The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
G131994
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,097 times Debate No: 44637
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Wylted

Pro

Definitions;

Justified: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The word reasonable is highly subjective so for the purposes of this debate , I will be arguing that the Unabomber was just or right.

When I say the Unabomber's actions I'm specifically referring to the ones that made headlines before his real name was known by the public.

If you don't qualify to accept this tournament but can show you will be a worthy opponent who will see this debate through then I will change the requirements so you can join it.

Structure-

round 1- acceptance
Round 2-3- arguments/rebuttals
Round 4- summary and rebuttals. No new arguments.
G131994

Con

I will accept.
I look forward to reading my opponents opening arguments and hope for an interesting debate.
I wish my opponent good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Thank you con for accepting this debate.

1.Motivations of the unabomber

The unabomber wanted to put an end to the industrial-technological system currently in place. He saw all the damage it was doing to the Earth and its inhabitants and decided to end it before got worse and hurt even more people, animals and the environment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Damages to the environment.

A. The industrial/technological system is the main factor behind global warming. We know that global warming is man made and a result of the industrial-technological revolution is because of the amount of low isotope carbon-14 found in the atmosphere. Something that mainly comes from burning fossil fuels.

http://ossfoundation.us...

B. More then 14,000 people die from drinking polluted water every day [1]. Nearly half a billion people do not have access to safe drinking water [2]. I've only mentioned the human element so far. This pollution is also causing extremely harmful affects on underwater ecosystems as well. The sources of this harmful phenomenon is mostly human caused and as a result of the industrial-technological system. If you look at the sources of water pollution in the cited article you will come to the same conclusion [3].

[1] http://environment.about.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

C. Air pollution

The industrial technological system has harmed the quality of the air we breathe. Smog is something caused by pollutants from internal combustion engines of cars as well as industrial fumes from factories. [1] The health affects of smog are harmful to everyone but especially children, the elderly, those with bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma [2].

[1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://web.archive.org...

2. Harm of the industrial-technological society on Animals.

A. Factory farming has reduced animals to mere cogs in the machine. Animals are out in cages that are extremely crowded . They live their whole lives barely able to move. [1] They are on many occasions force fed in a way that causes extreme damage and pain [2]. They are debeaked [3]. This is just a short list of the abuse these animals take to feed the industrial-technological system.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://m.humanesociety.org...
[3] http://www.mercyforanimals.org...

B. I've already shown how underwater ecosystems are being destroyed by the industrial-technological system. Now let's move on to other ecosystems. Over 50% of plant and animal species live in the rainforest[1]. The majority of the deforestation occurring in these areas can be directly contributed to the industrial-technological system [2].

[1] http://www.nature.org...
[2] http://unfccc.int...

3. Harmful affects to humans

A. It's not just animals who are reduced to mere cogs in the industrial-technological society. Humans have almost lost all autonomy. We have been reduced to wage slave [1]. Are movement is extremely controlled. We must walk on the side walk follow green lights, stop at red ones.

[1] http://www.whywork.org...

B. People do not have control over how they are governed. Mysterious people in far away lands decide if they have a right to get married, smoke a cigarette or do a drug. Experts design cities and humans have lost control over their environment. Computers make lots of decisions humans can't comprehend either such as how a new sewer systems get put in place. Some of it may seem petty but it's just a few examples of millions of how humans have lost most of their autonomy.

C. Humans in third world countries are being severely harmed as a result of the industrial-technological system. The newly industrial societies use people almost as slave labor and the intense pollution obviously has a significant environmental affect.[1]

http://m.wisegeek.org...

4. Psychological affects on humans.

A. Humans have a great need for the feeling of autonomy [1]. People have fought and died for their right to have autonomy. Often when people are suffering depression they claim to feel like they have no control over the direction of their life. Autonomy is an innate human desire that isn't going away despite the fact the more the industrial-technological beast grows the more us humans lose our autonomy.

[1] http://m.psychologytoday.com...

5.Kaczynski saw that this beast was growing stronger and must be stopped. The technological-industrial society needed to fall sooner rather then later so we could stop more people from suffering.

