The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Is Negotiating with Terrorist Surrender?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 83196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Negotiating with terrorist is not claiming surrender, it is just a way to find a peaceful way to solve a problem


Negotiations with Terrorists is like enabling them

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"
Debate Round No. 1


I'm not saying that. Negotiation is not just like giving in. It is not a reward. It is a way to find some peace. And you don't have to do it. If its not reasonable, then you find another way. Many cases of terrorism are mostly down to miscommunication. And what is the alternative? We can't just bomb them straight away, we should at least find out what they want, because it could be something simply and easily given, or completely reasonable. It allows us to gather information, buy time, develop other options and resources and sometimes actually resolve the situation.


Like I said in my first argument negotiation is encouraging bad behavior

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
Debate Round No. 2


sofia2588 forfeited this round.


Because you FF i win the debate.

If not that i win all conduct points
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by medicfrogs 2 years ago
I disagree with Con. Real life situations of terrorism are nothing like what is seen in movies. The aggressors can rarely be bargained with. When someone sets out to do harm, they are not generally receptive to alternatives. In the cases of hostage situations, terrorists only publicize hostages for one reason: money. They need some cash, and the way that has proven most effective is to abduct a westerner and demand a ransom. Opening ANY lines of communication to say anything other than "we're sending missiles your way" is enabling this. I
Posted by SumitM 2 years ago
Well, I doubt any terrorist would respond peacefully to our peaceful talk.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sdio 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.