The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden

My Observations Death Vs Good--> "As such as long as I prove that the good achieved by his death warrants a celebration, I have met the topical burden." Untrue. There's a difference between "warrants a celebration" and "should rejoice". I am not arguing that this celebration is justified or that Osama's death is good but rather I am arguing that one should not celebrate it. -->"To say that we celebrate X is because of the externalities that exist because of X" Doesn't follow. We celebrate X because of what X is not for what it produced. An example would be: 1. I celebrate wine on 10th of May2. Wine is tasty3. So, now I celebrate the taste of wine?This is incorrect. Perhaps the taste of wine made me celebrate wine in the first place but it doesn't change the purpose of 10th of May. So, I agree that people "dont celebrate the death of Joe down the block, but we do celebrate Osama's death because of what it does and what it represents". However, not fully; I don't think that "Osamas death" should be celebrated, hence this debate. I do agree that we should celebrate what his death represents but this is not the topic at hand.Of course, there is that one objection of my opponent: "The act of dying, resulting in death is something that is void in and of itself". Does it make sense, though? Well, lets ask if death takes away something, if it does then it is something. Needless to say, death takes away life. Good Vs Celebration --> Actually, since death is not good that paragraph is unnecessary.Opponents CaseC1: Justice"As mentioned above externalities are going to exist and my opponent cannot logically separate the two just for arguments sake." Actually, I am merely bringing you back to the topic at hand. So what if " externalities are going to exist"? This doesn't change that we're debating the celebration over his death and not over what his death has produced. "His death is necessary for justice to be achieved" Indeed. Does this change the tragedy of death? No. C2: National Security"It is because of X (Osama's death) that the U.S. has achieved Y (more protection)" We are not debating whether his death was good for the world.C3: Psychological WarfareA) Demoralization-->"The impact of the footage of US. citizens in the street shouting "USA USA USA" and waving the flag has a much bigger psychological impact on the enemy" From what perspective? There are many perspectives the opponent can take, for example, he could see the "USA USA USA" shouting as an action of narrow-minded people who feel rather than think while he might see the surveys as an action of intellectual people and so he will begin to doubt his beliefs.-->Unsupported and unlikely (a big survey like that being skewed?). If likely, the large support would still be shown which is all I need.B) Moralization--> "Well we arguing if people should celebrate and rejoice" No, we are arguing if we should rejoice over the death of Osama.--> "Just silently support" I never said that! I said that "You can support the death of someone and not celebrate it" but we can still celebrate other things, for example, "people they protect" or what his death represents and etc. C4: Islam--> Same argument and so I give you the same response: this is irrelevant; we are debating about the death of Osama and not about the good things that happened because of Osama. My Arguments Plato-->"Thus, my opponent is using an argument which he himself has not delved into and he has not tried to unveil the esoteric meaning that Plato often writes in as argued by Leo Strauss."I have no need for a secret interpretation or argument since the obvious and known one is good enough.-->" Just because Plato says so isn't right. This is an appeal to authority with no backing, warrants or analysis given besides the quote itself." I need no analysis for this argument, the quote speaks for itself! --> Unaddressed: "Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right."Death isn't good-->"Assumption. He provides no grounding, warrant or justification for this." Actually, I made this comment:"(It closes the opportunities to be a good person and do good things. Of course, it is saddening that it all had to end so tragically! Like in Romeo and Juliet, we wish that the to families/countries would have worked together and so no blood would be shed and no terror would strike)"-->"namely death is bad for good people and good or neutral for bad people." Why the distinction? Indeed, death is bad for good people, but do not bad people also suffer the permanent losses of death? So, it is bad for both. Of course, we can judge the value of death by what it produces but then we wouldn't be measuring death but rather what the death has produced-->"True death is undesirable" What do you think is bad? Injustice? Well, injustice is just something undesirable. Anyhow, you can define it anyway you want it but my argument remains even if it ought to be worded differently, though I doubt that.Alternatives-->"celebrating the triumph er evil would entail the death of the evil, namely the person doing evil" Nope, celebrating the triumph over evil only means that evil disappears not that evildoer dies. Hence, Osama didn't have to die for this to happen but only change his ways.--> I mentioned it being "bigger and grander"