The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
SweetBags
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

"Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen.

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  
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: 5/5/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 3907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Tournament Round 3 #36: "Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen.

I wish good luck to my opponent…

Observation 1: Intense- The most important word within the topic of debate is "Intense." Dictionary.com (American Heritage Dictionary) defines intense as, "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort."

Observation 2: negotiations- The adjective of intense must be connected to negotiations which are defined as, "To deal or bargain with another or others, as in preparation of a treaty or contract or in preliminaries to a business deal."

Observation 3: topic of debate (resolution) - Overall the topic asks us about making negotiations with terrorists. In other words, SHOULD we put forth "extreme efforts" in order to negotiate with terrorists?

Obviously we should…

-CONTENTION I: Harms of "Intense" negotiations.
My first argument is that the harms caused by these negotiations are small. There is no way that the government would allow the terrorist to compromise to only benefit the terrorist and completely destroy us. The negotiations are a compromise between two entities that will allow for them to talk allowing for the most peaceful decision possible. In other words, there are no extra harms to negotiating and MANY benefits to negotiating.

-CONTENTION II: Harms of terrorists.
My second argument is simply the harms that can be provided by a terrorist. For that I ask you to look toward 9/11. This is the type of things that we are trying to prevent when we negotiate with terrorists. George W. Bush and company have said that they do not negotiate with terrorists. But that is simply ridiculous. Why wouldn't you try to "talk the enemy out of" doing something bad to your country. We must try to prevent these harms ANY way possible and "Intense" negotiations are the best way to do it.

-CONTETNION III: Comparison of the two harms.
When looking upon the resolution you must compare the two types of harms, "Intense" negotiations (PRO) or terrorism (CON). It's comparing compromises (or peace discussions) to such events as 9/11… it simply doesn't compare whatsoever. The harms are simply less on the PRO side.

-CONTENTION IV: "Intense" negotiations cause less harm than other forms of preventing terrorism.
As people (such as our current president) has stated, they do not negotiate with terrorists. BUT WHY NOT? By making compromises, you lessen the chance of having terrorist attacks on our nation. As my teacher always says, "Just ask, the worst thing that will happen is that I will say no." It's the same thing, if we ask the terrorists to be more peaceful, the worst they will do is say no. NOW, I ask you to take that, and compare it to other forms of preventing terrorism and that is waiting until after the fact. Such as 9/11, we waited for it to happen (and there were previous signals during the Clinton administration) AND THEN we initiated the War on Terror. This entire war could have been avoided if we would have invested in "Intense" negotiations. Even if the chance of stopping it with these negotiations is under 1%, it is still worth it when compared to risking war. However, I think that if we help the terrorists to get what they want, the chances then will inevitably increase OR AT LEAST the harms of their attacks will be mitigated to a lower level.

After these 4 contentions, you must see that there are no down sides to "Intense" negotiations and therefore I urge you to vote PRO.

I reserve the right to add and expand arguments in my next round.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent!
SweetBags

Con

SweetBags forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

AS far as the tournament goes, here is my opponent's last speech…

------------------------------------------------

"there is a flaw in my opponents observations that i must point out. his definition of intense is not the same as the US uses when dealing with its actions with terrorists. dick cheeny, vice-president of the united states, has said that the US engages in "intense" interrogations, meaning that the US can use torture to get (negotiate) information out of a terrorist. the US government itself sees intense, not as "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort" as my opponent does, but as a means to subvert fundamental agreements on how to treat prisoners such as the geneva convention. which expressially prohibits the use of torture against said prisoners. because i am against such horrible acts, i am here to negate the resolution, "Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen".
i shall present my contentions in the following round (not enough time right now, only 16 minutes left).

to rebut my opponents second point, that there is no reason to not negotiate with terrorists. this is untrue, negotiating with terrorists gives the terror group both credibility and power. lets say terror group hezbollah attacks a US base, and takes 3 soldiers captive. then it offers to "negotiate" with the US for their release. what will they try to get, they will try to get the US to stop supporting, or at least lessen support for, isreal. if the US were to agree, and to distance itself from isreal, then not only would hezbollah of gotten what it wanted, along with a newfound prestige and influence at home, but it would embolden other terror groups to do the same. terror groups such as hamas, or alqaeda. negotiation with terrorists mearly encourages others terror groups to follow in the footsteps of the one who we've negotiated with.

i shall rebut my opponents other points in the next round, as debate.org has decided ive forfited with 10 minites left."

----------------------------------------------------------

In my opponent's last speech, he basically says that I'm abusive and doesn't meet the resolution and then goes on to argue it in his own interpretation. This, in and of itself, is abusive. Look to my definition of intense as defined as, "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort"… Instead of providing a counter-definition (which I don't think there is one that supports my opponent's point of view)… he just says that my PROFESSIONAL definition is abusive. My interpretation of the topic of debate is perfectly debatable and equal. I hear all these people say that they "don't negotiate with the enemy." Well… I think that is dumb. Since my definition is the only one in the round AND my opponents interpretation is one sided and against the United States and everything that America believes in, I believe that the only fair scope of the resolution is the one that I provide.

