Pick your debate - 4/5 topics

Thanks to you too Vi, this has indeed been a stimulating and thought provoking debate. ___________ I will summarise what I believe are the main points of this discussion before responding to my opponent's last post. Throughout this debate my opponent's position has been that the taking of an 'innocent' life (more specifically that of a non-combatant, and as further clarified by Pro in the last round "non-combatants assumes that they have not taken another's life) can never be justified. It is this, rather than other aspects of terrorism that almost all of her arguments have been based on. This key argument is however undermined and contradicted by her implied justification of war. Vi has often stressed the differences between war and terrorism in this debate but in round 3 she did admit that wars can often involve terrorist acts (Shock and Awe, Hiroshima etc.) Vi has talked about the rules of engagement in war and referred to the Geneva Convention but her ideal image of a "just war" sadly does not exist. In both of the previous rounds I have pointed out that wars invariably lead to the loss of innocent lives and I have challenged Vi to give me an example of an exception to this rule or merely of any war that she believes was just. As no such example has been offered I think we can conclude that no war matches Pro's unrealistic restrictions for justification and that by proposing that wars can be just she is contradicting her own core argument against terrorism. I also pointed out early on in round two that terrorism does not necessarily include murder. The definition specifies violence only, not killing. Even if we were to accept Pro's assertion that killing someone who has not already killed is always wrong regardless of the benefits, an act of violence does not have to involve this to qualify as terrorism. _______________________ Pro: "it means terrorizing people into submission by threatening (and taking) their lives." As explained above, killing is not necessarily an aspect of terrorism. Pro: "The "War on Terrorism" isn't the war against empty threats -- It's the war against real ones." Aside from the fact that one can only wage war against a nation and not against an activity, the "war on terrorism" is essentially a euphemism for America's ideological conflict with Islamist politics. Like terrorism itself it is ideological and when tactics like shock and awe are employed it becomes more of a war OF terrorism. Pro: "terrorism is enacted not on military soldiers but on average citizens (otherwise it would be considered war - not terrorism)." This is not entirely accurate, under our definition almost any military strike that disregards the safety of non-combatants would qualify as terrorism, whether or not the civilians were the intended target, see my example of a terrorist strike on a military base in the last round. Pro: "Con's example of militant lesbians raping a rapist is not applicable" I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between this and terrorism here, I was merely attempting to conceive of a situation where rape could potentially be justified. Pro: "Con says that in order for my position to be true, that the resolution would have to read "Terrorism can never be just" or "Terrorism is always unjust." I really don't understand the point that he is trying to make, since that is indeed the position I am taking in this debate using the resolution that we have now: Terrorism can be justified. I am Con, so my position indicates that terrorism can never be justified and is always unjustified." Just is an adjective, to justify is a verb. My point was that something does not have to be objectively and inherently just in order for a rational human being to justify it. The modified resolution is "terrorism can never be justified" and I am Con. Pro: "in Con's example, Hitler had not yet killed anyone as he mentions Hitler's *intent* and not Hitler's actual deeds." Careful reading will show that I specified this scenario taking place "during the first months of World War II." At this point Hitler was already responsible for the loss of many innocent lives. It is his deeds as well as his intent that would justify his assassination. Pro: "the minute we begin to view outright murder as acceptable in any situation, we find ourself on a slippery slope as the word "sometimes" opens a panorama of moral doubt" I am by no means an expert on the subject of logical fallacies but I believe that this "slippery slope" argument represents one. I don't think there is anything revolutionary or morally perplexing about the concept that many innocent lives should be valued higher than a few innocent lives. This is how civilian casualties in war are generally justified. Pro: "But even if more unnecessary death occurs by not killing his family, who ever established utilitarianism as a moral principle? So far we have only distinguished rationality as the principle." I think in this kind of situation, the logic behind valuing the many over the few is self-evident. Pro: "Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Murder is always wrong, thus simply because you may be save many lives by killing a few people, the act of killing is immoral within itself and therefore cannot be morally justified." Yes killing may be immoral and no, two wrongs don't make a right. Retaliating out of revenge can not be morally justified but if an act (however unjust in itself) prevents far greater injustice then it can, on balance, be morally justified. Pro: "Another argument in that regard is Kant's theory of deontological ethics". To be brutally honest, I find the ramblings of Immanuel Kant pretty incomprehensible, though I couldn't say for sure whether the problem is with my own level of comprehension or with the theories themselves. Pro: "If you are alone trapped and isolated inside of a room with 1 other person, but there is only enough food for 1 person to survive, it may be *necessary* to kill the other person to ensure your survival; however, that doesn't make killing itself just." This would be a more fitting analogy for the topic in question if you had specified that the other person was armed and dangerous and you had every reason to believe that they were planning to kill you. Terrorism seldom occurs without some form of provocation. Pro: "Indeed countless psychological studies show that humans have an innate resistance towards acting violently or killing other human beings if they are rational people". It isn't clear that this is a moral resistance, it could be mere squeamishness. Imagine that the other person has severely wronged you and this resistance will wane. Pro: "In the rest of Con's examples, killing innocent parties was always justified because they were going to become killers themselves in the FUTURE (such as the military trainees)." This completely ignores the non-combatant military staff (catering etc.) I mentioned at the base as well as my other example of the men who provided the killer with his alibi. I don't know if my opponent missed these or if she just doesn't have an answer for them. Pro: "It isn't until they have already killed could the killing of them be just, and therefore justified (thus not making it terrorism, but something else entirely)." If there is so much as one non-combatant in the target zone then any act of war qualifies as terrorism under our definition. Pro: "it would not be justified for me to take their life - such as the life of a politician who voted for war" You don't have to take their life to terrorise them. Also I believe the man giving the order is at least as much to blame as the man pulling the trigger. Out of characters and rapidly running out of time. Really enjoyed the debate, thanks again to Vi and to you for reading. Con.