The Instigator
supers
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Easan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

governments should negotiate with terrorists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 120576
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

supers

Con

I disagree because No matter the cause, Violence cannot be accepted as a moral action. Allowing terrorist groups who use violence to negotiate with governments implies that violence is a legitimate political tool
Easan

Pro

Will not be arguing much yet, Just clarifying that you do not think governments should negotiate with terrorists under any circumstance, Or are there any extreme cases that you will allow for?
Debate Round No. 1
supers

Con

Good point. However, Actually, There are a lot of times when the government negotiated and it did not do any thing. For example, The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2, 996 people, Injured over 6, 000 others, And caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks. So, The government negotiate with the terrorists. However, 7 days later, There was a terror using anthrax also known as Amerithrax from its FBI case name, Occurred within the United States over the course of several weeks beginning on September 18, 2001, One week after the September 11 attacks. Letters were mailed containing anthrax spores to several news media offices and to Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Killing 5 people and infecting 17 others. A copycat hoax letter containing harmless white powder was opened by reporter Judith Miller in The New York Times newsroom. According to the FBI, The ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement".
now, Back to my speech, There were no examples about governments negotiating with terrorists and actually worked out given by the honorable member of the con side. I would like them to give us some examples so we, The pro side can know some examples. Back to my reasons, Starting off with a question, Why do you think that terrorists are terrorizing the city? I think it is because they want something from the government. So, If we negotiate with the terrorists, It will mean that we are forgiving what they did and give they something they wanted. And, What they wanted from governments could lead to a bigger terrorism for the country.
Easan

Pro

so your points are that terrorists should not be given what they want and make it look like terror is a legitimate political tool, And that negotiation is useless anyway, Right?
I thank pro for the detailed example given and the respect shown to we, The con side, As such respect is not present much on this site nowadays.
Now, Getting onto my point, I personally find it ok to negotiate with terrorists, But definitely not every time they commit an atrocity. That will be too obvious an endorsement that violence is a legitimate tool to gain the government's attention dn negotiate for certain things. However, In some extreme cases, I think negotiation should occur to prevent further tragedies. A rigid policy of non-negotiation and police aggression is potentially dangerous. Police tactical assaults raise the risk of casualties and lose opportunities for peaceful resolution. Terrorist groups can use casualty counts for propaganda. In contrast, Negotiation has in the past secured the release of some hostages who would otherwise have been placed at risk during a tactical assault. It also allows time for detailed assessment of the situation, Which helps with planning and allows time to accumulate appropriate resources for a tactical assault. As such, Negotiation in hostage situations may appear to be the best possible approach, And if we can also debate on this point admitting that negotiation should take place under some circumstances would mean that negotiation with terrorists could actually work (if the terrorists holding hostages are targeting the government).
on the other hand, Just one example should not deter future efforts for negotiation. If mass casualties occur and negotiation may be necessary to avoid more consequences, I believe it should be done. Of course, As said earlier, This should only happen once in a while and negotiation should NOT become the norm. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
supers

Con

Supers forfeited this round
Easan

Pro

I'm not sure why supers forfeited this round, Whether due to time constraints or the inability to rebut my points, But I'll take this opportunity to reiterate mine and rebut some of his earlier points which I did not rebut in the previous round, And hopefully Supers will respond in the last round.

I do not think terrorists commit acts of terror because they want something from the government. They're a bunch of brainwashed extremists that think their twisted version of Islam is the only acceptable way and everyone else must convert or die. Somehow they believe they'll go to heaven because they blew themselves up in a market. They do not purposely commit acts of terror to negotiate with governments, Or else they would have made it more obvious. Since that's the case, If a government were to negotiate with terrorists it won't be giving them what they want, It'll be the government trying to find the best way to avoid another terror attack. Only if this becomes the norm, Will terrorists start launching attacks to get governments to negotiate with them for their own benefit. However, If this is done only once in a blue moon, It could still give the government a shot at solving the terror crisis while not giving in to the terrorists' objective. And, If negotiations seem to be leading to a bigger terror threat in the future, I'm pretty sure the government would not proceed and just give them what they want (it's negotiation, Not Christmas).
One might say, How dare you negotiate with terrorists, They're so evil they're barely human. Yes they may be inhuman, But if negotiating with them will help improve safety, Then it should be done. As such, I believe negotiation with terrorists should be done because it may help improve security, And executed properly, Will not result in terror attacks occurring for the sake of negotiation. If this is the case, What can the proposition say to make government negotiation with terrorists look like something with severe repercussions that are simply not worth it?
I look forward to the last round of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
supers

Con

supers forfeited this round.
Easan

Pro

Easan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Guess you didnt watch the daredevil series
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
We should negotiate with terrorists. Negotiate their surrender.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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