Where he talked about the Hezbollah capturing the 3 people… I would say that America SHOULD then use "Intense" negotiations consisting of let them go or we bring your home up in flames. That seems like it fits the definition and would defiantly get the point across. America has more means of getting things done than some people believe that we do. There ARE other forms of arguing "Intense" than what my opponent says; but the most important thing that we do is NEGOTIATE. We must save our troops and whatever it takes SHOULD be done.

Please flow through (basically) all of my case. He had ten minutes left but was obviously not able to cover all of my points in that time. Procrastination doesn't usually leave you enough time to cover what you want ;) This also means that point I, II, and IV are flowed through which means that my harms of negotiations and terrorists still stand AND that my interpretation of the topic of debate is accepted and fair (IV)… People always say that they don't want to "negotiate with the enemy"… and I think that should change.

In the end, I challenge my opponent to define "Intense" in order to support his P.O.V. If he can't provide it by next round, my definition MUST be accepted.

Thanks
SweetBags

Con

i have some bad news (for me, not you johnicle, its rather good news for you). i have SAT's this weekend, and i have to study for them. as such i really cant finish this debate (no matter how much i want to). so im gonna have to forfit this round of the tourny. guess im out now, good luck in later rounds.

id be glad to debate this topic with you after the test, i think itd be alot of fun. again good luck, and thanks for the good (not as great as it couldve been) debate.

thanks
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Sorry about that... I think it's a busy time for everyone right now. Good luck on your SAT's and good luck if we ever get the chance to debate again :)

Thank you!
SweetBags

Con

thanks, ill probably need it.
have a good weekend everybody! :), unless you to are taking the SAT, in which case having a good weekend is doubtful.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
wow, someone actually voted for me. i guess i was rather eleoquint. id guess youd have to be to get someone to vote for you when you conceed.

yet another reason to require RFD's
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Urg. I wouldn't normally provide a commentary on a debate before it's over, but the problem here is the topic. While I think it was pretty obvious that the framer's intent was torture, the topic allows for the Pro's interpretation. Well, sort of, anyway. I don't think the Pro's observation three is grammatically valid. I don't think "intense negotiations" can be defined that way. Anyways, the Pro has two options now, to my thinking. They can either start over in round two promoting "intense interrogations", since I think that's what the framers intent demands anyway. If they do this, I won't hold it against them, since I blame the topic. The Pro can also continue to uphold the definitions that he gave in round one, but if he does, he needs a much better justification for them than he has right now.

I don't know about the other two judges, but that's how I see it. I think Pro's definition was pretty bone-headed, but he got a really terrible resolution, and I won't hold him accountable for getting a stupid topic to argue.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
stupid bug, heres my first round. gotta stop being such a procrastinator.
i wish my opponent good luck.

there is a flaw in my opponents observations that i must point out. his definition of intense is not the same as the US uses when dealing with its actions with terrorists. dick cheeny, vice-president of the united states, has said that the US engages in "intense" interrogations, meaning that the US can use torture to get (negotiate) information out of a terrorist. the US government itself sees intense, not as "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort" as my opponent does, but as a means to subvert fundamental agreements on how to treat prisoners such as the geneva convention. which expressially prohibits the use of torture against said prisoners. because i am against such horrible acts, i am here to negate the resolution, "Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen".
i shall present my contentions in the following round (not enough time right now, only 16 minutes left).

to rebut my opponents second point, that there is no reason to not negotiate with terrorists. this is untrue, negotiating with terrorists gives the terror group both credibility and power. lets say terror group hezbollah attacks a US base, and takes 3 soldiers captive. then it offers to "negotiate" with the US for their release. what will they try to get, they will try to get the US to stop supporting, or at least lessen support for, isreal. if the US were to agree, and to distance itself from isreal, then not only would hezbollah of gotten what it wanted, along with a newfound prestige and influence at home, but it would embolden other terror groups to do the same. terror groups such as hamas, or alqaeda. negotiation with terrorists mearly encourages others terror groups to follow in the footsteps of the one who we've negotiated with.

i shall rebut my opponents other points in the next round, as debate.org has decided ive forfited with 10 minites left.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
what they hell, i have 10 minites left. grrrrrrrrrr
ill put up a screenshot on facebook after i finish my argument in the 10 i have left.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Interesting topic....

I like it. Great framing of the resolve.

I'm your 3rd judge of the Facebook tournament, btw.

No bias!!!!

--Me
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Well first off, it was obvious - and you know it.

Secondly, SB is a debater, so he knows what framers intent is.

And if you read the Topics thread on the FB group, I asked for a clarification (I had criticisms of this topic) of framers intent, and that was given. So in reality, I merely restated what has already been stated.

So, really, I'm not contending anything - I stated a public knowlege fact, and was shocked you flew in its face.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
And now his opponent will make that very point, and you will be the contender by proxy.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Haha what an abusive "intense" deff. Framer's intent is clearly torture. XD
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
JohnicleSweetBagsTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleSweetBagsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
JohnicleSweetBagsTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
JohnicleSweetBagsTied
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 Brik 9 years ago
Brik
JohnicleSweetBagsTied
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