The unabomber followed in the footsteps of Marx and decided to draw some attention to himself and by extension his research and be the spark that caused a revolution to stop the industrial-technological system.

Unlike Marx, Kaczynski needed a more extreme way to get his message out there. He found that extreme way and now he is the intellectual leader of a revolution once started, that will save the entire planet.
G131994

Con


The debate is whether or not the Unabomber is justified in his actions. He thought it was ok to send bombs with the purpose to harm or kill innocent people to send a political message. He ended the lives of three innocent people and changed the lives of twenty three others who were injured.


http://www.newseum.org...


My opponent has listed a number of views which the Unabomber believed in some of which are caused solely by the industrialisation of the world some have many causes. This is however irrelevant in my view. Everyone has ideas and views they feel strongly on this cannot be used as an excuse to send bombs to kill or harm another human being.


Osama bin laden hated Americas intervention in the west just as the Unabomber hated the industrialisation of the world Yet I don’t think you would defend Osama bin Laden actions on the 11the of September so how can you defend the Unabomber. Both men committed atrocities in the name of their political views trying to change public opinion using fear and terror. If you accept the Unabomber’s actions act just because he believed in the cause what he was fighting for then you must also say that Osama bin laden was just.


http://www.usnews.com...


The Unabomber chose not to campaign like any ordinary political movement but instead chose to kill and maim innocent people. If many people believed in what the Unabomber believed in then he could founded a political party with his manifesto as its core beliefs. An example of this being done in the past is the foundation of the green party which was founded to promote a greener world they share many of the Unabombers beliefs. Using democratic channels to obtain a position of power and make the changes he believed in. He made a conscious decision not to do this but instead he tried to force his ideas on the people through a terror campaign.


http://www.greenparty.org.uk...


To summarise you have listed his views and yes many people will agree with those views. But bombing innocent people to impose forcefully your ideas is exactly the kind of tactics used by al qaeda and has no place in a 21st century world. Bombing people into accepting your beliefs and ideas can never be justified.


Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

I've posted my first argument to show how Ted Kaczynski's motives were justified. If his motives aren't justified then his actions aren't as well. My opponent has decided not to attack Kaczynski's motives. Cons argument can be summarized by saying " Kaczynski's motives are good but his actions aren't".

I'm going to go into my rebuttals now and then follow it up by addressing any justification for the unabomber's actions not covered in the rebuttals.

Rebuttals,

"The debate is whether or not the Unabomber is justified in his actions. He thought it was ok to send bombs with the purpose to harm or kill innocent people to send a political message. He ended the lives of three innocent people and changed the lives of twenty three others who were injured."

The unabomber wasn't trying to send a political message. He declared war on the industrial-technological society that we've already established is causing extreme harm to the planet and it's inhabitants man and animal alike. A lot of the harm is physical and a lot psychological ( such as taking away the autonomy of man and beast ).

These weren't innocent men he went after. Even if they were innocent, why is their well being more important then the billions of other people living on this planet. Kaczynski was a mathematician. He got out his pencil and paper ( no calculators he was against technology) and did the math. The math said sacrificing 26 but only 3 fully, to save billions was a good bet. I will get to how Kaczynski chose how targets after the rebuttals.

"My opponent has listed a number of views which the Unabomber believed in some of which are caused solely by the industrialisation of the world some have many causes. This is however irrelevant in my view. Everyone has ideas and views they feel strongly on this cannot be used as an excuse to send bombs to kill or harm another human being."

The unabomber's motivations are extremely relevant and important to understand. The unabomber didn't send bombs simply because he had strong views. Not all strong views would motivate the acts of war the unabomber carried out. Not all strong views are justified in going to war, but the unabomber's views were. It would have been highly immoral for him to just sit back and allow billions of people to be severely harmed by the industrial-technological system. Con, you've already conceded that the unabomber's views/motivations are accurate. Knowing this is accurate how can you expect him to sit back and just watch and do nothing as he sees everyone he has ever loved be severely harmed even enslaved to the industrial-technological system?The unabomber not only stepped up to protect his own family from this vicious cycle and course of events, but he also tried to save your family. A thank you letter to the unabomber in his prison cell is in order.

