The Instigator
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

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 3 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,637 times Debate No: 19476
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Lordknukle

Con

This is for Socialpinko's debate tournament.

The resolution is: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

Con (Lordknukle) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was not justified without a fair trial
Pro (Drafterman) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was justified without a fair trial

Key Terms:

Muammar Gaddafi- The former Libyan dictator and ruler who was executed by rebel forces

Execution- The ending of a human life

Rebel forces- The citizens that overthrew Gaddafi and his violent regime

Justified- Acceptable by an international doctorine

Fair Trial- trial that is conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge and in which the
defendant is afforded his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution or thea ppropriate state constitution or other law

Outline:

Round 1: Acceptance (No arguments)

Round 2: Main arguments/Main case (The affirmative is not allowed to rebut the negative during Round 2)

Round 3: Rebuttals (No new contentions/arguments to be introduced. New facts and information is fine)

Round 4: Same as Round 3

Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion (To balance out the last word advantage, CON is allowed two rebuttals followed by a conclusion, while PRO is allowed one rebuttal followed by a conclusion).

Rules:

1. No semantic arguments


2.No Ad Hominems


3.No logical fallacies. http://www.nizkor.org...


4. A single violation of the aforementioned rules or debate outline will automatically result in the loss of one point. Two violations and over will result in the loss of two points.

Good luck!



drafterman

Pro

I apologize for the delay. I did not realize round 1 was for acceptance only and dove right into research.

I accept, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate.


I will have 3 main contentions:


C1: Everybody has a right to a fair trial

C2: The rebels were fighting for democracy

C3: No purpose in killing Gaddafi

C1: Everybody has a right to a fair trial

According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1):

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”


The message of this right is very clear. Everybody, no matter how horrible his or her crimes are, has a right to a fair trial. Libya is one of the member nations of the UN. Therefore, it should abide by the same international doctrine that the United Nations has proposed for the rest of the world and its affiliated members.

In case the United Nations is not a good source, lets take the Libyan Constitution (2). Moammar Gaddafi had lived in Libya all throughout his life, and therefore should be a subject to the Constitution. Under Article 15 of the Libyan Constitution, it clearly states:

“Everyone charged with an offence shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty according to law in a trial at which he has the guarantees necessary for his defense.”

Gaddafi being a citizen of Libya deserved this right, which was never given to him.

The definition for “Justified”, which my opponent accepted as “Acceptable by international doctrine” clearly shows that Gadaffi was not treated by the status quo of the international doctrine of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Universal rights means that everybody should have access to those rights.

C2: The rebels were fighting for democracy

The rebels of Libya were fighting for a democratic country. One of the key principles of all democratic countries is the right to life except with accordance of justice and a right to a fair trial. The rebels wanted to overthrow Gadaffi’s violent regime and replace it with a fair and democratic country.

But while doing this, they violated those two key principles and rights. They executed a person without giving him a trial. This creates an oxymoron in the rebels of Libya. These people were also fighting for basic human rights, which Gadaffi did not provide them with.

And while doing this, they violated the single most important universal human right: the right to life without any sort of fair justice.

In essence, they were as bad as Gadaffi himself. They wanted a new country, a new leader, and a new system. However, they imposed a massive double standard on the rest of the country, wanting everybody to abide by their rules, but violating them themselves.

C3: No purpose in killing Gadaffi

I ask one simple important question to my opponent:

What was the purpose in killing Gadaffi?

There was absolutely no purpose in killing him.

1. If the rebels wanted infamy for him, then the best way of action would be for him to be convicted in front of an international tribunal. The whole world would know specifically of his actions. However, now, he is still shrouded in mystery and many of his horrific actions have not been revealed.

2. I understand that the rebels were mad at him and wanted him to go, but that doesn’t mean that it was justified to kill him. This brings me to my bully metaphor:

If a bully on the playground pushes you, is it justified to push him back, especially if the justification will be later decided by teachers?

