being destroyed by flooding as they were lower than sea level. Doomsaying as this could do much more than just worry people about global warming, it could even affect things like housing prices in the area! Although I am not saying he would have caused these other affects intentionally, would he not have intimidated, and in doing that, coerced a civilian population as the definition of terrorism states?

Even Richard S. Lindzen, a writer for Wall Street Journal, wrote in the June 26, 2006 issue that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain.

Here we have the definition of terrorism used by the European Union :

"given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation."

Now I will shut down at least one argument I know will come into use by my opponent if they dont have common sense, that is that he didn't commit any violent acts, so no he can't be a terrorist.

Here is the definition of terrorism used by the United Kingdom:

"a) the action falls within subsection,(2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

Here violence is a possible method of terrorism, but not necessary for the act to be committed.

I hope this will be a good debate.
stand4something

Con

Ok, this was kinda funny so i decided to take a stab at it. I'll admit that old Al is a bit of a blow heart but a terrorist.....thats more than a stretch.

My opponents argument is that Gore's movie, An Incovenient Truth, was essentialy terrorist propaganda meant to "scare the masses into a panic about global warming". Remember, his burden is as stated: "I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist."

I think this debate fundementally boils down to the notion that words have meanings. My opponent wants to open up the word terrorist to include anybody that has something to say that might cause concern or worry in another person. Is your mother a terrorist for telling you to put on sun screen because you may get cancer (although like global warming, that is disputed by some scientists ;) He claims that this has "Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming". So in effect, his argument is not even hinged on the claim that the panic inducing warnings expressed by Gores movie Arent true...He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful. If you believe that a terrorist is anybody that makes you worry about something than you should vote pro regardless of the following rounds.

My opponent asks you to vote on simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court. but assuming that his (not so)"simple definition" will allow us to better understand whether or not Gore is one lets examine it:

"a) the action falls within subsection,(2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

I really dont even know what my oppenent is talking about. Here he outlines the criteria for a terrorist....which clearly exhonerates Gore. I'm eager to hear his rebuttal...

btw my aunt called me this morning a told me to watch out because the flu is going around....does anybody have the number to homeland security?...i want to report her as a terrorist
Debate Round No. 1
th3pr3tz3l

Pro

We have a challenger.

"My opponent asks you to vote on a simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court."

Well the United States Government disagrees with you, there is a very simple defenition and it has been stated.

I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism.

"a) the action falls within subsection,(2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

I will also point out that even if Al Gore did not fit this defenition of terrorism in the United Kingdom, he would still be considered a terrorist by the European Union, and the United States of America.

Earlier in the debate you stated:

"He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful."

This is not what I am saying, you are being misleading. I point you once again, to the defenition of terrorism used by the United States of America.

"To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not.

In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists.

This is a statement by Edward Peck, the former U.S Chief of Mission in Iraq.

"In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities."

He is a testament to the failure of us to explain what we mean. He attempted to define terrorism, and it implicated the United States Government itself. Now it implicated one of that countries upstanding citizens, Al Gore.

We face the ultimate challenge in defining our language, and we fail often. This is one of our failures.
stand4something

Con

Where do I even begin. My opponent wants to confuse you by taking word after word out of context and manipulating it to fit his silly arguement that Al Gore is a Terrorist. Lets examine the evidence he provides.

"I presented to you the defenition below, and you scoffed, you say it exhonerates Al Gore. I point you to section (c). This IMPLICATES Al Gore. I point out, you must only meet one of the criteria listed to be committing an act of terrorism."

"a) the action falls within subsection,(2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

I ask my opponent to source and link this information because it appears to be incomplete. As I understand, any definition from subsection 1 has to have an action that falls into subsection 2 to qualify as terroism. My opponent is claiming that by definition of the US Government anyone who attepts to "advance a political, religious or ideological cause" is a terrorist. This is a gross (and a bit silly) mis-interpretation of the law.

He points to another uncited definition of terrorism as: "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

and goes on to say:

"He is not a terrorist just because he causes fear. It is because he used his documentary, as a method to scare the public, and in turn influence the worlds governments to attempt to stop global warming. As I said previously , he could have also "intimidated the civilian population" and in turn affected housing prices in the area. Wether he meant to or not."

My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate.

Now...superflous claims and botched definitions aside, my opponent was begining to touch on something kinda interesting towards the end of his argument:

"In the end my argument exists to point out Al Gore is a terrorist. But the main goal is to point out the failure of human language to explain what we mean. We attempt to explain what a terrorist is, yet in the end we implicate those we do not view as terrorists."

subtract the fist sentence of that paragraph and your actually on to something there.
Debate Round No. 2
th3pr3tz3l

Pro

I am afraid I must concede. I have found that the defenitions I have used are incomplete, and taken out of context. I did not realize this...

When looking at the definitions in their entirety I see that none implicate Al Gore. I am afraid you must vote con.

