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

The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 9 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,605 times Debate No: 16343
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (55)
Votes (9)

 

CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of OBL

==Definitions==

1. Should: provide outweighing reason for

2. Rejoice: to celebrate

==Rules==

1. No semantics. The debate will be about the known meaning of the resolution

2. Drops are concessions. We will be using the rule - "silence is consent."

3. New arguments cannot be brought up in the last round. That round is only for weighing, extensions and voters.

*this round is for acceptance. Argumentation starts Rd. 2*
vardas0antras

Con

I accept the debate, the definitions and, of course, the rules.

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

I affirm: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden

==Observations==

1. The definition of "should" implies a comparative analysis. As such, the Con needs to offer reasons that would indict the resolution as false as opposed to simply proving my side untrue.

2. My burden extends to the fact that I need to prove that yes there is sufficient reason to believe that there is justification for celebration. If I meet this general notion, then you should vote Pro.

==Contentions==

C1: Justice

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in essence an act of justice. Justice refers to "due," namely what someone deserves. Its a casual analysis: X action deserves Y action. This notion is most in-line with the legal principle of proportionality. Namely that an illegal act deserves a certain amount of punishment - "the punishment fits the crime." Osama Bin Laden's action on September 11th caused the death of 3000+ Americans. And as a consequence resulted in 2 wars and an overarching War on Terror. The killing of Osama Bin Laden thus represents the just principle of proportionality. This is something that justifies celebration, especially of the magnitude of a crime like 9/11. The death of Osama is the symbol of justice destroying evil.

C2: National Security

As recently released, the raid on Osama's compound has revealed that Osama was not simply a figurehead of Al Qaeda - he was an integral leader, tactically and structurally. Having killed him has led to an immense amount of intelligence gathering and to the impact of furthering scattering and killing the Al Qaeda leadership. One plot uncovered was a plot to attack U.S. transportation systems and critical infrastructure. By taking out Osama Bin Laden, government officials have come out saying that our national security is strengthened. It is important to realize that sleeper cells, small terrorist groups and terrorist individuals are only as strong as their capability and tactical prowess, which is heavily determined on terrorist leadership. Taking out the leadership is necessary to breakdown the command structure of terror cells and groups, such as Al Qaeda. [1] [2] This strategical victory against Al Qaeda is further justification for celebration. It represents a critical loss to Al Qaeda and thus a safer U.S.

C3: Psychological Warfare

A) Demoralization of the enemy. The death of Al Qaeda is a strong psychological attack on the enemy. It sends the message that the U.S. will hunt anyone down who intends or has participated in terrorist attacks against the U.S. or its allies. The point of terror in this case has failed. The U.S. has remained on its mission through two different administrations. This sends a message to our enemies that they will die. That is an important component of the War on Terrorism - to deter people from joining the enemy cause. Civilian celebration exacerbates this piece of warfare. It shows the terrorists that the domestic divide on the War on Terror is not a hindrance to the actual war itself. Openly celebrating the death of Osama shows domestic support for a highly controversial war. As such, the U.S. will have the support needed to find and kill terrorists. Again, the point of terror has failed, namely to terrorize the American people into submission.

B) Moralization of the military. Celebration of Osama's death only helps to moralize our military in a conflict that is highly controversial among the public. You see people all the time saying how they support the military and whatever, but the celebration that was seen was a heavily publicized and viewed showing of U.S. support for the military's actions. It is important to have morale within the military to increase efficiency.

C4: Distorted Islam

The death of Osama Bin Laden represents a victory for the actual truth of Islam, and not the distorted view held by the terrorists and other radical Islamic groups. This is justification to celebrate because it represents the death of a man who has distorted Islam into a violent cult bent on the destruction of the West.

==Sources==

[1] http://www.indiatvnews.com...
[2] http://uselectionnews.org...
vardas0antras

Con

Without ado, lets begin!