This is exactly the Gadaffi situation. Gadaffi hurt the rebels, but that doesn’t mean that it is justified to hurt him back. The teachers are the international tribunal. They would, ideally, punish both people for their actions. Simply because somebody is an instigator, does not justify his actions to be reversed onto him.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that the murder of Gadaffi was not justified by international doctorine. The rebels contradicted themselves
by murdering Gadaffi and there was no purpose in killing Gadaffi.

(1) http://www.un.org...

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(1951)

drafterman

Pro

My argument can be stated simply:

1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was not.
2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine).
3. Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been.
4. Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime.
5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi.
7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification).

1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was not.

This statement is a simple enumeration of logical possibilities. It is done to be explicit and to demonstrate that no middle is being excluded (no false dichotomy). If we were to represent "Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable" as A, then this statement could be rendered as: "1. A or not-A" This is the Law of the Excluded Middle, one of the foundational laws for logical thought.

2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine).

In any armed conflict, many people die without a "fair trial." In light of the fact that all individuals deserve a fair trial, what are we to make of this? Are all soldiers participating in an armed conflict guilty and should, themselves, be tried? War itself is not illegal, given that there are explicit laws of war that govern how it should be engaged (or, at least, place limitations on how it can be engaged). It would seem that getting killed in the due course of the war is not, in itself, illegal. It is, in fact, justified in accordance with the justification of the war itself. If the war is justified, then all causalities not in explicit contradiction to the laws of war are also justified, if they could not be avoided. That is, that we inflict no more casualties that are necessary or reasonable to bring about the end to the war. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was such a death (a casualty of war, either deliberately or accidentally), then it was justified.

3. Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been.

Admittedly, #2 is not likely to be the case. Video evidence has shown that Gaddafi was captured, alive, making his death through the course of combat only a viable outcome if he escaped or was killed during some engagement involving his captors. The latter has been suggested, proposing that Gaddafi was killed in a crossfire (1). However, even if it isn't the case, that doesn't automatically make his death unjustified. There are innumerable reasons that could justify his death after capture, such as resisting or otherwise endangering the lives of his captors. Or, perhaps it was entirely accidental. While there is plenty of footage showing Gaddafi alive and dead, none, if any has been independently verified, and no footage depicting the death itself has been shown. This point is not to propose any actual justification for such a death, but to demonstrate the existence of possible explanations which, as of yet, are not impossible. This is nevertheless important.

4. Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime.

This statement almost goes without saying; it is the entire point on which this debate hinges. It is included for completeness. "Justified" here has been defined in accordance with international doctrine, i.e. Law. Thus, to say that his death was justified or not is to say that his death was a criminal act or it was not. Having outlined the possibilities regarding it being justified (and not a crime) the only thing that remains is that it was not justified (and, thus, a crime).

5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2):

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Another crucial element of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I'm sure my opponent agrees with. Though it explicitly addresses those who have been charged, it stands to reason that this presumption of innocence extends to those not yet charged with any crime.

6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi.
As of this writing, I am not aware of any individual that has been charged with any crime involving Gaddafi's death. Thus far I am only aware of people calling for investigation, a preliminary to any formal charges.

7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification).

From the above premises (#1-#6), I assert the conclusion (#7) follows. No one has been charged, tried, or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi. Ergo, in accordance with international doctrine, we can only reasonable presume innocence with regards to such an event. Since the justification of Muammar's death turns on its legality, and since its legality must be presumed until demonstrated otherwise, we can only reasonable conclude that A) his death was legal and, therefore, B) it was justified.

I understand that this conclusion may not sit well. I will attempt to forestall possible objections.

a. The presumption of innocence applies to people not to the fact of the matter of whether or not a crime occurred, only who committed it.