"Osama bin laden hated Americas intervention in the west just as the Unabomber hated the industrialisation of the world Yet I don"t think you would defend Osama bin Laden actions on the 11the of September so how can you defend the Unabomber. Both men committed atrocities in the name of their political views trying to change public opinion using fear and terror. If you accept the Unabomber"s actions act just because he believed in the cause what he was fighting for then you must also say that Osama bin laden was just."

This is a false analogy fallacy[1]. Bin Ladens actions in no way resemble Kazynski's. They had completely different motivations and their tactics were different also as well as their targets. Kaczynski actually touches on and heavily implies his motives in the unabomber manifesto[2]. He was planting the seeds of revolution against a heartless and oppressive regime ( industrial-technological system).

It's interesting to note that the source con cited when writing of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 actually rail against government officials for mischaracterizing Bin Laden's motives as being against freedom. It would be reasonable to conclude the author of that piece would also be against characterizing Bin Laden's motives in a way meant to instill hate instead of actually taking the time to understand his motives.

[1]Baronett, Stan (2008). Logic. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 321""325. ISBN 978-0-13-193312-5.

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

"The Unabomber chose not to campaign like any ordinary political movement but instead chose to kill and maim innocent people. If many people believed in what the Unabomber believed in then he could founded a political party with his manifesto as its core beliefs. An example of this being done in the past is the foundation of the green party which was founded to promote a greener world they share many of the Unabombers beliefs. Using democratic channels to obtain a position of power and make the changes he believed in. He made a conscious decision not to do this but instead he tried to force his ideas on the people through a terror campaign."

The system can't be reformed. Every single day society becomes more industrialized and more technologically advanced. The obvious solution is to bring the system down. Creating a political party is a horrible way to do this. The democratic process has been severely undermined by the industrial-technological system and it's only getting worse. More on this momentarily.

Examining Kazynski's right to revolution,

Democratic process-

Democratic means of this type of Revolution are ineffective. 90% of the media is controlled by just 6 corporations [1]. These corporations are a part of the industrial-technological system that Kaczynski was trying to save us from. These agents of the system have undermined the democratic process by controlling the information the general public gets access to. Effectively brain washing the public[2]. The democratic process would not be a valid way for Kaczynski to overthrow the industrial-technological society.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...
[2] http://books.zcommunications.org...

Enemy combatants,

Kazynski didn't go around killing and injuring innocent people. The people Kazynski targeted had a direct hand in furthering the oppressive technoindustrial system.

Some Enemy combatants killed or maimed by Unabomber. Notice all of them are tied to or were directly involved in furthering this system.

1. Percy Wood president of united Airline.
2.Diogenes Angelakos engineering.
3.Hugh Scrutton- owner of a computer store.
4. Gary Wright- computer store owner.

Justification for the revolution,

There is a natural/god given right to revolution. This right has even been codified into American law[1]. The very same language and reasons used by America's founders to revolt against England,can also be used to revolt against the industrial-technological system. Certainly a society whose government and people who were already freed by revolution could not condemn acts of revolution used for similar purposes.

Declaration of Independence[2].( Obviously you'd have to change the wording a little for Kaczynski's purposes. In his case he is referring to the industrial-technological system as opposed to a government. Surprisingly you wouldn't have to change the language too much. )

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

[1] See Christian G. Fritz, American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War' (In Chapter 2, entitled "Revolutionary Constitutionalism," Professor Fritz notes that after the Revolution, "[i]ncreasingly, as Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a constitutional principle permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit.")(Cambridge University Press, 2008) at p. 25 [ISBN 978-0-521-88188-3
[2] http://www.archives.gov...

Summary,

1. Con concedes that Kaczynski's reasons are true. He just argues that Kaczynski should have used democratic channels to end the industrial-technological system.

2. I have shown that the democratic process has been undermined.

3.I've then went on to show that Kaczynski had a legal and moral duty to overthrow the system.

