Pick your debate - 4/5 topics

Thanks again Vi, for the opportunity to debate such an interesting topic with such a skilled debater as yourself. Just to clarify for everyone, as I am Con and my opponent is Pro, we have agreed that the resolution we are debating is: TERRORISM CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED. ______________ I will respond to my opponent's case before presenting my own. Pro:"Terrorism is not the struggle of people for determination, or revolution, or rebellion." Correct. We have an excellent definition for what terrorism is already. However, while it is not synonymous with struggles such as these it does not exclude them either. Occasionally it can even be the most practical and reasonable way to achieve such ends. Pro:"Terrorism is cowardly fear mongering, propaganda, kidnapping and murder to scare a government or a people into submission." Terrorism can include these things but it no more implies or necessarily includes any of them than it does the struggle for rebellion. Pro: "The blatant disregard for human life that terrorists adhere to ... is unethical and therefore unjust." Viewed in isolation any such act is indeed unjust but in certain circumstances the killing of innocents is often justified on the premise that it will prevent a greater evil. My opponent's subsequent arguments regarding war all seem to disregard the clear fact that wars always end up killing 'innocent' people. Pro: "It all comes down to one key statement: It is unethical to do harm to an innocent human being, no matter what the motivator." I personally find it hard to disagree with this statement but the fact is that we often justify our unethical actions. If there was no question of an act being unethical then there would be no point attempting to justify it. If my opponent truly wishes to build her argument around this "key statement" then she has basically invalidated most of the distinctions she makes between war and terrorism. Wars kill civilians almost without exception and I would love to see a source detailing a war in which voluntary combatants were the only people harmed. My opponent goes on to stress the differences between war and terrorism and she is of course correct in pointing out the many guidelines and conventions which exist to regulate ethical conduct in war. None of this however alters the fact that many conventionally justified military actions fall under the definition of terrorism my opponent has provided: Systematic, ideological, intending to create fear and disregarding the safety of civilians. I will be giving some specific examples in my own arguments. I would be interested if my opponent could provide some idea of which wars she considers just or unjust so that we can see how they measure up to her "key statement" above. I agree that "Poverty is not the root cause of terrorism" although I think it can often be a contributing factor. I think terrorism is wide ranging and has a variety of causes, some more justifiable than others. Pro: "One can never claim justice by destroying a fundamental human right." That is precisely what happens in the majority of wars, which my opponent apparently thinks are justified. As I think I mentioned before, people usually justify these kinds of seemingly unethical actions by appealing to the concept of 'the greater good'. Lastly, I won't dispute that "terrorism is a means of coercion" but I don't understand how that is really relevant as many forms of coercion are conventionally justified; from disciplining students to threatening employees with the sack if they don't work hard enough. In response to the Rand stuff I would bring up Marx's concept of economic coercion, if it were not way off topic. ___________ My position: Terrorism can sometimes be justified. Although this may seem like quite a controversial position, I think there are a number of ways to argue it. Firstly to show that something can be justified, I don't really need to show that something is objectively just, or believe it to be just myself, merely that it could potentially be interpreted as just by a rational mind. People engaging in acts of terrorism have generally justified it to themselves and they often have many supporters. While some may be insane and entirely devoid of reasoning, I don't think its possible that they all are. Secondly I could present a slew of hypothetical examples of ridiculously extreme situations where terrorism would be the only reasonable option. I think that both of these would be a bit of a cop out though and too easy, so I won't use them (not this round anyway, though I may fall back on them if Vi starts kicking my butt lol). Instead I'm simply going to present a few examples. First of acts of war that are generally justified by most western citizens, I will be explaining how all of these fit our definition of terrorism. Then a few examples of 'terrorist' groups, some of the actions of whom I feel can be justified to a certain extent. _____ War = Terrorism These examples are all from recent history and most are from World War II, which most people consider to be among the most just of wars because of the greater evil presented by the fascist regimes. 1. The firebombing of Dresden and other German cities. "[F]or more than three years, the RAF, later joined by the USAAF, deliberately devastated many German cities, killed about 600,000 civilians and seriously injured another million in an attempt to terrorize the German people into forcing their leadership to halt the war and surrender unconditionally." http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.amazon.co.uk... This was systematic and deliberately targeted civilians to coerce them through fear towards an ideological goal. Although particularly the later bombings when the outcome of the war was pretty certain have often been criticised, this terror campaign has been and will continue to be justified by many. 2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "On August 6, 1945, the United States used a massive, atomic weapon against Hiroshima, Japan. This atomic bomb, the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, flattened the city, killing tens of thousands of civilians. While Japan was still trying to comprehend this devastation three days later, the United States struck again, this time, on Nagasaki." http://history1900s.about.com... I can think of no clearer example for our definition of terrorism than these bombings yet most people would agree they were needed to win a just war. 3. Shock and awe in Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com... The lessons of the past were applied here against the Iraqi civilians. There was no consideration for innocent life. Shock and awe is basically a euphemism for terrorism as a military strategy. _______ Terrorism = justified. I'm incredibly short of letters now but briefly: 1. IRA Although they went on to commit many unjustifiable and barbaric acts (such as bombing my city), the original Irish Republican Army fought horrific oppression from England and many of their actions are viewed as just by Irish, American and even English people. http://www.rateitall.com... 2. ANC I can't say I support every action they took but like most people, I think the ANC were the 'good guys' in apartheid ridden South Africa. The status former member Nelson Mandela has as a world statesman confirms this widely held opinion. Recently a UK MP came out in support of the ANC's terrorist activities. http://www.therightperspective.org... Sorry for brevity of examples I must learn to use the character limits better. I look forward to round 3. Thanks.