This is true. There can be events which are treated as crimes with no convicted criminals, and even no suspects. However, such a determination depends on the circumstances in which accident or other non-criminal explanations can be ruled out, or at least judged less likely than a crime. The precise nature of Gaddafi's death is unknown, which is why people are calling for investigations not criminal charges as of yet. No official ruling has been made with regards to the death. Thus, in line with the spirit (if not the letter) of the presumption of innocence, we should not presume a crime has occurred at all unless the evidence suggests that it has.

b. A debate should be about the actual state of affairs, not assumptions about unknown states of affairs

On the whole, I would agree. However, I would add the caveat that this applies only when it can. Again, the only people that know the actual state of affairs of Gaddafi's death are those who were around him at the time. From them we have unverified reports, and none of them are actually participating in this debate.

So, while on the surface this may appear to be a debate regarding how we should judge a known event, this is, in fact, impossible, because the event in question is not known. Certainly we know that Gaddafi did die, but we do not know how. This leaves us in the unfortunately position of necessarily talking about assumptions, and justifying which of those assumptions are either A) most likely or B) most reasonable to adhere to. I have taken the latter route and, using international doctrine and rudimentary logic as a base, have concluded that, at this point in time, it is most reasonable for us to conclude that Gaddafi's death was justified.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I would like to point out that the details of this event are not fully known, as my opponent has stated. As a result, we must take the most likely approach. We must figure out whether or not Gaddafi's death was most likely justified or not. This is very important when debating about a semi-mysterious event.
1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was not

Nothing to rebut here.

2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine).

My opponent has answered this question himself, but I will simply reiterate.

Gaddafi's death was not caused during an armed conflict. There are numerous sources which state that dictator was dragged out a tunnel, beaten, begged for his life, and was finally executed (1) (Please watch the video beside the text). We can clearly see that in the video, Gadaffi was not killed in a crossfire. The rebels surrounded him, and with no way to defend himself, they executed him.

I agree with the fact that deaths during an armed conflict our justified, but deaths by mob execution are not.

3.Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been.

My opponent has presented possible explanations for the fact that his death may have been justified. They are:

1. Death may have been accidental
2. Threat to his captors
3. Fake footage

1. I would like to refer you to this article (2). In it, a Libyan man said and claimed that he was the man that killed Moammar Gadaffi. He said:
"We grabbed him,' the fighter says in the video. 'I hit him in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's when I shot him, twice: in the face and in the chest."
To prove the legitimacy of his claims, he later showed Gaddafi's personal belongings, which he took from the body (Refer to article).
While Moammar Gaddafi's death may have been accidental, it most likely was not. Not only has a man stepped up and claimed that he killed Gadaffi, but also the video clearly shows that there were a group of men beating Gadaffi.

2. This one I find to be absurd. If anything, the captors obviously posed a threat to him. The rebels were beating him on the ground, while he was in the fetal position. He was not a threat.

3. While its true that no footage has been independently verified, the overwhelming majority of clips and pictures of his death seem to make it that he was most likely executed by rebels.

4.Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime.

Yes, it would have been a crime. This is exactly where my case is coming from. There most likely was no substantial justification for his murder. Your proposed propositions for a justification have been very weak, which I already rebutted.

5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I agree with my opponent.

6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi.

People have stepped forward, but nobody has been formally convicted.

7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification).

This is where my opponents argument fails.

My opponent has made the presumption that because nobody has been charged, then it is acceptable by international doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From what I can infer, my opponent is implying that a crime cannot be considered justified or not justified if there are no charges.
If somebody killed X, and the somebody is unknown, does that make the crime justified? The short answer is no, especially in the case of Gadaffi. Having a lack of charge does not mean that it was justified.

Yes, international doctrine does presume that people are innocent until proven guilty, but this is irrelevant to the case at hand. Our debate is not about whether somebody should be charged, but whether it was justified.

My opponent believes that "no charge= justifiable". This is not true. Human rights and the right to life fall under the category of "International Doctrine". It is certainly not justified to go around killing people without a just cause. My opponent has also stated that legally, a crime of murder is justified by internal doctrine. I urge him to expand on this point as it is clearly false.