The Unabomber was indeed justified.
G131994

Con

‘’ The unabomber wasn't trying to send a political message. He declared war on the industrial-technological society that we've already established is causing extreme harm to the planet and it's inhabitants man and animal alike’’

He had a set of ideas that he believed in political can be defined as ‘’ motivated by a person’s beliefs or actions ‘’ he clearly believed in what he was doing therefore it can be regarded as a political statement.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

‘’These weren't innocent men he went after. Even if they were innocent, why is their well being more important than the billions of other people living on this planet. Kaczynski was a mathematician. He got out his pencil and paper ( no calculators he was against technology) and did the math. The math said sacrificing 26 but only 3 fully, to save billions was a good bet. I will get to how Kaczynski chose how targets after the rebuttals.’’

‘’ to save billions was a good bet’’ You have provided no evidence to suggest his actions would save billions of people. I would like to point out since industrialisation of the world the average life expectancy has increased year on year worldwide this is down to improvements in medicine and our understanding of the world we live in this directly contradicts your unproven argument.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com...

You first state that ’These weren't innocent men he went after’ and then change to ‘Even if they were innocent’ this is a direct contradiction on your part. ‘’why is their wellbeing more important then the billions of other people living on this people’’ ok so you think it is ok for one man to play god and take people’s lives in order to make a statement about the way we live ?. Let me ask you would you still have the same view if your mother, farther, brother or sister had been blown to pieces by a man who deemed their life insignificant compared to the masses.

‘’ Not all strong views would motivate the acts of war the unabomber carried out. Not all strong views are justified in going to war, but the unabomber's views were’’ People thought history have convinced themselves that going to war or starting a war is just rather than sitting down to discuss differences and reach valid logical solutions. Far too many people resort to violence and murder to resolve differences let’s look at his goals as you stated he wanted to stop/revers the industrialisation of the world. How was sending bombs to kill people ever going to change public opinion and help him achieve his goals ? Blowing innocent people up is going to alienate the public form the ideas you support , surely he would have been better using established political channels as I stated in the previous round.

‘’ It's interesting to note that the source con cited when writing of Osama Bin Laden ‘’ I will not accept advise on sources from anyone who deems wikipedia as a valid reliable source.

‘’This is a false analogy fallacy[1]. Bin Ladens actions in no way resemble Kazynski's. They had completely different motivations and their tactics were different also as well as their targets.’’

Both men killed innocent people to promote their ideas. They both killed innocent people to send their own message. Bin Ladens actions and that of the Unabomber are very similar in principle. If you defend the Unabombers right to low people up the you also defend Bin Ladens as you cannot have double standards.

‘’ The system can't be reformed’’. People in south African never thought There would be a black president however nelson Mandela used the political system to change the opinion of a nation political systems are at the key to reform our society anything is achievable.

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu...

‘’ Effectively brain washing the public[2]. The democratic process would not be a valid way for Kaczynski to overthrow the industrial-technological society.’’ Democratic process gives power to the people and lets us decide who run the country. Kaczynski took it on himself to try to take that right from all of us and force his ideas on all of us. A political campaign that is voted for by the people is the only way to change the world .

‘’Some Enemy combatants killed or maimed by Unabomber. Notice all of them are tied to or were directly involved in furthering this system.

1. Percy Wood president of united Airline.
2.Diogenes Angelakos engineering.
3.Hugh Scrutton- owner of a computer store.
4. Gary Wright- computer store owner.’’

You brand an engineer and a couple of people who own a store. People who go to work to provide for their family an enemy. These people turned up for work one day and here lives were never the same again because some mentally disturbed nutter decided that they were an enemy this cannot be just.

‘’ There is a natural/god given right to revolution.’’ There is also a commandment that states thou shall not murder. No matter what country or religion you are part of no one has the right to kill another human being.

To Summarise

My opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof that the unabombers actions (killing and maiming innocent people) were justified.

Democratic proses is far more effective than bombing people into acceptance

No country on earth would deem the unabombers actions as justifiable.

Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

I would first like to start the final round by thanking my opponent for participating in this debate.

Rebuttals,

"He had a set of ideas that he believed in political can be defined as "" motivated by a person"s beliefs or actions "" he clearly believed in what he was doing therefore it can be regarded as a political statement."

I'm not sure my opponent understood what I was saying. I'm not disputing that Kaczynski had political motivations. I was stating that his actions would more accurately be described as acts of revolution then mere political messages.

"" You have provided no evidence to suggest his actions would save billions of people. I would like to point out since industrialisation of the world the average life expectancy has increased year on year worldwide this is down to improvements in medicine and our understanding of the world we live in this directly contradicts your unproven argument."

I've shown how the industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet and in many cases kills them. My opponent never contested the arguments I made showing that. I've also shown that many if not most people would prefer to risk death then face losing their autonomy. So yes I have proven that Kaczynski's actions were meant to save billions of lives from the harm of the industrial-technological system. I've also shown that these harms are worth saving them from.

Arguing that the industrial revolution has extended people's lifespans is pointless. It's added years to their life but they've had to sacrifice their autonomy to achieve it. I've already shown psychological studies that show people prefer death to a loss of autonomy.

" ok so you think it is ok for one man to play god and take people"s lives in order to make a statement about the way we live ?. Let me ask you would you still have the same view if your mother, farther, brother or sister had been blown to pieces by a man who deemed their life insignificant compared to the masses."

My opponent is still using an appeal to emotion, but it doesn't work in his case. The industrial-technological system the unabomber was fighting against has killed and maimed significantly more people then the unabomber could ever dream to. You keep painting his actions as a political statement. These are acts of revolution painting them as a political message is deceptive. If you want to argue that his revolution wasn't justified fine, but it is wrong to paint his actions as mere statements. On another note I would be both sad and honored if a relative of mine lost their life so many more could one day gain their freedom.

"" I will not accept advise on sources from anyone who deems wikipedia as a valid reliable source."

I was just pointing out the opinion piece you used as a source actually disagreed with the type of analysis you gave for Bin Laden's actions. The vast majority of my sources aren't from Wikipedia. The times I do use Wikipedia sources it is to give a brief overview of a complicated subject. In those instances it's obviously preferable to do that, then to waste space quoting upwards of 20 sources in wikipedia's place.

"Both men killed innocent people to promote their ideas. They both killed innocent people to send their own message. Bin Ladens actions and that of the Unabomber are very similar in principle. If you defend the Unabombers right to low people up the you also defend Bin Ladens as you cannot have double standards."

Bin Laden was protesting America's foreign policy in relation to Israel. Kaczynski was sparking a revolution against the industrial-technological system. So no, I don't see what connection your trying to stretch to make here. It seems like you're just trying to make the 2 fit together to fit your argument. However hard you try, showing Bin Laden's actions were unjust in no way shows Kaczynski's actions were unjust.

""" There is a natural/god given right to revolution."" There is also a commandment that states thou shall not murder. No matter what country or religion you are part of no one has the right to kill another human being."

The reference to natural/god given rights was in no way a religious argument or statement. Don't get tripped up on the word god it's just a reference to a philosophy of freedom.

"Democratic proses is far more effective than bombing people into acceptance"

My opponent has neither made arguments showing the democratic process to be superior to revolution for complete overhaul of society, or has made any rebuttals of my arguments showing why the democratic process isn't appropriate in this situation.

Summary,

1. I have shown that the unabomber's motives were justified my opponent has not disputed any of the evidence given for the unabomber's motives.

2. I have shown how revolution was the proper course to take in this scenario and why the democratic process wouldn't be effective. My opponent has failed to offer any rebuttals for the justifications I have for revolution. My opponent has failed to offer rebuttals to the arguments I made showing the political process would not be effective in this scenario.

Once again I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate.
G131994

Con


I would like to take the opportunity to thank Wylted for an interesting debate.



‘’ I'm not sure my opponent understood what I was saying. I'm not disputing that Kaczynski had political motivations. I was stating that his actions would more accurately be described as acts of revolution then mere political messages.’’