Op. Observations

1. I agree; we both share the burden of proof.
2. I disagree. Reasons:

The word "Justification" that my opponent uses is in conflict with the word "Should" that is present in the resolution. A similar issue had come up before I accepted this debate (evidently seen in the first few comments of this debate). Here's what I said:
“But it would be an easy win for you since celebrating Osama's death is popular and so acceptable.”

Indeed, what is acceptable is justified. What I proposed and on what did we agree? This:
“What I agreed on was: Should we rejoice over Osama's death? This debate would be about the merits of such celebration.”

My Observations

We must remember what we are debating. We are not debating whether or not the death of Osama is good for the world or not. We are not debating: should the death of Osama and what his death represents be celebrated?. We are debating:" The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden". Please keep this in mind.

Also, I need to establish that not all good things are celebration material. For example: a very important and respected man dies after suffering a disease for 2 to 5 years. His family consists of devout Catholics who, along with the religious town, pray for God to take him away to heaven so that his suffering would end. When he dies his family feels relief and their doubts due to evil ceases to exist. Now do they celebrate? No! Death is the result of sin and so it would be silly to celebrate. Of course, I won't bring sin or religion to this topic and will try to appeal to as many people as possible. However, I wanted to show you that not all good things are celebration material.

Opponents Arguments
  • Concerning Justice
What type of Justice are you talking about? Evidently an "eye for an eye" type of justice. The death of Osama could be the symbol for free ice-cream, but that would not change the fact that Americans are celebrating the removal of an eye. As I said in the "My Observation" section:

"We are not debating whether or not the death of Osama is good for the world or not."

  • Concerning national security
“This strategic victory against Al Qaeda is further justification for celebration. It represents a critical loss to Al Qaeda and thus a safer U.S.”

"Represents"... We are debating over the death of Osama. The resolution doesn't read:
“The death of Osama and everything it represents ought to be celebrated”
  • Concerning Psychological Warfare
a) This could be easily done in other ways, for example, surveys. ---> "Openly celebrating the death of Osama shows domestic support for a highly controversial war"

Celebrations express support and not implement. ---> "As such, the U.S. will have the support needed to find and kill terrorists"

b) Supporting the death of Osama =/= "the celebration that was seen was a heavily publicized and viewed showing of U.S. support for the military's actions"

You can support the death of someone and not celebrate it. Also, shouldn't the military focus on the people they protect rather than on the lives they take away? That is their purpose after all and should be the source of their courage.
  • Concerning Islam
Again, Osama's death could represent even more: the knowledge of what is the true religion. Even so, that wouldn't make his death celebration material.

My Arguments
  • Do good men do evil?

Have you read the Republic by Plato? One of his arguments in Book One is:

"But ought the just to injure any one at all?

Undoubtedly he ought to injure those who are both wicked and his enemies.

When horses are injured, are they improved or deteriorated?

The latter.

Deteriorated, that is to say, in the good qualities of horses, not of dogs?

Yes, of horses.

And dogs are deteriorated in the good qualities of dogs, and not of horses?

Of course.

And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man?

Certainly.

And that human virtue is justice?

To be sure.

Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust?

That is the result.

But can the musician by his art make men unmusical?

Certainly not.

Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen?

Impossible.

And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking general can the good by virtue make them bad?

Assuredly not.

Any more than heat can produce cold?

It cannot."

(http://www.classicreader.com...)

Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right.

So, where am I going with this? Well, here is the answer:

1. Good people celebrate good events

2. Death is not good

(It closes the opportunities to be a good person and do good things. Of course, it is saddening that it all had to end so tragically! Like in Romeo and Juliet, we wish that the to families/countries would have worked together and so no blood would be shed and no terror would strike.)

3. People should not celebrate death.

  • Alternatives

Celebrate death? Why not celebrate our victory over evil and how good prevailed or our luck in being born in a free nation? Celebrating, for example, the prevalence of good over evil is bigger and grander.

===========================================================================

Thank you for your time and I hope that you found this interesting.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

==My Observations==

1. Reciprocal burdens was accepted.

2. I concede my opponents objection to my observation. As such, I must show that legitimate merits exist, as he mentioned.

