The Instigator
MCDCBC
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Merda
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Terrorists Are Heros

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 3 votes the winner is...
Merda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,180 times Debate No: 16728
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

MCDCBC

Pro

Round #1: Opening statements and acceptance
Round #2-4: Actual debate and facts stated
Round #5: Closing Statements
Merda

Con

Before we begin this debate I will define the terms of the resolution.

Terrorist: a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Heros: I couldn't actually find a definition for this word but I assume my opponent meant the word 'heroes' so I will define that word instead.

Hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities.

As per the rules I will let my opponent begin with her arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MCDCBC

Pro

"Heros: I couldn't actually find a definition for this word but I assume my opponent meant the word 'heroes' so I will define that word instead."

"Hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities."

Thank you for defining the word Hero I apologize for my grammatical error. As I had accidentally referred to terrorists as sandwiches although that would make for a much more interesting debate it is not we are debating.

As for my argument I say that terrorists are heroes because although they do inflict fear onto others, they are admired by their country or fellow terrorists and in most instances they sacrifice there lives. For example the Kamikaze pilots from Japan that fought in WWII caused a great amount of terror to aircrafts and ships but the Japanese looked at the as though they were heroes for sacrificing there lives.
Merda

Con

It appears as though this is a definition debate where we are merely arguing as to whether or not x fits the definition of y. X are terrorists and y are heroes. My opponent's argument is thus an argument that the definition of terrorists fits into the definition of hero. Let's look at that claim in detail. My opponent writes:

terrorists are heroes because although they do inflict fear onto others, they are admired by their country or fellow terrorists and in most instances they sacrifice there lives.

From this my opponent provides two arguments. I will deal with each of them below.

""They are admired by their country or fellow terrorists.""

Here my opponent believes that because terrorists are admired by some, they are heroes. I believe she is arguing that they fit the second part of the definition of hero which I provided( admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities). But this part of the definition does not only say that they are admired, as my opponent is arguing, but it mentions the reason that a hero is admired.

A hero is not admired for inspiring fear in others, but is admired for "brave deeds and noble qualities". But perhaps one could argue that it is noble to inspire fear in the enemy. This could be true, but terrorists do not do that. Rarely do terrorists plot attacks against military bases. For the most part they bomb places made up of civilian populations who are not necessarily for either side. Killing unarmed civilians can be recognized as not being a brave deed. So terrorists might be admired by some, but they are not admired for brave deeds or noble qualities.

""in most instances they sacrifice there lives""

While this act may be noble under certain conditions, in the case of terrorists it often is not. As I already mentioned, terrorists do not usually attack military bases but in most cases bomb unarmed civilians. This point made by my opponent faces the same problem as her last point.

Conclusion

No deed is necessarily noble on it's own. Sacrificing one's life is not noble when it is to help inspire fear in unarmed civilians and being admired is not noble when it is for commiting an atrocious act. The resolution has been negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
MCDCBC

Pro

My opponent argues:
"terrorists do not usually attack military bases but in most cases bomb unarmed civilians."

This would be true in the cases of Osama bin Laden who made the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center, Tiananmen Square when Chinese military attacks unarmed civilians the United States dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which are not military bases but heavily populated civilian cities.

"terrorists might be admired by some, but they are not admired for brave deeds or noble qualities."

My opponent believes that terrorists are not admired for what they have done yet the Chinese military is still considered to have be full of heroic soldiers, and the soldiers who dropped the bombs were honored for causing terror on unarmed citizens.

Conclusion
Although terrorists do harm unarmed civilians most of the time they are still recognized as heroes. Terrorists are not always certian groups or people like Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda but sometimes they are countries that claim to be the heroes like the United States.


Merda

Con

In response to me saying that terrorists usually attack unarmed civilians instead of military bases, my opponent simply brings two examples of other terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. I'm not exactly sure what my opponent is getting at though. If he is arguing that the Chinese and American militaries are seen as heroes, this runs into a problem.

The Chinese military, while seen as heroic from the viewpoint of the Chinese, run into the same problems I pointed out for terrorists. While they are admired by others who support their cause, this does not alone make them heroes. They must be admired for brave and heroic qualities. Any military killing unarmed civilians are not heroic or brave. The exact same goes for the U.S. military. Dropping the atom bombs is seen by most as what was needed, but something not to be proud of. The end of WW2 put the U.S. in a terrible situation and no one would argue that sending a plane to drop a bomb is heroic, supporters would only say that it was an unfortunate necessity.