If the debate was titled " X should be charged with a crime for the murder of Gaddafi", then my opponent's arguments would have stood. But our debate is clearly about whether or not it was justified by international doctrine.

I would like to quickly define "International doctrine". This is not a semantic argument, but simply a definition upon which our entire debate is based upon.

International: Existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more nations.

Doctrine:
A belief or set of beliefs

It is clear, that around the world, human rights are taken into account by nearly all countries. Therefore, the term "International Doctrine" does not only apply to government policy, but also to sets of beliefs and values held by countries.

In conclusion, my opponent has stated that international doctrine implies that murders are justified unless there is a charge. Not only is this legally false, but also morally and ethically false (which falls under the category of international doctrine). To restate my case, I would like to point out that the rebels violated the "right to life" of Gadaffi (a protocol of UN international doctrine), created an oxymoron in their wanting of an establishment of a democratic state, had no reason to kill Gadaffi, and most importantly, no justification.

I urge the readers to vote CON

Good luck to PRO

(1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


drafterman

Pro

Rebuttal of Opponent's Argument

I contend that only C1 is relevant for this argument. What the rebels were fighting for, and whether or not there was a purpose in killing Gaddafi, have no bearing on whether or not his death was in violation of, or allowed by, any sort of international doctrine.

As such, the only point of matter brought up by my opponent is that everbody has a right to a fair trial, which I agree. However, I agree with it based upon the stipulations I made in my argument (specifically, point #2 - that deaths during armed conflict are justified, which my opponent agrees).

My Opponent's Rebuttals of my Argument

Point #1: My opponent has confirmed agreement with #1.

Point #2: My opponent aggrees with the implication stated in #2 (that wartime deaths are justified); but disagrees that the condition (that it was a wartime death) holds. My primary purpose was to include this point for completeness.

Point #3.1 - The Death may have been accidental. My opponent disagrees, citing a person who claims to be the killer. However, this ignores my reference in the previous round, where member of the NTC had quoted a forensic report citing accident. Gaddafi's death is not clear cut. There is certainly motive for claiming to be his kill: fame among Libyan Rebels.

Point #3.2 - I will concede that this is unlikely and included it for completeness.

Point #3.3 - Whatever the video evidence may imply, none has been verified and none actually depict the death. Careful editing can depict whatever the media outlet wants it to depict. This, combined with Point #3.1, can only lead us to conclude that the details of his death are ambiguous, at best.

Points #4-6 - My opponent aggrees.

Point #7 - This is the primary point of contention with my opponent. That we should assume a stance of "no crime" given the above. My opponent's restatement of my position is not entirely accurate. I am not saying that a crime should be assumed justified, but that, given an ambiguous situation, we should not presume that what happened was necessarily a crime to begin with. That is, to say it is a crime is an unfounded presumption.

My point is that, to declare an event a crime, or to delcare a death a criminal death, is an official declaration that must be based on some sort of clear evidence. Without such evidence, there is no cause for ruling said death a crime. If it is not a crime then, in accordance with Point #4, we must accept it as either justified or avoidable, as a result of the logical rule of inference, modus tollens:


If Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable and without justification, then his death would have been criminal.
His death was not criminal.
Therefore his death was either unavoidable or with justification.
Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I have to mention that due to the mysteriousness of this issue, I urge that all possible accusations and justifications should be based on the fact of whether it is more likely that not. Nobody can know for certain about the nature of this issue. Therefore, we must presume the most likely argument to be correct.

Now onto my rebuttal.

"I contend that only C1 is relevant for this argument. What the rebels were fighting for, and whether or not there was a purpose in killing Gaddafi, have no bearing on whether or not his death was in violation of, or allowed by, any sort of international doctrine."

