The Instigator
Jokerdude
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
SolaGratia
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

"Intense" Negotiations with terrorists should happen

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: 4/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,619 times Debate No: 3474
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

Jokerdude

Pro

I'd like to start with a funny comment my opponent's name was listed incorrectly so it took me a while just to figure out who the hell I was supposed to debate, but thats over and good luck to solAgratia.

So since this is vague Ill begin with defining the word Intense from dictionary.com

" Existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree"

The way I view Intense Negotiations is where the United States will go all out killing any terrorist that is found out until the time where attacks against the US and US allies ceases.

For my arguments...

1. Ill start with a history lesson. In WWII British Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain used the policy of appeasement to the German aggressors. Needless to say it did not stop the Germans they kept pushing and pushing until Europe was on the brink of extinction by the Germans. Without intervention by the US the world map would look a lot different.

I say this because on the current path of fighting terrorism the US is emulating Chamberlains policy of appeasement. We are ignoring the root of the problems by placing the few terrorists we find in "prison." To make a true difference and reduce the amount of terrorism that we see the US must act. Like in world war 2 only force will be recognized as a medium for change. Bringing us to "Intense" Negotiations.

2. There is no other alternatives to stop terrorists that would be as effective as these "Intense Negotiations"

Jailing of terrorists instead of killing them is counter productive. They are either viewed as martyrs and pictures of their relatives holding their pictures are used in the media to portray the US as "oppressive", and they are used as pawns by other terrorists in prisoner releases which encourages kidnappings and hostage takings. If a captured terrorist was sentenced to life in prison and was planning more terrorist attacks a stay in jail will only enable him to interact with more terrorists who can carry on where he left off.

3. "Killing terrorists in a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral or even illegal"

If people haven't noticed yet we are at war with a group of people who despise the US for their religion and other cultural beliefs. They stop at nothing to kill those who they have been raised to hate. Killing these terrorists is the only way to truly deter then stop terrorism. In no way is is immoral we are protecting ourselves from death, war is such.

4. Terrorists don't listen to rhyme or reason we have a moral obligation

In order to protect the US and the world terrorism must be ended and the "negotiations have gotten us nowhere so it is time for a change. Lets bump it up a notch and see where that lands us.

Again good luck to my opponent and lets see where the debate takes us
SolaGratia

Con

Hi, Jokerdude, I assume this is part of the debate tournament? I'm a little fuzzy on all the details. Anyhow, I, too, wish you good luck, and I hope for a pleasant, insightful debate.

It seems to me your title and thesis for this debate is a little messed up. Jocular references in movies aside, I have never seen "negotiations" taken to mean, "let's blast the hell out of them."

I will address your points one by one.

You bring up the example of Neville Chamberlain and the Nazis in the 30s. This is, in fact, an excellent example, but there are several distinctions that need to be made. The Nazis were much more powerful than the terrorists today are. Chamberlain wanted to avoid the fight, and he tried to, but in the end it only gave the Nazis a head start on conquering Europe. This hesitation proved fatal politically, and today it would seem better if we had invaded, but as they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

Let's define terrorism: quite simply, it means attacks against civilians, to achieve ideological goals and create fear. So, the attacks on 9/11 targeted innocent civilians because the terrorists sought to create fear. They sought to create fear because they wanted attention. They wanted attention because they think they have been persecuted. They think they have been persecuted because that is the natural tendency of minorities and they--terrorists, not Muslims--are a serious minority.

Terrorism should be met with force: caving in, obviously, does not do any good. However, to wage all out war, or "intense" negotiations as you call them, on terrorism would be impossible. Who's a terrorist and who is not? Is it anyone who wears a hijab? Anyone who fasts at Ramadan? How do we know?

Frankly, this policy of destroying anyone who thinks terroristic thoughts or wears the clothes worn by terrorists is an awful way to deal with the problem.

Let's sum up my stance to your arguments:

1: Negated. The terrorists and Nazi Germany are not equivalent.

2: You say that killing terrorists is the only solution. Well, frankly, we have the resources to lock 'em up forever without their blood being on their hands. You say that imprisoning terrorists makes them martyrs. Killing them doesn't, huh?

3: Agreed. That is not at issue.

4: You say terrorists don't listen to rhyme or reason, and so we have a moral obligation to kill them. This is probably your strongest argument. The terrorists really DON'T listen to rhyme or reason. At heart, they're unreasonable cowards, kidnapping civilians as much as killing soldiers. And let's not forget 9/11. However, I'll get to this later.

