The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

The US should hire death squads to root out terrorists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,493 times Debate No: 56977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (2)




My opponent must argue that the US needs death squads to kill, capture, and torture terrorists that live among us. Good luck, and I hope to have a great debate!

The opposition must go first


Thanks to my opponent ChosenWolff for starting this interesting debate. I think both sides can make really good arguments and so I am looking forward to this debate.

First things first, my opponent has not clarified in the opening round what a terrorist is. However, I am sure he will not have a problem to define a terrorist as a person who engages in terrorism.

Where Terrorism is defined as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".(1)

Now terrorists have been involved in some horrible acts in the past such as the World Trade Center attacks, The Munich Olympic Massacre, Boston Bombings, London Bombings, The IRA terrorist attacks in Ireland and England from 1969 to present day, ETA terrorist attacks in Spain and multiple more groups around the world. The most recent example to spring to mind is ISIS in Iraq. As such I do not think its necessary to point out more specific examples as its pretty obvious that everyone understands the basic concepts of terrorism.

In this debate I plan to show that Death Squads should be utilized by the US to get rid of terrorists that threaten the countries peace. Importantly, as we are talking about the US I hope that we do not enter the hypothetical question of these death squads acting as world police death squads. I hope we can rather only debate about death squads acting in the interest of their own country.
So why death squads? Simply put its the only way to get to the root of the problem and make it go away.

In 1983 before the terror attacks that brought he world trade center down their was the bombing of the world trade center which killed 6 and injured more than 1000.(2) The brain behind this attack, Ramzi Yousef, then escaped abroad and was involved in multiple other terrorist attacks/attempts around the globe. Some of these were religiously motivated, while others were directed at the United States.(3) Now while this person was not directly linked to Al Queda, his uncle Khalid Shaik Mohammed was the master mind behind the 9/11 attacks and they apparently worked together on the Philippine Airline Flight 434 bombing and other terrorist plots.(4)

From this we can see that there is a link in this terrorist network. In all probability if Ramzi Yousef had remained free he would have likely maintained the link with his uncle and been involved in the 9/11 crimes.
Now I maintain and there is no way to deny the following logic. If death squads were employed then Yousef and his colleagues, i.e.Khalid Shaik Mohammed, would be dead. The direct result of these deaths is that 9/11 World Trade Center attacks would not have happened.

I plan to expand on these types of arguments in future rounds showing the link between terrorists and terrorist attacks. This will surely demonstrate that death squads, while not palatable in many ways, would be highly effective at rooting out terrorism.
I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals and counter arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


ChosenWolff forfeited this round.


Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the last round. However, after some discussion we decided that I can post another round and then he will rebut my arguments in the final round.

In my first round argument I showed that major terrorist attacks by large organized groups could be avoided if death squads had been able to eliminate the major players as the links between them are undeniable. In this round I intend to expand on these cases and show that even in cases of so called lone wolf terrorism there is usually links that would make death squads able to snuff out these attacks.

Before I get to lone wolf terrorism however I think it is interesting to point out another case of domestic terrorism. These are the events that transpired in Waco Texas. Now whether you believe David Koresh was a terrorist or not, certainly is up to debate. However, I will assert that he fits the mold of terrorist as even before the events at Waco in 1993 the FBI was worrying that he was involved in slavery and involuntary servitude of his followers.(1) The only way to keep a slave or put someone in a position of involuntary servitude is to use violence or threats of violence at a bare minimum. This surely then fits the definition of terrorism.

Further, he (and his followers) were hoarding guns illegally which eventually resulted in the initial shooting which killed 6 Davidians and 4 agents (as well as 16 injured) and led to the Waco stand off.(2) The question (which conspiracy theorists ignore) should be raised why were they shooting at officials in the first place? Regardless this initial shooting, led to the standoff which resulted in the fire that killed 76 men, women and children. If however the death squad had moved in earlier and got rid of Koresh, this would never have happened. If we believe the ATF agents were trying to do this, then I think our definition of a death squad is very different. Truly a death squad would not have been seen coming they would have been in and out and left behind a dead Koresh and other fanatics allowing the safe removal of the endangered innocents.

