The Instigator
funkymuppet
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points

Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 22065
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

funkymuppet

Con

Everyone knows that he is not good; he rapes and kills and whatnot
Ore_Ele

Pro

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for this interesting debate on what is a very recent (at least recently cared about by the US public) and hot issue.

Since I am PRO, and my opponent has not bothered to do so, I shall define some of the words in my resolution.

"Kony", of course, is referring to Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA [1].

"Good" is a moral statement. Since I am pro and defending the resolution, I get to decide what moral code "good" falls under. Unless my opponent wishes to argue for an objective moral code (which he would have the BOP), this is what we will measure by. We shall use Machiavellian Virtue ethics code [2][3]. To simplify, Machiavellianism can be summed up by his single most famous line "The end justifies the means." And Viture ethics can be summed up as the intent of an action determines its moral standing, rather than any results or rules that are followed/broken. Following this, we can state that the end intent justifies any means.

A simple example would be if a girl asks "does this dress make me look fat?" Saying "no" would be morally acceptable since the end you were attempting to reach out weighs the act of lying, and you had a good intent on not wanting to hurt her feelings (unless you were saying "no" so that she would go around town and have others laugh at her, that's not cool dude).

Now that we have Kony and the our moral compass defined and set, we can get going with this debate. The rest of the words should be understood by their common modern meaning (no semantics). I shall also like to state (though it should be understood, I will still state it) that to be a "good person" one must not be 100% good, just like to be a "bad person" one must not be 100% bad. It is not a one or the other dichotomy, but a sliding scale, where a "good person" is one who does mostly good, and a "bad person" is one who does mostly bad. This is being stated so that there is no impression in my opponent's (or the voters') mind that all he has to do is show a single "bad" thing.

I shall now argue that Kony is, indeed, a good person who is doing the morally right thing.

All of Kony's work is for the purpose of "cleans[ing] the Acholi people." [4] Under our moral code, Kony has set an ethical goal with an ethical intent. We may not agree with the means that he uses, but that does not matter when it comes to the morals of the person.

This single line of argument is all that is needed for now. I will let my opponent now make their counter arguments and remind them that anything they claim needs to be supported (like claiming that he kills and rapes).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
funkymuppet

Con

I must thank my opponent, and though i could not be bothered to read all of his arguement i am glad he defined everything and whatnot
To question Kony's beleifs would be wrong as he does want the best for his people. However, his methods ARE questionable. The topic of the debate is that Kony is a good person, which could be simply defined as a human overall positive things. The lesser of two evils, at least. However, does rape and killing acheive this in the best way? Morally? Economically? Politically? Thought not. i dont think this needs to be a debate about philosophy (country A invades country B, who is right ect.) but rather a collection of opinions on the matter.
Sorry for the somewhat laidback attitude and genaral casual approach but as i said, i am curios to see the possible pros of Kony rather than have a serious debate. Plus, i am fairly young and have no desire to commit completely to this topic, or simply any topic.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I shall approach this round in 3 quick sections.

1) Re-addressing my arguments

My opponent has basically accepted my definitions and value system ("...i am glad he defined everything and whatnot."). My opponent has also admitted that Kony is doing what he believes is best for his people. He is not acting in his own self interest and masking it as "good for his people," he truly believes that what he is doing is right. Now, under the virtue moral system laid out in R1, this is an acceptance that he is a good person who is doing the right thing. Technically, this is all that is needed for this debate, but I shall continue with my opponent's arguments for the sake of debating.

2) Addressing my opponent's arguments

My opponent claims that Kony "rapes" and "kills" but offers no sources for those claims. I will counter these arguments regardless in two fold. First, it does not matter if these are the most efficient means to achieve his desired results, as the results justify the means under our given moral system, and as long as his desired results are moral, than ANY means to achieve them are moral.

Second, you've provided no sources for Kony raping or killing anyone. While this technically counts as a strawman, I will counter what I believe you mean. There are plenty of sources for Kony's forces killing people and whatnot, but those are the actions of his followers, not him. It is illogical to claim that because his followers do something, that HE does something. For example, one could not logically say that Patrick Doyle (CEO of Domino's Pizza) delivered pizza to my front door just because one of his employees did so under the policy that he supports. One could also not say that Obama took a piss on some dead Taliban soldiers just because some US soldiers did (though not under our policy). We can conclude that you cannot simply pass the buck up the chain. One is only responsible for the actions that one makes.

3) Recommendations for my opponent.

I will admit that I'm slightly put off that my opponent wouldn't read my entire arguments (when they weren't even that long) and would actually admit it in the debate. If my opponent is not interested in a serious debate and just wants to hear what some people think, a forum thread might be a better option for future questions like this.

Anyway, since no new facts were presented in my argument, no sources were needed for them. I pass back to my opponent for their final round.
Debate Round No. 2
funkymuppet

Con

ah oui oui
i will adress your different sections
1. All you have done is restate what you had written. However, you did not adress how I stated that Kony is not doing the best possible thing he coulld be doing. He is not choosing the greater good, and approaching the situation peacefully
2. I thought this was fairly common knowledge but here:
Joseph Kony (pronounced IPA: [koɲ];[6] born c. 1961)[1] is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan guerrilla group. While initially enjoying strong public support, the LRA turned on its own supporters, supposedly to "purify" the Acholi people and turn Uganda into a theocracy.[2] Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations. Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition.[17][18][19]

He ordered the abduction of children to become child-sex slaves and child soldiers.[20] An estimated 66,000 children became soldiers and two million people have been internally displaced since 1986.[21] In 2005, Kony was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, but has evaded capture.[22] The LRA operates in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Sudan.[23]

All copy paste from wikepedia, http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. I dont think this has anything to do with the debate but still, I DO NOT TAKE YOUR RECCOMENDATONS
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes, this shall make u angry!
Ore_Ele

Pro

I'm not going to add any arguments to this final round and will only point out some things regarding what my opponent said last round.

1) My opponent has not denied the moral code that I put forward in R1, so that code stands for this debate and that is what we should measure "good" by.

2) My opponent's argument fails on two levels. First, it is just C/P'd from wiki. Second, it doesn't not even say anything about what "Kony" did, only what his followers have done. My opponent did not reject, nor even address, my comments that a leader cannot be held to the actions of his followers.

3) Merely a suggestion based on what your stated desires were.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
xD Machiavellian ethics. Didn't see that coming, now did he?
Posted by funkymuppetsV2 2 years ago
funkymuppetsV2
too bad funkymuppet got banned
Posted by frappe 2 years ago
frappe
Of course he's doing the right thing. He's on the run from an international manhunt. What on Earth else is this man supposed to be doing? He just has to wait it out until Kim Kardishain tweets a boob and the whole youtube outrage thing will go away.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Now I'm really curious: what was con's argument? As much as I looked, I really couldn't find what it was.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Well this was an obvious choice if I have ever seen one. Pro laid a clear outline for how this debate should be conducted and judged, Con failed to even acknowledge it let alone refute it.
Vote Placed by mongeese 2 years ago
mongeese
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, that was an unexpected turn of events. Under the established definitions, Ore_Ele wins, hands down.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: So . . . I heard you like mudkips?
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I like trains.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Trolololol.
Vote Placed by Yep 2 years ago
Yep
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: NiCe ReFuTaTiOnS cOn
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
funkymuppetOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: did con even have an argument?