I understood exactly what my opponent was saying. However a revolution is driven by a political message. A revolution is a ‘’ a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.’’ The Unabomber was trying to start one but it never reached that stage. He was merley stating his political opinions in order to try and trigger a revolution however he gained almost no support for his ideas. Therefore his actions were based on a political message not a revolution.


‘’ I've shown how the industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet and in many cases kills them’’ You have not provided any evidence to show that everyone’s life is of a poorer quality than 300 years ago. That fact is people thought history have been forced to work forced to answer to the leaders of our society whether it be kings , queens or dictators we have never had our autonomy. As highlighted we live longer now than we ever have, less children die of cholera , Diphtheria, chicken pox than at any point in history therefore you have failed to prove how the ‘’ industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet’’


‘’Bin Laden was protesting America's foreign policy in relation to Israel. Kaczynski was sparking a revolution against the industrial-technological system. So no, I don't see what connection your trying to stretch to make here’’ Both men used bombs and terrorist tactics to try and intimidate others into accepting their views they didn’t try to give people a choice but used tactics that can never be justified. Give some of the arguments my opponent has dreamt up I don’t see why he finds this argument so hard to comprehend. My opponent has also not stated any reason why Bin Laden Bombing people and the Unabomber bombing people is different therefore my argument stands.


‘’ I would be both sad and honored if a relative of mine lost their life so many more could one day gain their freedom.’’ My opponent appears to have lost the plot he is saying he would have been honoured if the Unabomber choose to blow up a relative of his. I find this hard to believe.


‘’ The reference to natural/god given rights was in no way a religious argument or statement. Don't get tripped up on the word god it's just a reference to a philosophy of freedom.’’ I made the reference to god as that is what you stated if you didn’t mean it the try to phrase your arguments better. The point still stands no one has the right to murder another human being.



Summery


The Debate is ‘’ The Unabomber was justified in his actions’’


Throughout the debate I have consistently argued that sending bombs to terrorise people into accepting one person’s personal views is not and never will be justifiable. My opponent has provided no compelling arguments to contradict this position.


As shown in round 2 and 3 there are cases such as the green party and the events in south Africa where if people support your beliefs then there are democratic methods to change society. The Unabomber did not follow democratic proses because he knew it would fail not because the democratic process is flawed but as I have also shown throughout this debate his ideas where flawed he therefore chose to try and force his ideas on us by the use of bombs. His actions were not justified.


I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.











Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Thank you g1319544. It was fun.
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
G131994
Thank you Kbub and Wylted for the topic one of the most interesting debates I have been in.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Awe, thank you kbub.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
This is now one of my favorite debates I've seen, including my own. Great job on both sides.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Fantastic debate round Wylted!
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
G131994
No problem no rush.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
G131994 I'm working on my arguments still. I will post them so please be patient with me.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
If you accept the debate don't take it lightly. I will formulate very good arguments.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
http://en.wikipedia.org...

To give you a good ideal of how the debate would look I would Most likely take a stance that his anti technology stance justified the terrorist actions he committed which involve sending bombs through the mail to kill people.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
No Ted Kaczynski. He mailed bombs to a bunch of people for a while.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by A.WitherspoonVI 3 years ago
A.WitherspoonVI
WyltedG131994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: A truly spectacular debate from both sides. Voting took careful consideration. Firstly, I believe conduct and spelling both belong to Con due to some mistakes Wylted made in Round 3. But lets get to the meat and potatoes. Pro's explanation and evidence in the opening round 2 for the repugnance of Idustrialization was insightful and reasonable justification for the Unabomber's actions. Con's Reducto Ad 9/11 was an unsatisfactory response to Pro's points. That being said, pro did field poor arguments(Revolution as right+attack on Wikipedia) in the 3rd round, which Con rebutted well. Moving on to the final two rounds Pro closes out victoriously, demonstrating that Con's arguments are greatly emotional and the inability of sustainable change via representative democracy. Good job to both of you, I left this debate with a changed view on the matter and deeper insight.