Whether or not there was a purpose, or in your case a justification, matters greatly as it can make the execution justified. However, my opponent merely stated some weak reasons as to why in can be justified. I have rebutted all of these, as it is clear that there was no valid or substantial reason for the justification of his execution.

What I meant by my C2, is that they broke Universal Human Rights Laws which are accepted by international doctrine. Universal Human rights are accepted by the UN and therefore considered international. As a result, and I cannot stress this enough, Gaddafi's death was not justified by international doctrine due to the fact that international doctrine accepts human rights such as the right to life, which was obviously violated in the case of Gadaffi.

"As such, the only point of matter brought up by my opponent is that everybody has a right to a fair trial, which I agree. However, I agree with it based upon the stipulations I made in my argument (specifically, point #2 - that deaths during armed conflict are justified, which my opponent agrees)."

I agree that deaths during an armed conflict are justified, but this was not an armed conflict.
According to the video (which I will address later), we can observe and therefore infer that there was no substantial physical threat. A psychological threat is also very unlikely.

My opponent has claimed that he has made several premises in his arguments for the possible justification of the execution. They have been very weak so far, and I have rebutted them. From this, we can only logically deduce, that there was no substantial justification for Gaddafi's execution by rebel forces.


Point by point rebuttal of opponent's Round 3 case

Point #1: No disagreement here.

Point #2: My opponent agrees with me and I with him. Armed conflict deaths are justified, but Gaddafi's death was not an armed conflict case.

Point #3.1: There is no doubt that the death may have had a motive, but the motive doesn't make the murder of Gadaffi justified. Is it justified to kill somebody just to gain fame? No it's not.
Gaddafi's death was most likely not accidental. We can clearly see from the above mentioned videos and further videos. Refer to above videos.


Gaddafi was helplessly dragged out of a tunnel, beaten by a group of rebels, and then finally executed.
And even if the death was accidental, that doesn't necessarily make it justified. International doctrine and countries that have adopted it often prosecute people who killed other people by accident. Not necessarily as harshly, but still prosecute.
My main point from this is that there is no valid or substantial justification for the murder of Gadaffi.

Point #3.2: My opponent conceded to my point for a lack of justification for that point.

Point #3.3: Yes, nothing has been necessarily verified. However, there is overwhelming evidence for the fact that it most likely occurred as the videos depict. I have previously linked many video that depict the violent ordeal of the of Gaddafi's murder. My opponent's case for this point is based upon the fact that nothing has been verified. But as I stated before,we must assume the most likely position. By the overwhelming amount of evidence, we must assume, for the purpose of this debate, that the evidence is correct.

Point #4-6: Nothing to debate here

Point #7: This is the part of my opponent's argument that I have the most problem with. Lets address it carefully:

1. My opponent has stated that "If Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable and without justification, then his death would have been criminal." He goes on to say that "His death was not criminal". I already addressed both of these points. Gaddafi's death was clearly avoidable. There is no question about it. The rebels could have avoided the death by taking him into custody.
Gaddafi's death was clearly without valid justification. My opponent has presented various "plausible" justifications for his death. None of these are valid as I already rebutted them. Therefore, we can safely infer that his death was avoidable and without justification. Therefore, his death was not criminal.

2. "I am not saying that a crime should be assumed justified, but that, given an ambiguous situation, we should not presume that what happened was necessarily a crime to begin with. That is, to say it is a crime is an unfounded presumption."

Neither my opponent nor I have defined the term "crime". I will do it right now.

Crime- "An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.(1)"

From this, we can safely assume that the murder of Gadaffi was a crime. It was a crime under Libyan law, and international doctrine. A crime is an action that breaks the law. My opponent seems to imply that for something to be a crime, there has to be an official prosecution and a criminal. This is false.

A crime can exist as a separate entity, not affiliated with the fact of whether or not there is an official persecution. A murder is a crime, regardless of whether there is a suspect or killer.

3. "My point is that, to declare an event a crime, or to declare a death a criminal death, is an official declaration that must be based on some sort of clear evidence."