Your extremist view is that we should exert our full ability to do so and kill every effing Muslim on the face of the earth. This is completely outrageous.

We have no way, until they strike, of knowing who is a terrorist and who is not. Come on, admit it. We can only guess what's going on in their minds, and we can't infringe on their freedom of thought. And they are terrorists, even if they haven't killed anyone yet, and so we are left at an impasse.

We are doing, in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, the best we can do. We have found the middle road between Chamberlain's appeasement and Nazi genocide. Right now, at this moment, we are following the only course for the eradication of terrorism that works: letting them wear themselves out, trying to win moderate Muslims, having a military presence in their spawning ground, and killing or imprisoning terrorists.

This is not, however, "intense negotiation." If we strike at every person suspected of terrorism, we are killing civilians and THUS we become terrorists ourselves.

Thanks for the debate, Jokerdude, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Jokerdude

Pro

So yeah the thesis was just what was posted on the site I just copied and pasted what the debate was to be on so there you go as to the title stuff.

A big thing I'd like to say prior to any other arguments is that not once did I mention Muslims or the religion of Islam so I'd like to put those arguments moot. The terrorism I am referring to spans everyone because it is discriminatory to group all terrorists within those strict boundary's.

So matching your paragraph on Chamberlain with my own...

This paragraph you state basically reiterates my point that by not invading it proved fatal. My argument is that we should take a jump on that and instead of waiting for the terrorists to wage an even more deadly war with things such as biological weapons and such. Also there are no real distinction as to say who's stronger the Nazi's or the modern day terrorists. The fighting style is different as Ill get to and each with their separate weapons.

On your definition of terrorism the part you define is again a narrow view as to what terrorism really is. It is a group of individuals who form a group in order to resist a government or group of governments. They use terror as a means of doing so. It isn't just limited to civilians it spans political figure heads to religious figure heads. Terrorists are less of a minority than you think thousands are active and even more are sleeper cells.

For the sentence you said on each of my arguments

1. You cannot in one sentence summarized the strength difference between the Nazis and the terrorists. Like I stated above these are different times with different methods, much more sneaky methods. This is the same problem and as you stated in the past it caused untold catastrophe. So no its not negated.

2. Even if we do have the resources like I said before and you chose to ignore it is counter productive. Their pictures are used in the media to portray the US as "oppressive", and they are used as pawns by other terrorists in prisoner releases which encourages kidnappings and hostage takings. Please do answer how this is a better solution then stopping the leak at the source. Also by killing them they are less likely to turn into martyrs because less people will hear of the killings and less sympathy will be given to them and strengthen our resolve.

3. Alright cool chalk one up for the good guys.

4. Um so you agreed with me at the beginning but never really said anything after like you said you would so Ill just move on.

5. The US isn't as out of the loop as you might want them to be. We do have leads and we can follow up on them. What I am arguing for is that known terrorists should be killed not people with a sketchy guess at being terrorists.

6. To group a lot of your arguments to fight such an extreme killing method must be matched with something more than a moderate half assed attempt to stop them. If Bush has shown us anything its that fighting moderately and half assed will get you no where.

To end Ill reiterate its not just people we think might kinda be terrorists, this does not make us terrorists just the opposite. We bring peace to a world that has all but consumed itself in chaos by those who choose to live as terrorists.

Thank you SolaGratia
SolaGratia

Con

There is a basic incongruity here. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jokerdude, but where I went to school, "negotiation" did not mean nuking your opponents to glass. That seems to be what you want. So I am placed in the rather unique situation of actually holding the view my opponent is supposed to hold, and he the view I am supposed to hold. Jokerdude, you have broken the rules of debate: you have a topic to argue PRO for, but you are not arguing PRO. You are arguing CON. As we are in the debate tournament, I really wonder what to do next. I suppose it's my duty to continue the debate, but this is rapidly turning into a snafu.

Ah, well, life goes on.

You say: "Terrorists are less of a minority than you think thousands are active and even more are sleeper cells." I have a feeling you just pulled that number out of the hat. However, thousands of terrorists isn't really that worrying. So there are 5,000 disgruntled camel herders camping out in the Afghan mountains with sub-machine guns, and occasionally bombing American troops and civilians. We can outlast them, we can wean them down, but killing them with one big nuke? Not the greatest idea. Ten more would rise in each of their places.

