This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that terrorism can be justified if all other peaceful and diplomatic avenues have been taken to stop an oppressive society or regime.
I will define in the second round and wish my opponent luck.
Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. I also say that the terrorist attack would only be justified when fighting back against an oppressive government or regime.
Let us look at the case of Nelson Mandela. The apartheid in South-Africa was cruel. The apartheid in South Africa was heartless. Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence at his trial, and organised many terrorist attacks on key government targets. This, by the definition given, is terrorism. But, as I said, I believe that terrorism is justified in certain situations. I am in no way saying that 9/11 should be commended, or that they were justified in any way for what they did. In the case of Mandela, the ends justify the means. They had tried a diplomatic approach. They had tried a non-violent approach but they were met with violence every time. In the end, the only way that they could actually gain the attention they deserved was through terrorism, which led to blacks and whites being able to discuss and challenge what atrocities were happening.
Secondly, terrorism can always be justified by a certain group of people, as the justification of it is subjective. Again, I would never seek to say that 9/11 was good, and I would condemn it as quickly as the next person, but Al Qaeda would've sincerely thought that their actions were justified. As Gerald Seymour once said:
'One man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter'
To summarize this particular round:
1) Terrorism can be justified in certain situations when the end justifies the means
2) Terrorism can always be justified by certain groups, no matter what the situation entails
he probably killed some people and I am saying killing can never be justified
Of course it can. Wars are often viewed as morally correct when all other diplomatic avenues have been taken. It is the right of every individual to express their views and show their discontent, but when the government downright refuses to listen to their POV it loses its legitimacy as a governing body. Furthermore, in the times of Nelson Mandela blacks were being oppressed and abused. If all other diplomatic attempts had failed then the only way that they could have their voices heard was through terrorism. In these cases it can be justified as morally correct.
At his time people called him a terrorist because his group gave up being peaceful and fought for violence but it does not matter the cause
It always matters what the cause is. The only reason we view him as a freedom fighter today is because our modern society realises that the Apartheid was a terrible thing. The blacks were being oppressed and their voices were not heard. Would it not have been morally incorrect to let it happen? No peaceful attempts had worked, so should they have avoided a violent approach and let the atrocities continue?
Con did not argue against the points I provided about the subjectivity of justification. In any situation terrorism can be justified by the terrorists and their supporters. Unless Con can prove that terrorism is repugnant to each and every person then he has failed, and the only logical course of action would be to support Pro.
Well done, you managed to find a person, an amazing person, ONE person to justify your argument that the "end justifies the means".
If you would go back to my definition of the debate, you will find that I stated that terrorism can only be justified when fighting back against an oppressive regime or society. Even if we totally discount my second argument (which is still entirely fair and you have actually agreed with), then by the definition terrorism can still be justified in these certain situations because of the pressured and unequal circumstances. This example was to back up my earlier point that in certain situations terrorism can be justified, something which you have not yet argued against or disproved.
if we keep using violence it would just keep on going in an endless cycle
Con does not seem to be getting the point of my arguments. Peaceful protests are all well and good, but sometimes they just aren't enough. Do you think that if America and England had peacefully fought back against Germany in WW2 we would still be in our rich and diverse world today? The harsh fact of life is that violence is needed sometimes, and that violence can be justified when the thing you are attacking is so repugnant that it would be immoral to leave it alone.
However, surely the person that commits the act is not right to justify themselves? It's like how we don't let criminals to vote, why do you think that is?
We don't let criminals vote because they lost that right when they committed the crime. However, this does not mean that their opinion and justification of the crime is any less worthy. Who are we to say what opinion is right and wrong? The fact that Alqueda would support 9/11 is a perfectly reasonable point. You seem to think that this nullifies the debate, but the debate is about whether terrorism can be justified or not, and if you agree then you are conceding that I am correct.
To summarise my side of the arguments:
1) Terrorism can be justified when the thing being fought against is so terrible it would be worse to leave it to happen
2) Terrorism can always be justified by certain people as the justification is entirely subjective
DebatingMaster forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Pro wins.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.