There is clearly enough evidence to declare this as a criminal event. We know, that most likely, the rebels killed Gadaffi as was depicted in the previous videos.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can safely assume, that according to all presented evidence, there was no substantial justification or lack of avoidability in the execution of Gadaffi.

My opponent has completely dropped the point that human rights and the right to life are part of international doctrine.

A crime can exist as a separate entity from a criminal. Just because there is no convicted criminal, does not mean that there is no crime. Criminals are sought after and convicted because of the fact that they have committed a crime. It is considered a crime, way before a suspect is sought after.

Therefore, the execution of Gaddafi was not justified by international doctrine.

(1)http://goo.gl...
drafterman

Pro

"I have to mention that due to the mysteriousness of this issue, I urge that all possible accusations and justifications should be based on the fact of whether it is more likely that not. Nobody can know for certain about the nature of this issue. Therefore, we must presume the most likely argument to be correct."

I have to submit this as a violation of the rules of this debate, constitution a new contention introduced after the appropriate period. The argument between whether or not the death should be considered justified/unjustified is significcantly different from a probability analysis of those two outcomes to be considered an entirely different debate resolution. It was certainly not agreed upon or made explicit either when this debate was agreed upon, nor was this contention brought up in the appropriate phase.

Human Rights Violations

This, like the right to fair trial, is obviously not absolute, otherwise all armed conflicts would be considered in violation of international doctrine. And, again, a conclusion of a human rights violation cannot be made without a trial. In fact, to claim that a human rights violation occured, without going through the process of a trial to determine that, is itself a violation of the very internation doctrines my opponent is bringing to bear. I find it hard to believe that only Gadaffi has the rights here, and not whoever killed him.

Video Evidence

I will concede and agree to my opponent's assessment of the video evidence. However, there is no video evidence of the actual death and to say that the conditions and implications of the video evidence we have extends to video evidence we don't, is purely assumptive.

"Crime"

To call this a crime is, essentially, to assume the truth of the position being argued. I have presented my reasons why, until sufficient evidence surfaces, this should not be considered a crime. My opponent's insists that we should consider this a crime from the start, and argue from there. If Gadaffi's death was justified, then it wasn't a crime. Ergo, to start with his death being a crime would constitute conceding the debate before it started. This is not a tenable starting position for a debate, especially considering that my opponent has agreed to argue his position.
Summary

We have no evidence of the actual death. The evidence we have is unverified. The statements we have are contradictory. To establish the fact of a crime requires some sort of official, formal act, by way of investigation. Nothing like this has occurred. To evaluate liklihoods is out of the scope of this debate. The only thing we can do is the assume the most reasonable position: No crime can be said to have occurred without evidence of said crime. No person can be said to have committed a crime without a fair trial.
Debate Round No. 4
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Before doing my rebuttals I would like to clarify some things.

1. I did not constitute a new contention in Round 4 about the mysteriousness of this issue. In fact, I mentioned this in Round 3, without any objection from my opponent. It appears as though he accepted at that time because he thought that it would not mean anything. However, he went against it later on as it showed that it makes his case invalid.

2. The reason why I did this is because the murder of Gadaffi is very mysterious and not fully known about. Anything that is not fully known about must be taken in with skepticism. However, for the purpose of this debate, it would make logical sense if we assumed the "most likely" position. My opponent has in fact already assumed the "most likely" position when he, in Round 2, stated " Ergo, in accordance with international doctrine, we can only reasonable presume innocence with regards to such an event". It is found in Contention 7.

Also, when debating a action of mysteriousness, there is nothing else to do other than assume the most reasonable and likely position. Since nothing is clearly known, we must logical infer what most likely happened. I urge the readers to take this point into account.

Rebuttals

Crime

My opponent is basing this contention of a non-logical presumption.