Now let me move on to the final point of my arguments and that is the lone wolf terrorist case. The most infamous lone wolf terrorist in US history is probably Timothy Mcveigh. However, Tim McVeigh did not operate alone there were at least 2 other people, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier, involved with him and that is well documented.(3) There is even speculation of a link between the Aryn Resistance Army and McVeigh.(4) If this is true then a terrorist organization which would have been getting investigated potentially would have stopped the Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 168 people.

Importantly, at this point I think it is also fair to point out that in the true sense of the word “lone wolf terrorism” can never be stopped as its a single person acting on their own. In this sense death squads would not be able to stop these people. However, to be realistic nothing and no organization would stop them. So having death squads in this view is mute. I raise this issue of lone wolf terrorism, as surely it will be a contention in my opponent arguments.

In this debate I think I have sufficiently proven that if death squads were employed to take out terrorists that multiple terror attacks and countless deaths would have been avoided. This I have shown by illustrating the links that exist between terrorists. These links potentially exists even in the lone wolf terrorist cases.

I now hand the debate over to my opponent for rebuttals.





Debate Round No. 2


I) Death Squads are repressive

Hiring death squads to kill citizens off the streets is repressive, and in America, we live in a land where repression and democratic values are embodies. Killing people off the streets outside the law can be interpreted as repression, andys as we all know, tensed up will, is released will at one point of time. Or unnesecary bloodshed towards America. I am not disputing the benefits of killing terrorists, but the harm in doing it in this manner. There are better and more civil ways we can deal with terrorism. Even under these circumstances, we're still shooting random people on the guise they're terrorists. The US has made more false terror charges than people died of terrorism in total throughout the US. If we were to kill people based on every charge, we would be systematically murdering many innocent citizens, repressing the people.

II) Death Squads lower our international standing

It is a known fact, that other nations do not approve highly of having death squads systematically murder US citizens. Actually, the several countries with death squads have been cut off from most forms of arm sales and diplomatic negotiations. Eritrea, a state that used after curfew death squads, has completely fallen from the international community. A state of the US's side will be even worse. All are allies will turn against us for extrajudicial democide, and most likely penalize us in some way. Given the US has low terror rates compared to European countries, and there are more responcible ways to go about this, including more border security and reforms to the department of the interior. Hiring death squads is the least responcible answer.

III) Death Squads will cause more terrorism

The opposition claims that the use of death squads will end terrorism, therefore, a temporary measure. This is fallacious, and terrorism can't be ended in this manner. Mind you, millions of muslims and christian sects will take this as an attack on their community. Especialy those who are radical and watching their American chapter/cells dies. By hiring death squads for the systematic murder of Christian and Muslim terrorists, we are essentially paving the way for several exodus's, crusades, and jihads. Hell, the oppositions plan will make us the Jihad capital of the world. There is absolutely no evidence that killing terrorists will send a message. This is unsubstantiated and the oppositions BOP is eympty at this point.

IV) Restatement on morallity of Death Squads

Simple. As I stated earlier, we accuse more terrorist charges than people who actually die from terrorism, and by a large margin. If we were to kill every suspected terrorists, then there would be about 100,000 dead and innocent Americans. Is it moral to kill more than terrorism takes? No, and that's even coming from an objective POV. Killing innocents is counter inituitive to the reason the opposition proposed instating them in the first place. The simple truth remains, that if even one person dies who is innocent, we betrayed our values and the original goal of having death squads.

V) Illegal

Simple. It is both nationally and internationally illegal to kill someone outside the court systems. This is known as Democide, and while repercussions for government democide are lhumorlessly low, they still exist. We can be stripped of all our inoming debt money, and isolated from the democratic world. Envision the US getting kicked out of 25 organizations like Russia jud did. We need to stay in these organizations, and many are designed to fight terrorism. The trade offs are nothing to 100 at this point, and it's sad that stronger arguments were not brought forward by the opposition.