"What I am arguing for is that known terrorists should be killed not people with a sketchy guess at being terrorists." Well, frankly, except for the ones who've been convicted, we just don't know. In come cases, no one knows but they themselves until we strike. In a perfect world we would instantly know who was a terrorist and who was not, but it's not that simple. As I said before, who is a terrorist? Is it everyone who prays at a mosque? Everyone who opposes President Bush?

"To end Ill reiterate its not just people we think might kinda be terrorists, this does not make us terrorists just the opposite. We bring peace to a world that has all but consumed itself in chaos by those who choose to live as terrorists[.]"

There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. None in Europe since the subway bombings in London three years ago (I saw the site, when I was in England.) Terrorism has alot of fear-power, but it doesn't have the power or ability to destabilize the world as you think it has. The middle east, of course, is a different matter, but we are dealing with that as we speak.
Debate Round No. 2
Jokerdude

Pro

Um if you still cant get what I am arguing then sorry I cant help you. Let me redefine the topic in which we are debating. The term negotiation in itself is the process of coming to an agreement. The quotation marks around intense makes the topic so it isn't normal negotiations. I never said to nuke them, just use a forceful solution to resolve the situation. I feel dumb having to re explain this to you this far into the debate. So in this debate you as CON should be debating that we should not use intense negotiations. Hope that helps you in the final round.

Another thing that keeps bugging me throughout this debate, the fact that my opponent keeps putting words in my mouth. For those of you who have been reading this debate my opponent has said things like "nuking them" or refering to all terrorists as "Muslim". No where did I ever use either of these words so please disregard these arguments. They are arguments made in the last minute because my opponent procrastinates until the last hour or so before the argument is due.

Man what a waste of my time... Going down every argument I made

0. I'm gonna label it this because it really never had a bullet mark since it was in a paragraph. Again where the hell are you getting a nuke!??! Also saying there are thousands of terrorists was putting it conservatively, there are far more than that. It is scary because there are so many that we cant put a true number on the growing problem.

1. This point was dropped if you look at his arguments. So based on that logic my opponent concedes that the US is acting in favor of appeasement in the status quo . Also that it will not lead to anything in a positive future.

2. This point too was dropped using the same logic he concedes that by imprisoning terrorists it is counter productive. It leads to maryters and an increase in terrorism for the future.

3 & 4 These are of no value in the debate since both are agreed upon by both parties.

5. Yes Ill give you that it is a difficult task to find terrorists but not impossible. We have found several thousand, each with new leads to other terrorists. Id like to pull down the definition of terrorism from above because I really don't think my opponent read the argument other wise he wouldn't keep "redefining" the word terrorism.

6. This point too was dropped what a surprise. So again since he didn't answer he concedes that this is the best option we have. Half assed approaches wont work only this will.

7. Again this never really had a point for an argument so now its 7. While there hasn't been an attack on the US in the past few years doesn't mean that there isn't terrorism in other areas a.k.a Iraq and the surrounding areas. We have the obligation to help them out and absolve this growing crisis. Its not a different case, it is the same terrorism against the US as it would be if it is on US soil. A war on Europe's soil still is a war none the less.

I truly am depressed on how this debate turned out it started well but when my opponent started to ignore my arguments then put words in my mouth the whole debate just went down hill and since I don't speak again good luck to my opponent and vote PRO
SolaGratia

Con

SolaGratia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
it's hard to meet with people who hate everything that we represent and want us to die.
Posted by Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
Your still in it its double elimination
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
For the record, I have a term paper due, and that's why I didn't complete the debate. Jokerman, good luck in the next round of the debate tournament!
Posted by Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
Lol yeah oops but on a serious note I truly do feel bad for you if you cant follow the flow of the debate and if your on why not post
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
You may have "spealed" it, but you didn't spell it. o_O
Posted by Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
Wow and I thought I literally s-p-e-a-l-e-d it out for you and you still don't get it well I don't know what to say.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
My opponent thinks I am ignoring his arguments. In fact, it seems to be the other way around. However, as I said, I will fight this debate until the end even though my opponent has really forfeited by default since I am the one arguing that "'intense' negotiations with terrorists should happen."
Ah, well...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 g713 8 years ago
g713
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 Ahking 8 years ago
Ahking
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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 Jokerdude 8 years ago
Jokerdude
JokerdudeSolaGratiaTied
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