Is Negotiating with Terrorist Surrender?
Debate Rounds (3)
Okay so many times when a terrorist kidnaps someone and asks for ransom and the country pays it we are giving them the mentality that it is ok to do that and we will reward them for that.
Of course if we do not do anything of course there will be repercussions however we cannot fund terrorists or give back them more Terrorists
Its not peaceful. In fact there is less peace. No one takes Russian hostages. Has anyone ever noticed that never happens? The last time Russians got taken hostage was when the Czek terriorists took over a 100 Russians hostage and demanded a ransom. Vladmir Putin bombed the Theater...........
Now of course I'm not advocating we bomb the theater but giving terriorists money or more terriorists is like giving a treat to a dog for biting your hand. Hes going to bite your hand again for another treat
A better motto is "The United States does not negotiate with terriorists"
If we don't negotiate then the terrorists or other extremists will learn that we don't give in easily and that they should try different countries that are very quick to give in
Its not like terrorists are something you can reason with. Every single decision has an ulterior motive. Example: Isis is being funded by families in US and Europe by families who are giving money to free their relatives
Another example: Switching out 5 Guantanamo Bay Detainees for Sergeant Bo Bergdal. 5 terrorists! And its been reported already one of them is back to fighting
Not Negotiating will actually make the terrorist organization suffer and in the long run protect our citizens
sofia2588 forfeited this round.
If not that i win all conduct points
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sdio 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, but her argument was presented poorly. Pro was incorrect as the Russians did not bomb the theater but instead pumped in gas and sent in their Spec Ops. Also, there have been successful negotiations with organizations that are classified as terrorist in the past. The US has been negotiating with the Taliban for years. While most these talks fail, we still do it. Most terrorist organizations have grievances and when those are addressed, they generally cease to exist as an armed wing. IRA is one example.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.