But there are still points you made that are mute.

"My opponent has no evidence that Al Gore used his film as a "method to scare the public" and provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the "civilian population" was intimidated by Gore's movie. He goes on to claim that Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing prices "whether he meant to or not". These claims have no merrit whatsover and, although a bit humerous, hold no weight in this debate."

When you said this you're completely incorrect. At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's."

I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another.

And when it comes to, evidence that Al Gore used his film as a method to scare the public, my evidence should be sitting in the "obvious" column. Fear is the most efficient form of control, it is used constantly by governments and organizations. It is woven into the very fibre of the documentary. Anyone would be afraid if someone came at them with images of their homes and businesses being washed away in an immense flood.

And yes the main goal was to tackle the issue of our inability to define what we mean with language, without actually tackling the issue. I may have gone about it the wrong way, in attempting to get attention to my issue by making a big astounding statement that would shock people. Maybe next time, I should actually tackle the issue itself...

So, while I do concede defeat with this topic, your rebuttle still had many incorrect points, and I do stand by the underlying message of this debate about language, although it was not proven...TODAY.

I lose my first debate =P
stand4something

Con

Bada bing......

[At no point did I say "Al Gore's movie directly resulted in a reduction of housing price's."

I said that the movie COULD have resulted in a reduction in housing prices, and in doing so COULD have fallen under, what I believed to be the definition at the time. I was inderectly making the point that wether it was purposeful or not, Al Gore could've indirectly coerced or intimidated the population in some way or another.]

...thats pretty funny...in the future i wont respond to claims you qualify with COULD....my bad..
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AEQUITAS 5 years ago
AEQUITAS
Con obviously had better definitions and sources though.
Posted by AEQUITAS 5 years ago
AEQUITAS
Haven't made up my mind on this one yet. The issue for me is that Paul Revere was delivering facts. Global warming has not even been proved yet. There lots of evidence out there that suggest quite the opposite of what Al Gore wants us all to believe. Also, The guy who started this whole global warming thing believed that it would actually be good for the planet. He said that because plants need carbon to grow that they would grow bigger and we would have cleaner air. He also said that parts of Greenland would melt, but rather than this bringing about the end of the world he believed that it would simply make Greenland inhabitable; thus solving possible (I stress the word possible) overcrowding population issues. So the thing for me is that Gore is trying to make us believe something that actually has more evidence against it than for it. Paul Revere was telling of something that had already occured. It was fact. the disaster of global warming is pure theory and a bad one at that. I honestly believe that because of its inherent ridiculousness that it is designed to take away freedoms of the American public. "For every protection society gains, it loses a freedom." This is the social contract. Al Gore scares everyone in to taking the government's protection from Global warming and they lose freedoms in return. Thus, I agree that Al Gore is a terrorist.
Posted by bullslapper 6 years ago
bullslapper
Sorry you did not convince me Gore is a terrorist ,a alarmist yes, terrorist no.
He could be a traitor and had let China have some of our nuke secrets but you did not mention
that ether.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Both Paul Revere and Al Gore warned of an imminent threat.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
By the way how is Paul Revere a terrorist? He just delivered a message a few miles. He wasn't even the one who did the "Ride of Paul Revere," a guy named Israel Bissell was actually the one that rode that far, Revere took a shorter route but had a better name for the poem :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Technically, Gore is not coercing anyone, nor intimidating them. The things Gore argues exists intimidate people, but intimidate is more of a passive verb, specifically, to intimidate someone, their fear has to be of YOU. Not of something you are trying to convince them exists, but did not cause (well technically it is I suppose POSSIBLE that Al Gore caused global warming, his personal bodily emissions could POSSIBLY have been what pushed us over the edge (he's large enough to make plenty of them :D), assuming the anthropogenic theory (which I don't consider the evidence to exist for).
Posted by lillunchboxbandit 6 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
As much as I am against global warming and as much as I was for Al Gore when Bush managed to actually "win" the election (as we all know was won because a robot destroyed Al Gore's votes), I suppose that according to that definition, Al Gore is in fact a terrorist. At first, that was the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard, until I read the defenition. By the way, the robot was probably programmed by Bush.
Posted by th3pr3tz3l 6 years ago
th3pr3tz3l
It's because alot of people just read the first 2 posts or so, and make up their mind.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
If Al Gore were able to be defined as a terrorist, so would Paul Revere. ;-)
Posted by stand4something 6 years ago
stand4something
I guess the voters didnt notice my opponent conceded :P
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hauki20 5 years ago
hauki20
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by magpie 5 years ago
magpie
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 5 years ago
AEQUITAS
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by Josh 6 years ago
Josh
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by th3pr3tz3l 6 years ago
th3pr3tz3l
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lillunchboxbandit 6 years ago
lillunchboxbandit
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by googzieg 6 years ago
googzieg
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
th3pr3tz3lstand4somethingTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03