The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden (2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 5/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,268 times Debate No: 16465
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

CiRrK

Pro

My opponent has asked for a time extension, so this will be for his last round post.

==His (Con) Observations==

1. Death vs. Good

Opponent: Different between warranting a celebration and should rejoice

--> My opponent is miss contextualizing the use of "warrants." When I say that X warrants a celebration I am saying that X is why we should celebrate it. He is playing awful semantics here.

Opponent 2b: We celebrate X for X and not for what it produces

--> The two arent mutually exclusive and both can exist at the same time. We can celebrate something for both itself and/or what it produces. We can celebrate a birthday because a kid has become a year older or we can celebrate VE and VJ day because it is the reason that bloodshed has ended, namely what it produced. In terms of my case, I am saying the externalities are enough for the US to celebrate. He drops this argument, and only responds to half the objection. Extend it, and dont let him respond to it since I have no other round to respond. This should mitigate cleanly his observation, but to go on:

Opponent 2a: Wine argument

--> My opponent is trying to set up a false dichotomy by using an obscure example about wine

--> The way he sets up the argument is misleading. We WOULD celebrate wine because people like it. Why do people like it? Well multiple reasons, taste, possible intoxication, etc. These are all ends that wine produces. If wine didnt have a positive externality there would be no reason to celebrate it.

--> Changing the purpose of the 10th of May is a non-seqitur from the example. That would just be an arbitrary date to celebrate win. Not analogous to the Osama example

Opponent 2c: I agree we should celebrate what the death represents but not the death

--> As mentioned in my last round, death was the necessary and prerequisite component. It would have been impossible to achieve X without Y.

==My (Pro) Case==

C1: Justice

Opponent: not talking about externalities, like justice

--> XA - false dichotomy and not mutually exclusive argument outlined above. As such, yes, we are discussing externalities as well.

Opponent 2: Yes, death is necessary for justice to be achieved. But it doesnt change the tragedy of death.

--> You can vote Pro right here. He has conceded the argument that death is the necessary and prerequisite component. And dont let him try and retract this concession, since I have no round to respond. His only argument is thst it doesnt negate the tragedy of death. Well (1) I outweigh, he never responds to the substance of this contention, as such he concedes it (rule: drops are concessions, and this applies to the other drops before this). The substance argues that the magnitude of the crime of 9/11 demands that justice be fulfilled. As such, even if you think its a tragedy that Osama has died, the need for justice outweighs the tragedy of death and thus calls for celebration. (2) Death in this case isnt a tragedy because all he says is that well death is a loss of life, but that really never answers my objection that death is highly dependent on agency. Agency would determine if death is good or bad.

C2: National Security

Opponent: not debating externalities

--> XA my response about non-mutual exclusivity.

--> Again, you can vote Pro here as well, he ignores the substance of the argument and by dropping the substance has conceded it. By killing Osama we have highly disrupted the command and control structure of Al Qaeda. His death was necessary for this, as such we should celebrate it because it has led to much more national security.

C3: Psy. Warfare

A) Demoralization

Opponent: Enemies can view this as a bunch of narrowminded people who feel rather than think

--> Non-responsive. As long as I link to the effect of deterrence, then celebration has helped the war on terror. It doesnt matter how they view it, just that they see the fact that US citizens WANT to KILL terrorists, no matter if it takes 7 days or 7 years.

Opponent: large survey can be used

--> Permutation - do both. The Pro would can do both the celebration and doing a survey. Two arent mutually exclusive. Permutation gives Pro more offense at this point

--> Not as psychologically impacting, and why would most people in the Middle East have access to US specific polls? The footage of the celebration has already been played withint he Middle East

--> You can vote Pro here as well. All of my opponents responses are either non-responsive or non-unique (no comparative advantage) to the Con. By celebrating the death we can demoralize the enemy and gain a military advantage.

B) Moralization

Opponent: You can support and not celebrate

--> And as I said this support would be silent in comparison to outspoken rejoicing and celebration. The death was something that compelled people to celebrate in time Square, and thats where the moralization will come from. Not just my opponent and I liking that Osama is now gone.

Opponent 2: Can celebrate other things

--> XA - death as necessary and prerequisite (which he has dropped).

--> Permutation - do both. We can celebrate multiple things at once.

==His (Con) Arguments==

1. Plato

Opponent: I dont need to look for esoteric meaning, since the wording is there

--> This links directly into the Kritik. By saying he doesnt need to exacerbates the criticism of the kritik. He is using a quote from Plato, which Leo Strauss argues writes in esoteric language (refer to wiki synopsis). My opponent just threw out some quote by did not analyze that quote first for esoteric meaning. Thus, my opponent is misusing classical philosophy. He has dropped and thus has conceded the substance of the Kritik.

Opponent: No analysis needed, quote speaks for itself

--> Yes analysis is needed, he cant just say Plato says so, so its right. Analysis and warranting is needed to make a quote substantial in a round. I could post ant post-modern quote about death being meaningless, but that wouldnt make the quote right. I would need to explain and warrant the quote to make it meaningful.