VI) Reinstatement of more responcible methods to combat terrorism

- Increasing security reforms
- Expanding budgets for Homeland Security and DOI
- Stop fvcking with Muslim nations
- Increase the budget for our struggling police force
- Stop treating some groups like second class citiens.

VII) Conclusion

There are a million things wrong with Pro's arguments. He didn't correlate death squads with any actual data. He completely ommitted collateral damage, and was short sighted in the fact that many repercussions were overlooked.I highly doubt Pro will fullfill the BOP at this point, with so many flaws in his system. Especially since their are more tried and true systems out there at the moment. In short, not only is Pro's BOP eympty, but it outright negated through anti contentions.


No argument posted as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
I actually didn't require this as a condition, but you thought it was. Either way, good debate
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
@ChosenWolff: I take exception to your attacks such as "Did he fullfill the BOP? Why did he drop all my last round arguments? "

According to conditions we set before the debate I was meant to not post an argument in the last round. By doing so would have been an under handed tactic on my part and worthy of me losing the debate.

I wish I had been able to comment earlier but I was on vacation.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
I said, and I quote, "I find myself leaning Con." That doesn't mean I was swayed by your arguments. I said multiple times that I was uncertain when it came to arguments. So no, it's not a contradiction.

And you keep misunderstanding my point. I didn't say that you needed to "'prove' why he has the BOP." I said you have to prove why he hasn't met it. He is required to meet it. On a basic level, he appeared to do so. When you claimed he hadn't, you had to prove why he had failed to do so. You don't just get to claim he's wrong and have it be believable.

In answer to your question, I remain unsure. It depends entirely on how I view your fourth argument, which I could evaluate multiple ways. In other words, he may have achieved his BoP, or he may not, and that's all dependent upon whether I give you all your claims regarding level of impact. If I don't give you those claims, yes, he does meet his BoP. If I do, then he doesn't. Either way, I'd be biased in making a decision based on arguments alone.

And it seemed to me that Pro was trying to be kind to you by restricting his argument to 2 rounds versus your 1. That's not dropping your argument.

Lastly, this is going to be my last response to you. If airmax wishes to contact me past this point, I am happy to discuss this with him. I am not willing to engage you any further not when you're actively insulting me and debasing every point I make. So feel free to respond to this with more vitriol, I'm done.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
1. First of all, complete BS. I warned earlier you would either lie or contradict yourself. You chose to contradict yourself, as earlier, you stated ChosenWolff had you more swayyed on arguments. Your words not mine, which makes your stance once again, a contradiction or lie.

2. Already did.

3. There is so much stupidity in what you said. I need to "prove" why he has the BOP. Whiteflames an idiot, it's official. He had the BOP, and you're outright admitting he didn't fill it while still voting for him. Answer me now. Did he prove that death squads are net beneficial? You can't do it because it would contradict your BS arguments. I might have some respect if you outright say he didn't fill his BOP, because that's the question you keep denying in every BS thing you say. Did he fullfill the BOP? Why did he drop all my last round arguments? Conclusion: Whiteflame had a sucky RFD that contradicted itself, and when asked if it contradicts itself, he beats around the bush like a troll
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
1. No, I didn't weigh conduct over arguments. I weighed arguments, found the results of the debate on arguements to be close enough that other issues could conceivably factor into my decision, and then found that conduct was sufficient to erase what little gap there was in arguments. This is not the old system of voting, and everything factors into that final point. It would be absurd for me to completely ignore conduct as an issue just because it no longer appears as a point value, which is basically what you're saying I should have done.

2. If you want to report my vote, I encourage you to do so. I would be happy to defend my vote with airmax directly, as I'm defending it with you now, though I doubt airmax will have to ask for clarification after all of this.