==Opponents Observations==

1. Death vs. Good

--> My opponents explanation doesn't prove that the two are mutually exclusive, just that there are elements which can be different. As such as long as I prove that the good achieved by his death warrants a celebration, I have met the topical burden.

--> The act of dying, resulting in death is something that is void in and of itself. To say that we celebrate X is because of the externalities that exist because of X. As such, celebrating a death would mean we are celebrating the externalities of that death. Like we dont celebrate the death of Joe down the block, but we do celebrate Osama's death because of what it does and what it represents.

2. Good vs. celebration Burden

--> Yes that is an appropriate burden.

==My (Pro) Case==

C1: Justice

Opponent: XA Observation - Death vs. Good

--> XA my argument against his observation.

--> In this case, it is the fact that the notion of justice being victorious over evil. It is important to note that Osama's death is the prerequisite requirement for this point and all my other points. His observation is inapplicable to these arguments because it is assuming death within a vacuum. This just isnt the case. As mentioned above externalities are going to exist and my opponent cannot logically separate the two just for arguments sake. The notion go justice is being fulled in the matter of Osama's death because it is proportional retribution for 9/11 and the death of 3000 Americans. His death is necessary for justice to be achieved. That is what we are celebrating -his death is the prerequisite and necessary component for justice to be done. As can be seen in many videos that night, people kept referring to the killing as fulfilling justice. Justice is something intrinsic in most humans. The death of Osama made sure that justice for the U.S. was done, and since the magnitude of this justice is immense (due to the nature of 9/11) celebration is warranted in comparison to your local burglary.

C2: National Security

Opponent: XA observation - we arent debating representations

--> Again, XA my response

--> Even though I used the words "represents," this point goes way beyond that. It is not just a representation, it is a tangible result and consequence of the death of Osama. It is a weigh-able externality. As the contention says, it has revealed multiple terror plots against the U.S., and has immensely destabilized the command and control structure of Al Qaeda. This has greatly increased the protection of the US and its national security. Again, the death of Osama was a necessary compnent of this. It is because of X (Osama's death) that the U.S. has achieved Y (more protection). As such, the killing of Osama is something to celebrate, since it was the necessary key.

C3: Psy. Warfare

A) Demoralization

Opponent: alternatives exist, such as surveys

--> I think my opponent is missing the point. The impact of the footage of US. citizens in the street shouting "USA USA USA" and waving the flag has a much bigger psychological impact on the enemy. It definitely shows that massive support exists and that the US people want these terrorists shot in the head and killed.

--> Surveys can be skewed as they normally are. Thus, alternative doesnt solve 100% of the Pro point.

Opponent 2: Support =/= implementation

--> As implied by the tagline, its psychological. As long as the enemy perceives massive domestic support for the War on Terrorism and the killing of anyone who stands in the US' way solvency is achieved. This access' the deterrence advantage.

B) Moralization

Opponent: Support =/= celebration

--> Well we arguing if people should celebrate and rejoice. The patriotic sentiments shown by the American people will show the military that they are showing support for the military's action. Again, the perceptive reality.

Opponent 2: People can support but not celebrate

--> This doesnt have the perceptual impact that celebration has. Just silently support wont access the moralization advantage since the military has to see that yes we d support them. Active celebration is the best way to go about this.

C4: Islam

Opponent: Doesnt warrant celebration

--> Yes it does because it represents the death of one of the biggest distortions of Islam. Islam gets a bad rap, and the more we kill terrorists the more we help to purify Islam!!

==His (Con Arguments)==

1. The passage from Plato

--> (Kritik) This not valid because of his lack of interpreting Platos words from an esoteric standpoint. Wikipeda gives a good synopsis:

"In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing, commonly understood to advance the argument that some philosophers write esoterically in order to avoid persecution by political or religious authorities. A few readers of Strauss suggest esoteric writing may also seek to protect politics from political philosophy – the explosive reasoning of which might well shatter fragile opinions undergirding the political order. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus), Strauss proposed that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning."