My opponent then says that The Chinese and American militaries are homored for killing unarmed civilians. This does not change the point. The same point I made for the terrorists again applies to honored militaries. They are not being honored for heroic or brave acts, therefore they are not heroes.

My opponent has not upheld his BOP and so I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
MCDCBC

Pro

"The Chinese military, while seen as heroic from the viewpoint of the Chinese, run into the same problems I pointed out for terrorists. While they are admired by others who support their cause, this does not alone make them heroes. They must be admired for brave and heroic qualities. Any military killing unarmed civilians are not heroic or brave. The exact same goes for the U.S. military. Dropping the atom bombs is seen by most as what was needed, but something not to be proud of. The end of WW2 put the U.S. in a terrible situation and no one would argue that sending a plane to drop a bomb is heroic, supporters would only say that it was an unfortunate necessity."

My opponent fails to relise that well people should only be honored for heroic and brave qualites this is rarely the case. Most heroes are not commonly accepted as heroes threw out the world. All heroes have people who don't consider them to be heroes some people even consider one persons hero a to be a villain. So it is not necessarily a brave or noble deed that makes someone a hero but how they are viewed and each person has different opinions so one mans hero is another manst terrorist. Effectively proving that terrorists are heros
Merda

Con

My opponent fails to relise that well people should only be honored for heroic and brave qualites this is rarely the case. Most heroes are not commonly accepted as heroes threw out the world.

My opponent fails to understand what I am arguing. He believes that I am arguing that people should only be seen as heroes for having heroic qualities. I am not arguing this though. It is not up for consideration as it is in the definition of hero. admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities. The Chinese or American militaries being admired does not make them heroes. They are admired for non-heroic deeds(killing unarmed civilians) and so they are not heroes.


All heroes have people who don't consider them to be heroes some people even consider one persons hero a to be a villain. So it is not necessarily a brave or noble deed that makes someone a hero but how they are viewed and each person has different opinions so one mans hero is another manst terrorist. Effectively proving that terrorists are heros

How does this prove terrorists are heroes? All it proves is that, according to our agreed upon definition of hero, most respected "heroes" are not actually so. This does not upgrade the status of modern terrorists but downgrades the status of modern heroes.


Debate Round No. 4
MCDCBC

Pro

MCDCBC forfeited this round.
Merda

Con

Since this is the last round for me and my opponent forfeited his last round, I will not bring any new arguments as it seems as per rules and because my opponent has not responded to my arguments. When voting on this debate, I urge voters to vote Pro for the following reasons.

Spelling and Grammar: Con
My opponent misspelled the word heroes in the title. I also found a few grammatical errors over the course of my opponent's debate.

Conduct: Con
Obvious because she forfeited the last round even with a 3 day waiting period between responses.

Sources: Tied
Neither me, nor my opponent posted any sources.

Arguments: Con
My opponent did not uphold his BOP in this debate. His argument was that heroes are rarely admired for heroic qualities and so people who lack heroic qualities should also be considered heroes. However my opponent presupposes that people who are called 'heroes' are actually 'heroes'. Heroes are, according to our agreed definition, admired because of their brave or noble qualities. My opponent has not shown why terrorists possess these qualities.

I would like to thank my opponent for a mostly interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MCDCBC 6 years ago
MCDCBC
Sorry about forfeiting the last round I was grounded and unable to post any further arguments
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
I'll elaborate when the debate is over.
Posted by MCDCBC 6 years ago
MCDCBC
Actually being Pro I would have to state that they are both terrorists and heroes
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
This is some tricky semantics. One side calls em terrorist, the other side calls them heroes. NEITHER side calls them both terrorist AND heroes. Pro really has his work cut out for his resolution.
Posted by i8JoMomma 6 years ago
i8JoMomma
they are ok a long as they focus the rage on the government....not civilians
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MCDCBCMerdaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did make a valid argument that a hero is perspective dependent, but grammar and conduct to Con who also raised a decent defense 4:3 Tim
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
MCDCBCMerdaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar goes con, conduct goes to con, and Pro did not show how terrorists could be heroes when that was her part to uphold. Her examples weren't convincing, nobody considers the Chinese during the Tiananment Square massacre heroic, and nobody considers the crew members of the Enola Gay heroic either, even though I agree with the bombings personally. The agreed definition of a hero was one with distinguished courage, and Pro did not show how terrorists were courageous.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
MCDCBCMerdaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. S/g for misspelling the word heroes in the title.