2. Death isnt good

Opponent: I actually made the Romeo and Juliet analogy

--> Even though this is true, he never responded to my analysis about death and agency. This can be easily be XA'ed to the Romeo and Juliet analogy: (1) his analogy assumes agency because death is bad because it kills good people who can do good things. This would not apply to bad people doing bad things, thus death in this case could be celebrated because it prevents future evil, like terrorism. (2) It would be nice if people worked together but agency still applies. Thats not how it is. Osama and Al Qaeda doesnt care about diplomacy or getting along. They want to kill our citizens and cause terror. Dont let my opponents naivete persuade you about terrorism

Opponent: Dont bad people suffer the same losses

--> Yes, thats why it is good. The losses depend on agency and/or the results of that death

--> Your analysis of death itself is completely unwarranted and dependent on skewed semantics.

--> Again, he completely disregards the substance of my response, and only took specific sentences to discuss. Refer to Rd. 3 which talks about agency and death and existence.

3. Alternatives

Opponent: celebrate evil disappearing not the evil doer

--> Again, this doesnt make sense. The death of the evildoer was the necessary component for the disappearance of that evil. Itsbecause of the evildoer that the evil was possible in the first place.

Opponent: I mentioned bigger and grander

--> He cant just makeup an alternative that doesnt exist, whereas I do gain the advantages of the huge celebration tat occurred because of his death, such as the demoralization argument.

==Voters==

1. All my contentions give clear reason to rejoice and celebrate. Moreover, in each case he dropped critical substance which is a concession.

2. Nowhere to vote Con. Everything can be permed (done in the Pro world as well) or is non-responsive.

Thx for a great debate!
vardas0antras

Con

Thank you for giving me a time extension, lets begin.

Mutually exclusive

Now, this is the hidden premise for all of my opponents arguments.

A constant (if not predominant) theme in my opponents round is that "We can celebrate something for both itself and/or what it produces" and he argues that "In terms of my case, I am saying the externalities are enough for the US to celebrate". He finally says that "He drops this argument, and only responds to half the objection".

So, have I dropped this? No, I made what my opponent calls "wine argument" and this argument establishes the two as different things. Hence, I haven't dropped the argument. Now, to defend my wine argument:

Wine Argument
"We WOULD celebrate wine because people like it." Contradicting is not arguing. "If wine didnt have a positive externality there would be no reason to celebrate it." We still can celebrate it.

"That would just be an arbitrary date to celebrate win. Not analogous to the Osama example" Not explained, how are the two different?



My Arguments

Plato

"He is using a quote from Plato, which Leo Strauss argues writes in esoteric language (refer to wiki synopsis). My opponent just threw out some quote by did not analyze that quote first for esoteric meaning. Thus, my opponent is misusing classical philosophy. He has dropped and thus has conceded the substance of the Kritik."

Leo Strauss can be right that this quote has an esoteric meaning and I can be "misusing classical philosophy" but it won't change the obvious meaning of the quote.

"Yes analysis is needed, he cant just say Plato says so, so its right"
I never said that. Instead, I showed an argument made be Plato.

"I could post ant post-modern quote about death being meaningless, but that wouldnt make the quote right."
No, but if t contains a valid argument then death is meaningless.

Death isn't good

"(1) his analogy assumes agency because death is bad because it kills good people who can do good things. This would not apply to bad people doing bad things, thus death in this case could be celebrated because it prevents future evil, like terrorism."

Actually, my argument was that "Indeed, death is bad for good people, but do not bad people also suffer the permanent losses of death? So, it is bad for both". Hence, death is bad for both groups.

"Osama and Al Qaeda doesnt care about diplomacy or getting along. They want to kill our citizens and cause terror."
Doesn't change the effects of death. Also, how do you know that Osama would have never changed his ways? Is it completely impossible? Even if there's a minor possibility death is bad for it destroys that possibility.

"Yes, thats why it is good. The losses depend on agency and/or the results of that death" Irrelevant (refer to "mutually exclusive" section).









Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"(not that I have to deal with them)" Even if I did I would be merely reminding others about the more important points.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
Couldn't bother with trivial points (not that I have to deal with them).
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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: This is a clear Win argumentation wise
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did great with conduct for allowing the re-do for the final round, and his arguments were better put together. I couldn't help but feel, even in the rounds the Con did, that he was rushing.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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: Pro shown forth better effort. I feel this debate would be better if there was more than one round.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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's wine argument did it for me and excellently showed why Pro's argument stands. People like wine because of the positive externalities that it produces.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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 failed to make a case that death of bin Laden should not celebrated, failing his share of the burden of proof. Pro showed that good things are usually celebrated, and Con didn't argue that it was not a good thing. Con needed to show down side. He might have argued, for example, that celebrating would lead to overconfidence or a diminution of purpose. As it is, the debate was all Pro's.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Long story short, Pro proved that celebrating the death and the concequences of it aren't mutually exclusive and aren't even distinguishable. The wine example, as Grape explained, was essentially turned into a Pro argument. I do like con's approach, it was just defeated.
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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: I read part 1 and part 2 and it really seems that Pro was more to the point while Con's responses weren't very clear. Pro's arguments stood firm
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
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: I think this was extremely clear cut. Con's attempt to separate death and the consequences of death failed, and his own wine analogy proved Pro's point exactly. I can't and don't feel the need to go over every specific point because Con's responses were consistently vague and off the mark and Pro called him out on every single problem. All of Pro's contentions survived nearly unscathed and Con's were easily dismissed as irrelevant, unexplained, or nonunique.