First of all, legally, a crime has occurred even if there isn't a criminal.(1)

Also, note that criminal investigation divisions are responsible for investigating criminal acts. (2) Their purpose is to find the criminal, by investigating the already occurred crime.

My opponent's arguments is based on the fact that a crime can only be crime, if there is a criminal.

This is wrong because:

1. Of the aforementioned reasons constituting the legality of crimes and criminal departments.

2. Also, I have to point out that if nobody has stepped forward, then a crime can be logically assumed. The only time that a "crime" is considered a "crime" is when the crime is justified, and if there is an official criminal.
Neither of these apply in this debate.
Therefore, this action is a crime.
I have shown significant evidence as to why the crime was not justified, and that there is no official criminal.


Human Rights Violation

According to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights(3):

"Everyone has the right to life"

Regardless of whether the crime was justified or not (it wasn't), Gadaffi had his life taken away without a fair trial. Therefore, the rebels violated international doctrine.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is international doctrine.
The rebels violated this doctrine by taking away the "right to life" of Gadaffi without a fair trial.
The rebels violated international doctrine.


Conclusion

As this debate draws to a close, I would like to reiterate on some things


  • My opponent has tried to claim that Gaddafi's death may have been justified because of several reasons. I have rebutted all of these. In essence, making his case moot.
  • The rebels violated precious International Doctrine such as the UN "right to life" and "right to a fair trial". Therefore, his execution was not justified by international doctrine.
  • My opponent has made the illogical presumption that something cannot be a crime without having a criminal. This is false, as I addressed earlier.
  • We must take a "most likely" approach in dealing with this issue.
Thank you for this informative debate

Vote CON

(1) http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
(2)http://www.police.london.ca...
(3)http://www.un.org...

drafterman

Pro

Summary

The "likelihood" consideration was not brought up in the appropriate point. I did not raise such a point, but rather argued a default position of innocence irrespective of likelihood. My opponent agrees that the circumstances surrounding the death are "mysterious." Even if we accepted the measure of "likelihood," how is this measured and quantified? How existing video footage makes us feel, emotionally, is hardly a basis. Actual reports of the death itself are conflicting. I acknowledge the existence of evidence for both, while my opponent has only referenced evidence which supports his conclusion? On what basis do we accept or reject any?

I do not dispute that a crime can happen without a suspect. However, that is something that must be determined through official channels. My opponent cannt simply post Youtube Videos and then declare a crime has happened, and the declaration of a crime is necessary, here. Without it, the logical role of modus tollens previously mentioned requires us to accept that the death was justified.

Members of the UN, and other organizations, have called for an investigation. That is precisely what is needed. Until such an investigation actually occurs, and some official designation made, there is no objective or acceptable basis by which we can say a crime actually has occurred.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Sure.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Are you fine with the fact that the violations only apply if its very obvious and done on purpose?
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
I will try and get my argument in tonight or tomorrow night.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Its obvious that both of us will violate the rules at least once, and most likely subconsciously.

This only applies to the very obvious violations.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
"A single violation of the aforementioned rules or debate outline will automatically result in the loss of one point. Two violations and over will result in the loss of two points."

That's not at all abusive...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
LordknukledraftermanTied
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: Agree with previous voters.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
LordknukledraftermanTied
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 was correct that in war an enemy engaged in combat is not entitled to a trial. It was agreed to in the debate that Gaddafi had surrendered and was not engaged in combat, so that there was no justification. The idea that there is no justification without a defendant is not convincing because crimes are usually identified before trials. Identifying a crime is identifying an injustice under law. Good debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
LordknukledraftermanTied
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: Props to Pro for coming to this debate with a highly unusual argument. I have to give the win to Con here though. While there is no clear cut answer to this problem, as with all not strictly logical arguments, a degree of probability is taken into account. Con successfully showed that Gaddafi was MOST LIKELY not an immediate threat to his captors and so his captors violated international law(Gaddafi's rights to life and a fair trial) by killing him.