The Instigator
Iadevaia
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
pittythefool
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Oregon Protesters

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...
Iadevaia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 84510
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Iadevaia

Pro

The 150 armed protesters that have recently taken over the wildlife refuge in Oregon are essentially domestic terrorists and should be treated accordingly.
pittythefool

Con

Why who are they terrorising? And what would you consider appropriate for their punishment?
Debate Round No. 1
Iadevaia

Pro

The 150 armed protesters that have recently taken over the wildlife refuge in Oregon are essentially domestic terrorists and should be treated accordingly.

They are attempting to use fear (terror) by occupying a government territory to bring about political change. If I occupied a business because I was upset with their policies while I held an assault rifle and said that I wont hurt anyone unless they try and tell me to leave then I would be labeled a criminal. These people are saying we will not leave this property until we get our way and if people try to stop us we will defend ourselves. That my friend is domestic terrorism by definition.
pittythefool

Con

What I don't get it..accordingly. Oh you mean bombed, water boarded or just plain hang em! Is there a little more to the story or just plain old what's that word...oh yeh..terrorism. Now the domestic type because that foreign stuff is just played out....

Don't you think your being a bit harsh lol or what have they got hostages or something. No seriously there must be more to the story. You views cant be based just on "boo hoo they won't get of the land". What's it to you anyway?
Debate Round No. 2
Iadevaia

Pro

The 150 armed protesters that have recently taken over the wildlife refuge in Oregon are essentially domestic terrorists and should be treated accordingly.

They are attempting to use fear (terror) by occupying a government territory to bring about political change. If I occupied a business because I was upset with their policies while I held an assault rifle and said that I wont hurt anyone unless they try and tell me to leave then I would be labeled a criminal. These people are saying we will not leave this property until we get our way and if people try to stop us we will defend ourselves. That my friend is domestic terrorism by definition.

Okay the facts are actually all over the place. Its not a disputed situation. So Im not sure what your asking for. There are 150 militia members who have taken over government property in Oregon. They are mostly armed and said they will occupy that area for several years if necessary. They are responding to outrage over a land dispute between then and the federal government. These are all undisputed facts. What they are doing because of the presence of firearms is attempting to intimidate the federal government into acquiescing to their demands. This is domestic terrorism because they are using fear and potential violence, breaking the law, and creating a very unsafe situation. These people should be arrested and imprisoned for engaging in terrorist activities and treason against the Unoted States government.
pittythefool

Con

Yeh yeh yeh....I get it mate...what im pushing you to answer is what you would consider accordingly. My stance is I would like to know why they are so pent up about this issue. The federal government kicked native Americans off their land...now should have the ones who were involved be treated accordingly...should the land be given back? Slaves built the USA for free! Now should they be reperated? Sorry pal just don't have much faith in your government or mine!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
IadevaiapittythefoolTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con literally provided no arguments and spent the entire debate prodding Pro to elaborate on their case. Pro's case as it stood was good enough to win without any arguments from Con, and since no arguments were given for Con, Pro wins. Pro used the definition of terrorist to show how the Oregon protesters fit this definition. This is relevant to the resolution in R1. Con on the other hand spent the debate trying to tell us how it's not really a big deal, and that they would be punished if they were terrorists. This is not relevant to the resolution. It doesn't matter about their punishment. The debate is about whether or not they're terrorists, not what will happen to them. The win goes to Pro for sticking to the resolution and showing through definitions how the Oregon protesters can be classified as terrorists. Con's arguments never refuted this and had nothing to do with the resolution.