In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

‘’ I'm not sure my opponent understood what I was saying. I'm not disputing that Kaczynski had political motivations. I was stating that his actions would more accurately be described as acts of revolution then mere political messages. ’’ I understood exactly what my opponent was saying. However a revolution is driven by a political message. A revolution is a ‘’ a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. ’’ The Unabomber was trying to start one but it never reached that stage. He was merley stating his political opinions in order to try and trigger a revolution however he gained almost no support for his ideas. Therefore his actions were based on a political message not a revolution. ‘’ I've shown how the industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet and in many cases kills them’’ You have not provided any evidence to show that everyone’s life is of a poorer quality than 300 years ago. That fact is people thought history have been forced to work forced to answer to the leaders of our society whether it be kings , queens or dictators we have never had our autonomy. As highlighted we live longer now than we ever have, less children die of cholera , Diphtheria, chicken pox than at any point in history therefore you have failed to prove how the ‘’ industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet’’ ‘’Bin Laden was protesting America's foreign policy in relation to Israel. Kaczynski was sparking a revolution against the industrial-technological system. So no, I don't see what connection your trying to stretch to make here’’ Both men used bombs and terrorist tactics to try and intimidate others into accepting their views they didn’t try to give people a choice but used tactics that can never be justified. Give some of the arguments my opponent has dreamt up I don’t see why he finds this argument so hard to comprehend. My opponent has also not stated any reason why Bin Laden Bombing people and the Unabomber bombing people is different therefore my argument stands. ‘’ I would be both sad and honored if a relative of mine lost their life so many more could one day gain their freedom. ’’ My opponent appears to have lost the plot he is saying he would have been honoured if the Unabomber choose to blow up a relative of his. I find this hard to believe. ‘’ The reference to natural/god given rights was in no way a religious argument or statement. Don't get tripped up on the word god it's just a reference to a philosophy of freedom. ’’ I made the reference to god as that is what you stated if you didn’t mean it the try to phrase your arguments better. The point still stands no one has the right to murder another human being. Summery The Debate is ‘’ The Unabomber was justified in his actions’’ Throughout the debate I have consistently argued that sending bombs to terrorise people into accepting one person’s personal views is not and never will be justifiable. My opponent has provided no compelling arguments to contradict this position. As shown in round 2 and 3 there are cases such as the green party and the events in south Africa where if people support your beliefs then there are democratic methods to change society. The Unabomber did not follow democratic proses because he knew it would fail not because the democratic process is flawed but as I have also shown throughout this debate his ideas where flawed he therefore chose to try and force his ideas on us by the use of bombs. His actions were not justified.