The Instigator
SirLego
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
MWeldon11
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Osama Bin Laden should not have being killed.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 17907
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

SirLego

Pro

The killing of Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was impractical and seems to me to be emotionally driven rather then driven of necessity on the part of the United States Government.

Would it not be of greater strategic advantage to capture OBL rather than merely eliminate him. After all he was the leader of al-Qaeda. Even if men where lost it seems you would have more to gain then to lose.

The whole approach to the assassination seems ill-befitting a developed country such as the United states. (Especially of one who puts so much emphasis on equality and rights of people.)

What makes this even worse (ethically at least) is that the president himself endorsed reveling in OBL's demise.

In short OBL's death is a loss both strategically and morally on the part American government.
MWeldon11

Con

the killing of OBL was justified, when the marines entered the compund they received heavy fire from many different insurgents in the building and when they came upon OBL's room he yelled words at them in arabic and then reached his arm out to his side, only then was he killed, he received two shots from the marine force, one to the body and one to the head. Beside him was his AK-47. i think it would have caused more trouble and problems if he was captured because his followers would have demanded for his release and much more violence would have ensued. He is a monster and has done many terrible things in his life, in my opinion he deserves to be dead b ut the whole burial at sea is kind of weird and suspicious which raises many questions.
Debate Round No. 1
SirLego

Pro

First of all I would request that you detach your emotions for one moment and look at the situation from a strategic and efficient perspective. Also as far as I was aware the report on the operation has not being released as of yet.(could you please post a link ?)

The idea that you should kill OBL on such flimsy grounds as reaching for a potential weapon when you have your finger on the trigger and have the skill to line up a head shot is ridiculous. (What's wrong with shot to wound?) In may own opinion orders should have being given to kill him only if his escape was imminent.

OBL would have a lot of intel and it is possible that some of that intel would have saved innocent lives. With that in mind, would the life a navy SEAL who is willing to give their life to defend the united states be worth the cost of many more other wise preventable deaths.

The point of his capture provoking an attack in rather outlandish if you think about it. His death will cause more out rage because now he a Martyr for the cause. If we had captured him instead we could at least put him on trial and show people what he had done, which may have removing his saint like status in the eyes of some al-Qaeda members.

How can you say some one deserves to die what gives you the arbitrarily take lives, alas this is a battle for another time.

strategically it just means more sense to capture him even if there is collateral, I really think it would have payed off.
MWeldon11

Con

first of all, you are right it was the NAVY SEALS, not marines, my mistake. http://dsc.discovery.com... that is the link for part of the simulation of what happened in the compound, there was a one hour special on the discovery channel.(http://dsc.discovery.com...) - at look at OBL's compund

Now, all over the US, special forces teams (SEALS, SWAT, MARINES, etc.) are rarely given orders to simply wound a suspect or target. If in a situation a target is reaching for, not potential weapon but deffinetly one that can cause such harm as an AK-47 (research how he obtained his famous AK) its rare that the suspect would be given warning shots or wound shots. There is no proof or other intel to suggest that more innocent lives are going to be lost now that OBL is dead, and if he was captured and detained somewhere, whether the location would have been disclosed or not, it would have posed a great risk for citizens or innocent people that may be nearby OBL's potential place of captivity. if a counter attack would have been made by al-queda that would be more dangerous than eliminating OBL in terms of the public's safety, and now al-queda wouldn't have as much to fight for, unless they attempt to avenge his death. It was suggested that OBL and the Pakistan government were working together as his mansion like compound was only some hundred kilometers away from the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad. the seals had to use custom made helicopters for the mission to be sure they weren't detected and that OBL would not be tipped of by a mole in the government, if the Pakistan government would have found out about the operation or if the seals we compromised then the Pakistan army would have immediately scrambled jets to relieve the presence of the seals.
All that being said, there would most likely of been counter attacks made by al-queda to demand the release of OBL, attacks that would probably of been made on highly populated areas of the US where innocent civilians are living. keep in mind that is their preferred way of getting a message across (9/11, suicide bombings)
Debate Round No. 2
SirLego

Pro

I would like to thank you for posting the link.

