Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

I would like to point out that Pro has not addressed any of the points that I offered in the previous argument which leads me to believe that I have proved his debate wrong. Pro instead incorrectly summarizes the in-depth analysis that I offered about his arguments. Let's begin: (1) "Ok to kill thousands but not millions." vs "killing is acceptable/unacceptable" These two statements are absolutely linked if not the same. In your debate title you have stated both the acceptable and unacceptable circumstances around the subject of killing therefore these 2 statements cannot be separated. (2) "killing is unacceptable in a so called responsible, mature and human rights society" I am sure you'd agree that this above statement is our end goal. To be able to turn into a mature society would mean that we have mastered the art of peace and are willing to but the past behind us and learn from our mistakes. This debate comment does exactly the opposite and instead of solving the problem of senseless killing, be it political or religious, it promotes it but just lowers the cap. (3) Sadly I believe my statement remains true Sadly, I believe that you have not read my previous arguments and have drawn a conclusion based on how you may feel regarding this debate title. I will provide you with a summary of my previous arguments: Killing is not a problem solver like it was in the medieval stages. We as a human race have evolved to a stage where killing has become an obsolete form of conveying a message, however it is our fault that we refuse to change our ways because the death of the innocent, profit others. Therefore agreeing with the title of this debate is not a option by any means, regardless of what the past has done. (4) body count remains "relatively" low You say that the world will not bat an eye if the the body count remains "relatively" low. This is false beyond belief. First of all, define the word world. I won't assume what you mean by that but I will give you an insight as to why this statement is wrong. Let me give you an example (bare with me as it will eventually make sense). Everyone in the whole wide world today, enters a fantasy world when they begin to discuss what it means to live an "American dream"; nice car, big house, freedom, money, good job etc. So instead of working hard to achieve the standard of American success, the world wants everything to be exactly the same as the Americans, without the hard-work factor. They follow trends, fashion, movies, and closely monitor every single move the Americans make in order to mirror them to the point. That's a problem because instead of changing their side of the world to match the success of the Americans, they view America as their world; so if America understands a certain problem, then they say "yep, so do we. And if we have any problems, we can call on them to solve it for us". I hope you understand why I say this because it is America that announced an international preference to European countries in the past which gave the world an opportunity to mourn Paris through the media in the present and be a part of the American trend. However, not one word of the casualties caused by the terrorist attacks in Lebanon were mentioned. So the mourning of Paris was necessary but was also blown out of proportion compared to the number of deaths that have occurred. Have you ever heard of any middle eastern country coming to anyone's rescue? Any Slavic countries? No! because America has manipulated the people to subconsciously view them as an ally by default. So if they have the power to change people's perspective then why not do it for good? (5) The higher the number, the more hotter things get True, but earlier I stated that even killing one is as if you've killed the whole of mankind. So why would killing still be okay? I don't care what happened in the past. The Jewish Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda are lessons to be learned from. Those men and women had their lives taken from them by people who failed to understand the true meaning of humanity and their deaths would be in vain if we turned the title of this debate into a fully functioning law. It is ridiculous to even say it's okay to kill one man let alone a thousand or even millions. Again I say that I'm not pacifist, rather a person who believes in justice through a fair and unbiased trial, even if it means capital punishment. (6 ) United Nations There is corruption at the very heart of the UN so they are truly unreliable. Read about Kofi Annan and Benon Sevan for more info. http://www.economist.com... (7)killing a few thousand will go unpunished. Killing a million not so easy! Thus acceptable!!! I respectfully say that it's sad how you repeatedly say that killing with a specific cap is acceptable. A murderer kills one, a psycho kills 10, but only a genocidal manic with a addiction for death, kills a few thousand. The fact that you admit that killing a few thousand will go unpunished, is statement to the whole flippin' world that it is time for change, but where is killing acceptable under any circumstances? How does this solve the problem the world is currently in? In conclusion, it's incredibly easy for a 1000 people to change one man, but it takes courage for a man to change a 100 people. What change are you willing to offer that will benefit the progress of Mankind? Because this is certainly not it... Your turn :)