3. If you think Pro's BoP is different from the obvious conclusion I came to, then you had had to prove it. The lack of this analysis is glaring, since you said multiple times that Pro didn't meet your interpretation of his BoP. You're right, you provided a BoP in R1 - I apologize that I didn't notice that earlier. However, that BoP is apparently different from the one you referred to in R3. You seemed to be arguing that Pro's actual burden was to show that terrorism had to be ended entirely by said death squads. You're even changing it right here, right now - I haven't seen a single point, throughout the debate, requiring Pro to argue for a private army to be utilized in said death squads.

But that hardly matters. If Pro didn't meet the one you presented in R1, it should be easy to show why that's true. I never saw that analysis anywhere. You claimed several times that he didn't meet it, but never explained why not.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
Are you kidding? I didn't state what the BOP was? The BOP was for him to prove that the US needs to hire private armies to kill terrorists outside the court system. Did he or did he not prove it? Frankly, you had a BS vote and you know it, which is probably the reason your refusing to defend it. There were so many thins wrong with it. Things that people can read below. You SAID that you were swayed my way by arguments, but voted a select winner on conduct only. BS hypocrisy. You committed a double standard. You can't fudge a BOP. It was on him and you dropped it from your RFD. You should remove your vote, as there were plenty of holes and I think you know that.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
Whiteflame, you can't disregard a set BOP because you think it's unfair. More BS on whiteflames part. What is in the acceptance round is what goes, and simply because you think my rules are unfair, doesn't mean you can fudge your BS $hitty vote. Would you mind explaining how it's unfair? I wanted to debate against death squads, and Pro took the affirmative stance. There was so much BS in your vote. You voted on conduct only, when admitting I had better arguments. Additionally, you fudged your vote simply because you thought "the bop's kinda unfair chosen". What's unfair, is your BS vote. You either can make the neccesary changes to your RFD, admit you had a BS vote and we can get it taken down, or reove your vote entirely.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
Not to mention you weighed conduct over arguments. Your words, and not mine. You said you were swayed my way by arguments, which is a invalidity in itself, as it was Pro's duty to fullfill the BOP. Back to the point, how the fvck can you say conduct holds more weight than arguments? Either your going to lie to my face that you didn't say this, or give me a really crappy excuse. Is conduct worth more than arguments, as you did say you were swayed my way by arguments, which makes me conclude your RFD is BS. Note, I'm only disccusing this vote, as it was argued it's a more productive use of our time on this site, and there are so many holes in your RFD, I think it's worthy of a report. That was pretty much a vote bomb, as I never seen someone vote 7 points solely on conduct while admitting that one had better arguments, and you completely dropped BOP once again. I'm reporting your vote if you don't fix several key elements to it.
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
...Chosen, you made no arguments that I could solidly pick out as obvious victories on the arguments front. Your responses on Pro's BoP were utterly baffling, and frankly, I'm not sure what you even meant by him not meeting it, since you never even stated what his BoP was. It seemed to me that his BoP was to show that death squads are net beneficial by solving for terrorism to some extent. If you had another view on BoP, I would have liked to have seen it. Without that, I'm not going to factor it into my RFD.
Posted by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
That's really BS that you voted solely on conduct. There is something called BOP, and it was completely dropped from your argument. Just to make things clear, are you saying he filled the BOP, because if not, then I won arguments, therefore swaying the vote. How can you drop BOP from your RFD. I read the RFD and this was completely dropped, and I would like an answer on where it went. Note, I never told Pro once not to post final round in this debate. He said he wouldn't, which I was confused on why he wouldn't post last round, none the less, he was able to and didn't. Actually, I was worried because I was under the impression he would. So as we stand, he dropped all my arguments and the BOP, so your vote is greatly confusing and I'll likely report it if you don't add an additional insert on BOP to it, because otherwise, there's a huge hole in your RFD.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more varied than his opponent's, but not consistently strong throughout. Pro's argument was pretty simple, and had he had a chance to rebut, he may have won the arguments. But that was not the case, so I have to weigh Con's varied but inconsistent (and poorly sourced) arguments against Pro's simple, limited, and well sourced arguments, and I find a tie in the argument's department. But since Con forfeited a round, I think that pushes the vote over to Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.