How rare the orders are is irreverent what I was saying is that this target is far to important to let get away by getting killed or escaping, the only win scenario here for the united states is if OBL was captured and his contacts and intel was exposed. Naturally every thing would not have being kept on hard drives and on documents, so then the most sensitive intel would have probably only have being known to OBL. What should have being done in the event of OBL being armed is that the highly trained and skilled SEALS disarm him or shoot to wound thus preventing him from causing harm or escape.

you argument for having no proof of OBL having life saving information is laughable at best. I kind of feel that I don't need to tell you all the points why be suppose I should any way. 1) even though OBL was no longer active in al-Qaeda dose not mean all of his information becomes irreverent he was still protected so naturally he had friends, so if that's the case who where they and what is their contention to al-Qaeda.
2)Naturally every thing would not have being kept on hard drives and on documents so the most sensitive intelligence would have being known only to OBL.(he might have know codes, systems, and most importantly people and locations,)
3) ect. ect. and whatever I have faith in your intelligence you know this.

He is now a Martyr now there is nothing to be done about that now. Al-Qaeda can now be motivated by revenge killing, and have some one well known and beloved to fight for putting name to the cause. Worst of all now it is to late to defame him anything said now will be disregarded as lies to deface his righteous name. Now they have a name to their cause. A good example of this kind of thing provoking a far greater response is the Alamo "remember the Alamo!" it seems the United Sates government does not. Well you seem to agree with me on this any way "and now al-queda wouldn't have as much to fight for, unless they attempt to avenge his death"

I really do not think that anyone would PREFER violence as a way of sending a message.

I also remember the United states doing something similar to 9/11 over the sky's of Japan, twice in fact. So the United states hardly has the high ground there. However this would never justify an attack on a civilian population just don't go acting like al-Qaeda were the first ones to attack civilians.

From what was said in the video was that the SEALS took shots at OBL when he was unarmed AND that they shot dead his unarmed sons(strategically not as important), so the SEALS never wanted to even try to capture OBL, and it turns out that this was just an emotional government seeking revenge and blood. I have to say this makes me ashamed, one of the most powerful countries in the world is putting revenge before the lives of the innocent. Then they celebrate his death much in the same manner that the people of the French revolution celebrated the mass murder of their leaders. I really though we had learnt our lesson now and went trough due process instead.

Against my better judgement will call this act barbaric, however I intend no offense and would like to point out that this is purely speculative. Some head on a stick sir?
MWeldon11

Con

There is no guarantee lives would have been saved by trying to extract information from OBL. whos to say he even would have given any information, torture isnt an option as the US doesnt condone it. OBL saw the SEALS ran from them and was planning on fighting them, the mission was based more on revenge than trying to capture him and use him. im positive the people involved in the planning of this mission thought of capturing OBL, but it clearly wasnt in their best interest.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
You said that the president endorsed reveling in OBL's demise. That was a malicious thing you did there....
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
me too...
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
I wish I took this debate
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
Uhm... Navy seals Con. Not Marines.

Also, your argument is so horribly written and unreadable. I had to read it multiple times to understand what it was you were actually saying. Where is your proof? Cite sources.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
SirLegoMWeldon11Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument of Navy Seals self defense was his only valid argument, yet it was refuted by Pro. Con was basically left admitting that it was a revenge operation while pros arguments showed many valid reasons why it will do more harm then good. Grammar could have definitely improved for both sides but Pro made more crucial mistakes making some of his sentences hard to understand.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
SirLegoMWeldon11Tied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: The last argument from CON was weak. The resolution is for what SHOULD have been done, not whether what was done was justified. PRO did an excellent job of explaining why capturing him would have been the best course of action. Pro however had too many typos which lost him grammar, and no sources, which lost him reliable sources.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
SirLegoMWeldon11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: As far as argument, i think that pro made a far superior argument than Con; however, the fact that Con gave more reliable links to support and strengthen his argument wins my vote.