Thus, my opponent is using an argument which he himself has not delved into and he has not tried to unveil the esoteric meaning that Plato often writes in as argued by Leo Strauss. As such, my opponent has made a large assumption is using the text of Plato.

--> Just because Plato says so isnt right. This is an appeal to authority with no backing, warrants or analysis given besides the quote itself.

2. Death isnt good

--> Assumption. He provides no grounding, warrant or justification for this.

--> I argue that death depends on agency and action, namely death is bad for good people and good or neutral for bad people. This is true because killing represents a loss of rights. The loss of rights for evil doers is not bad or evil in itself. Death can only be weighed by the agency of the person dying or being killed. Death is simply an act of existence, namely the end of physical existence. Death just is. To make the claim that death is bad is an unfounded claim. True death is undesirable, and people dont want it, but that doesnt judge somethings normative qualities, or lack thereof in this case. Thus, death to evil people is something that isnt bad. As mentioned above, death cannot be weighed outside its externalities. Those will determine the qualities of death in a specific scenario.

3. Alternatives

--> His alternative is not unique. Since death is determined by the externalities involved, then celebrating the triumph er evil would entail the death of the evil, namely the person doing evil. Remember, death is the necessary and prerequisite component of the positive externalities outlined above, thus the US shoudl celebrate it in the case of OBL.

--> He doesnt provide an advantage to the alternative, as such even if he wins the alternative he doesnt show why it outweighs and/or is mutually exclusive to the plan of celebrating Osama's death.

*GL to my opponent in the next round* : )
vardas0antras

Con

My Observations

Death Vs Good

--> "As such as long as I prove that the good achieved by his death warrants a celebration, I have met the topical burden." Untrue. There's a difference between "warrants a celebration" and "should rejoice". I am not arguing that this celebration is justified or that Osama's death is good but rather I am arguing that one should not celebrate it.
-->"To say that we celebrate X is because of the externalities that exist because of X" Doesn't follow. We celebrate X because of what X is not for what it produced. An example would be:

1. I celebrate wine on 10th of May
2. Wine is tasty
3. So, now I celebrate the taste of wine?

This is incorrect. Perhaps the taste of wine made me celebrate wine in the first place but it doesn't change the purpose of 10th of May. So, I agree that people "dont celebrate the death of Joe down the block, but we do celebrate Osama's death because of what it does and what it represents". However, not fully; I don't think that "Osamas death" should be celebrated, hence this debate. I do agree that we should celebrate what his death represents but this is not the topic at hand.

Of course, there is that one objection of my opponent: "The act of dying, resulting in death is something that is void in and of itself". Does it make sense, though? Well, lets ask if death takes away something, if it does then it is something. Needless to say, death takes away life.

Good Vs Celebration
--> Actually, since death is not good that paragraph is unnecessary.

Opponents Case

C1: Justice
"As mentioned above externalities are going to exist and my opponent cannot logically separate the two just for arguments sake." Actually, I am merely bringing you back to the topic at hand. So what if " externalities are going to exist"? This doesn't change that we're debating the celebration over his death and not over what his death has produced.

"His death is necessary for justice to be achieved" Indeed. Does this change the tragedy of death? No.

C2: National Security
"It is because of X (Osama's death) that the U.S. has achieved Y (more protection)" We are not debating whether his death was good for the world.

C3: Psychological Warfare
A) Demoralization
-->"The impact of the footage of US. citizens in the street shouting "USA USA USA" and waving the flag has a much bigger psychological impact on the enemy" From what perspective? There are many perspectives the opponent can take, for example, he could see the "USA USA USA" shouting as an action of narrow-minded people who feel rather than think while he might see the surveys as an action of intellectual people and so he will begin to doubt his beliefs.
-->Unsupported and unlikely (a big survey like that being skewed?). If likely, the large support would still be shown which is all I need.
B) Moralization
--> "Well we arguing if people should celebrate and rejoice" No, we are arguing if we should rejoice over the death of Osama.
--> "Just silently support" I never said that! I said that "You can support the death of someone and not celebrate it" but we can still celebrate other things, for example, "people they protect" or what his death represents and etc.

