The Instigator
OLAN
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
86 Points

Is suicide bombing moral?

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/5/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,526 times Debate No: 11636
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (15)

 

OLAN

Con

Suicide bombing should not be moral, Even in Islam. I intend to prove this claim. Also It shouldnt even be legal in Islam or any Islamic country.
Koopin

Pro

=================
Definitions:
=================

Moral: Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.

Suicide bombing: A bombing carried out by someone who does not hope to survive it.

================

I look forward to an argument.
Debate Round No. 1
OLAN

Con

Thank you for accepting and Moral is a human quality but that doesnt make suicide bombing moral and correct. It also doesnt make it just. In fact there is a quote that says: "To err is human". So why should suicide bombing be moral but not an error? Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Koopin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

When people hear suicide bombing, they usually think of some terrorist blowing up innocent people.

Bombing innocent people is immoral, but so is shooting innocent people.

Does this mean that shooting a gun is immoral?

No, it is the way it is done.

War is a fact of life and unless we get smarter in the years to come it will never leave.

It is not immoral to defend your country though.

In war some people use guns, to fight off their enemies, why not suicide bombs?

It seems so unethical, but it is not really.

If someone wants to die for their country for the right reasons, then why stop them?

In some ways it could be considered merciful.

If someone is shot with a gun, they may slowly die.

But targets rarely survive bombing. Many things can be justified, such as water boarding.

I am against water boarding because I do not stand for torture.

However, if a terrorist knows where a bomb is in a city and it is going off in half an hour, then don't you think it would be even more immoral to let those people die?

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
OLAN

Con

I have an excerpt from a article on suicide bombing:"The tactics of the Kamikaze, a ritual act of self-sacrifice by state military forces, occurred during combat in a large scale at the end of World War II. These suicide attacks, carried out by Japanese kamikaze bombers, were used as a military tactic aimed at causing material damage in the war. In the Pacific Allied ships were attacked by kamikaze pilots who caused significant damage by flying their explosive-laden aircraft into military targets." Japanese pilots didnt think it was moral but they did it anyway, So why do Al-Qaeda soldiers think its moral to strap a bomb to their chest and detonate on poor American soldiers? I cant answer that question. The American people can.
Koopin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Excuse me for saying, but that report has nothing to do with what I said! You say that the Japanese did not think it was moral, how do you know that? You then ask why do Al-Qaeda soldiers think its moral to strap a bomb to their chest and detonate on poor American soldiers. Well, like I said before, it can be moral under different circumstances. If someone from the Al-Qaeda shoots an innocent person, it would be immoral. But that does not make shooting someone immoral. Let me remind you that the resolution is "Is suicide bombing moral." It is not "Is suicide bombing of an innocent person moral."

You say that you can not answer the question but the American people can. This is also irrelevant to this debate. You are American!

Audience, my opponent has failed to properly refute my argument. He continues to give cases of immoral suicides, yet I could give cases of immoral gun shootings. It still does not make shooting a gun immoral.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Please vote Pro.

http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.popfi.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dollydo 6 years ago
dollydo
What does "Allah" or "God" have to do with a suicide bomber that sacrifices his life for his country?
The Koran and the Bible do not necessarily dictate moral truths. So what if a suicide bomber is Muslim, he may have many reasons for sacrificing his life for his country, besides what the Koran preaches. The bible says that "thou shalt not kill." U.S soldiers kill to protect their country, for their families, because the Army provided them with a stable income, because all their friends joined after high school, etc. Killing another person in self defense can be justified. Therefore, because the bible says that "thou shalt not kill," this does not dictate a moral truth. I think each individual suicide bomber has a different mindset of their own, and reasoning behind why they choose to give their lives. While I believe some have justified reasons in making this sacrifice, others don't. But the same can be applied to a U.S soldiers motives. If a U.S soldier is going to war to protect his country, that can be considered honorable and justifiable. If a U.S soldier is going to war to kill so called "towel-heads," or maybe has a hatred towards these people, that can not be considered honorable nor justifiable. Because you can't not prove what motives each individual suicide bomber has, you can't classify them all into a "cult." If you want to classify them into a "cult" I guess you could use the same term for our U.S military.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent. (2:195)

O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire... (4:29-30).
Posted by ALBi 6 years ago
ALBi
I thought this has been debunked time and again. The Koran says it is not right, but people are still ready to think it is, because they would rather follow then think for themselves or some other lazy/human reason. It is clasic cult mentality and against everything it is supposed to be for. So for those people it is definitely not moral.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
lol, yes I noticed.
Posted by dollydo 6 years ago
dollydo
Yes, and Koopin, I write paragraphs...not sentences! lol!
Posted by dollydo 6 years ago
dollydo
Koopin remarked, "You say that the Japanese did not think it was moral, how do you know that?"

It is true, OLAN has no idea what the Japanese thought was moral or immoral, in regards to suicide bombing. Even if the killing of non combatant civilians is immoral, doesn't the protection and/or survival of a whole society hold more value over the life of a single individual. Sometimes war calls for extreme measures, sometimes casualties are left in the wake. Suicide bombers are a direct result of these extreme measures, sometimes the innocent die.

What one really has to ask themselves, is why are countries strangled into these positions, were the only option left is the destruction of innocent life. I believe we are partly to blame for 911, therefore we are also partly to blame for the destruction of innocent life.
Posted by dollydo 6 years ago
dollydo
It is funny how we like to distinguish between "martyrs" and "suicide bombers." To me the are one in the same. A "martyr" will sacrifice their life for their country, just as a "suicide bomber" is willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. How is a "terrorist" any different than a "war hero," they both kill for political reasons. I guess it just depends on what part of the world you come from. To me, giving your life for your country is honorable. Whether a U.S soldier at war, rebel organizations fighting for justice, or suicide bombers. As long as they gave their lives fighting for a good cause, it can be justified.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Yes, one of the greatest Prophets. Many of his teachings in the Bible are actually not in conflict with Islam. That is why I'm challenging Christians to quote one verse where he says that he is God.

Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Prophet, and his words are within the Qur'an, too. We still don't need the Bible.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Fair enough.

But isn't Jesus a prophet quoted in the Quran?
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Whatever the Bible says that contradicts any Islamic teachings, is nothing but an alteration. In fact, when I say original Bible, I say something that has almost disappeared. Psalms is close to the Qur'an in some ways. But if you think the Bible has anything to do with Islam, you're wrong. We don't need it at all. We have the Qur'an that confirms the Torah and Injeel, but those were altered, and the Qur'an has been preserved perfectly and will always be, and that is what forms Islam.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
OLANKoopinTied
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 mrmrlol 6 years ago
mrmrlol
OLANKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Railsguardian 6 years ago
Railsguardian
OLANKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by GhostWriter 6 years ago
GhostWriter
OLANKoopinTied
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 Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
OLANKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
OLANKoopinTied
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 Dandaman09 6 years ago
Dandaman09
OLANKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
OLANKoopinTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
OLANKoopinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
OLANKoopinTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04