The Instigator
arcticanticsdebater
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
LB628
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

terrorist are bad for the world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 10 votes the winner is...
LB628
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,430 times Debate No: 7926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

arcticanticsdebater

Pro

Terrorist are bad because many people can die in one attack. Terrorists also just want to kill people. They want to kill themselves and kill other people. They can wipe out some of the population. In a war, government might send terrorist to bomb a place that is important to a country. They create fear and kill innocent people. They also break the law and attack. When a country is in envy with another country, they might just bomb the whole place.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I thank whoever accepts this debate.
LB628

Con

Terrorism is simply an extreme form of political expression. Given that terrorist attacks occur most often in countries which have despotic regimes, or in which no other form of political protest is available, these people use the only means they can of getting their point across. We need to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Entirely hypothetically, if the United States were conquered by a despotic regime, and a rebel group was created to attempt to overthrow this regime, you would most likely look upon them as liberators and heros, rather than terrorists and criminals. In a world in which freedom of speech is limited in numerous countries, terrorism can be the only way of getting the word out. It all depends on perspective. So, for now, terrorists exemplify freedom of expression, a good thing.
I would just like to take the time to point out that while I do not condone the killing of innocent people, I accept that there are often legitimate reasons for such actions when no other course is available.
Debate Round No. 1
arcticanticsdebater

Pro

I thank my opponent for entering this debate.
1. Where is your evidence?
2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention.
3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries.
4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too.
5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election.
I await my opponent's rebuttal
LB628

Con

"1. Where is your evidence?
2. Some people just bomb a place trying to get attention.
3. Terrorists made be heros in some countries, but will be criminals in other countries.
4. Terrorist attacks can lead to having a war too.
5. People can become terrorists if they are angry when there president they chose didn't win the election."

1: Given that what we are debating is almost solely opinion based, the evidence for my argument is in the logic I used.
2: So? That does nothing to refute my point. Saying "terrorists are bad for the world" is universally condemning, and when I show that terrorism cannot be universally condemned, I win this round.
3: You are just proving my point. Universally condemning terrorism does not work, because opinion varies so widely based on who is being attacked, and the reasons for that attack.
4: So they can. But in the one example I can think of off of the top of my head, the war in Iraq, that was a war started because of fabricated evidence and straight up lies. The fault for that lies with the U.S not terrorists. You may as well say that because I punched you, its somehow my fault if you brutally murder my entire family.
5: Very true. They can also become terrorists when they become sick enough of being repressed and murdered by their own government. That is not a refutation of my point.

My basic point has gone completely unrefuted. Terrorism is an acceptable form of political expression when there is no other option available. Given that I have shown the resolution is not universally true, that terrorism can have a positive impact on the world, by allowing for expression of ideas when it may not otherwise be possible, and can even be promoting the ideals which we arbitrarily determine to be good. I mean, from the point of the British, American rebels were terrorists, but you dont see them being attacked and denigrated for it.
Debate Round No. 2
arcticanticsdebater

Pro

1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?"
2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists.
3. You are supporting me on number 5.
4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself.
5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport.
Final Statement:
Terriost are bad for the world by looking all of the above
LB628

Con

"1. Some of your points might be untrue, so that's why I said,"Where is your evidence?"
2. About what you said about the British, the Americans weren't terrorists.
3. You are supporting me on number 5.
4. There is another option available like just going to jail isn't as bad as just killing a lot of other people and yourself.
5. Terriost can also start a major fire like if you bomb yourself in an airport"

1: In none of my arguments was I making factually verifiable statements. These are opinion based, somewhat moralistic arguments based in logic.
2: Yes, they were. They attacked British troops, burned down buildings owned by the British, terrorized British citizens, as a rebellious faction, not an independent country (it wasn't a country till they won the war).
3: Your argument on #5 does not actually address my points though, so it is irrelevant whether or not I am supporting you.
4: You go to jail for killing other people. I don't see the argument here. If you are saying peaceful protests, that is all fine and well until the government starts breaking out the tear gas and "rehabilitation" camps.
5:Yes, yes they can. So?

There has once again been no response to my primary point, which is that terrorism is primarily a means of expression. We arbitrarily label those terrorists who support our value systems to be heros, sometimes martyrs, who are revered, while those who oppose our value systems are just dogs murdering innocent people. The complete hypocrisy of this view means that there can be no choice but a Con ballot when we realize that terrorism is an expression of beliefs, whether we like it or not, and that numerous countries, considered "good" by our current value paradigm have been founded through terrorist actions.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Lazy 7 years ago
Lazy
There are somethings that are accepted fact like terrorist are bad. So con has to think more and as a result pro normally thinks less.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Not only do I love Arctic's debates... but he's lost almost all his debates and he's still in the 73rd percentile. If that was grading in school systems, he would be considered average. =P
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Because it is the world, it means it must be the net positive/ negative effects. And, without terrorists, the U.S., Irish republic, French Republic, U.S.S.R (and subsequently Russian Federation), Latin America and countless other nations would not exist. Of course, if a terrorist attacks a country which was birthed by an act of terrorism, then they are justified.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Hahaha it looks like he's due for a win. I only hesitate to let people with an actual argument in mind have precedence over the semi-formulated ideas in my head.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
If you think you can win this, go for it. This guy has lost "Breathing is good for you" and "Poison is bad for you". It seems like it would be hard to lose.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
It's tricky to defend something with terror in the name but I've got a few ideas. I'll pick this up if it lingers.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mdal 7 years ago
Mdal
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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:05 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Brian1228 7 years ago
Brian1228
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Lazy 7 years ago
Lazy
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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:23 
Vote Placed by Bjork-Taco 7 years ago
Bjork-Taco
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
arcticanticsdebaterLB628Tied
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:07