C4: Islam
--> Same argument and so I give you the same response: this is irrelevant; we are debating about the death of Osama and not about the good things that happened because of Osama.

My Arguments

Plato

-->"Thus, my opponent is using an argument which he himself has not delved into and he has not tried to unveil the esoteric meaning that Plato often writes in as argued by Leo Strauss."
I have no need for a secret interpretation or argument since the obvious and known one is good enough.
-->" Just because Plato says so isn't right. This is an appeal to authority with no backing, warrants or analysis given besides the quote itself." I need no analysis for this argument, the quote speaks for itself!
--> Unaddressed: "Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right."

Death isn't good

-->"Assumption. He provides no grounding, warrant or justification for this." Actually, I made this comment:
"(It closes the opportunities to be a good person and do good things. Of course, it is saddening that it all had to end so tragically! Like in Romeo and Juliet, we wish that the to families/countries would have worked together and so no blood would be shed and no terror would strike)"
-->"namely death is bad for good people and good or neutral for bad people." Why the distinction? 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. Of course, we can judge the value of death by what it produces but then we wouldn't be measuring death but rather what the death has produced
-->"True death is undesirable" What do you think is bad? Injustice? Well, injustice is just something undesirable. Anyhow, you can define it anyway you want it but my argument remains even if it ought to be worded differently, though I doubt that.

Alternatives
-->"celebrating the triumph er evil would entail the death of the evil, namely the person doing evil" Nope, celebrating the triumph over evil only means that evil disappears not that evildoer dies. Hence, Osama didn't have to die for this to happen but only change his ways.
--> I mentioned it being "bigger and grander"



Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

==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

Due to lack of time to respond me and pro agreed that our debate will continue here:
http://www.debate.org...

Sorry for inconvenience
Debate Round No. 4
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Only votes by tournament participants will count towards a winner in the tournament. I'm reading through it now.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
BTW, Brenavia isn't a clueless noob, in fact, he is the Einstein of 3020 who came back in time. Indeed, he is a great man.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Oh, haha. Wow, fail on my part xD
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"oh srry, I didnt think it sounded negative : /"
Bro, I'm critiquing my own comment :D
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Rather than split it into two debates, can you not just insert his post into your canceled debate, or just use thread?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
oh srry, I didnt think it sounded negative : /
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"Due to lack of time to respond me and pro agreed that our debate will continue here:"
WOW, is it even possible to word it in a worse fashion?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
WARNING: NO ONE VOTE IN THIS DEBATE (Thank you)
Posted by northardin97 5 years ago
northardin97
I think we shouldnt because they are going to retaliate.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
"Hmm, I still believe to be in the right...." Haha, dont we all : )
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
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: con had very weak arguments
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: My RFD for the other one.--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 kohai 5 years ago
kohai
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and was the clear winner f the debate
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 Grape 5 years ago
Grape
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: Pro had a much more thorough and far-reaching argument. Con's objections were kind of poorly explained, especially the Plato quote, and Pro refuting them pretty soundly. The issue of separating the consequences of bin Laden's death with his death played out in Con's favor. I don't think either case was that strong on more grounds but on practical grounds Pro won by a landslide.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
CiRrKvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better justifications for rejoicing than con gave a better analysis of why we should rejoice and effectively shut down cons arguments
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
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: CON's arguments were overall weak, not demonstrating in any significant sense whether rejoicing over an evil person's death is something morally permissible. Both sides didn't do much in the aspect of demonstrating why their respective normative stance is superior, but PRO had a more cohesive argument(s) for his position.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides clear reasons why there is reason to celebrate - justice was done; terrorist plots were interrupted; our military feels supported. Con offers no reason not to celebrate except to say "all death is bad." Con does not provide sufficient reason why the death of a bad man is bad. He argues we have to look at things just on face, but CiRrk points out this makes no sense. We wouldn't celebrate wine if it was just a purple liquid. Con loses the sources point for not analyzing Plato.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources, and better arguments.