Pick your debate - 4/5 topics

--------------------------- Con begins by pointing out that terrorism indicates "the struggle of people for determination, or revolution, or rebellion" which is true. However, the focal point of the word terrorism is terror; it means terrorizing people into submission by threatening (and taking) their lives. If the threats were empty, then it wouldn't be terrorism - it would only be "threats. " Terrorism implies that the threats are actually carried out. So, it makes sense to assume that terrorism implies taking innocent people's (civilians) lives. Again, if the threats of taking those lives were not carried out, then terrorism wouldn't work or even be terrorism at all. This need not turn into a debate over semantics; we can reason this through using examples from our every day lives. The "War on Terrorism" isn't the war against empty threats -- It's the war against real ones. That threat, of course, is taking lives or accomplishing goals that can only be accomplished via taking lives. --------------------------- Next we move onto the idea of "justified" terrorism. As I have pointed out, terrorism is enacted not on military soldiers but on average citizens (otherwise it would be considered war - not terrorism). As I have also pointed out, it is irrational to justify taking the life of an innocent human being. Con's example of militant lesbians raping a rapist is not applicable, since the justice can be found in the "eye for an eye" theory. However, the civilians that are being terrorized are not killers, therefore the equivalent "punishment" is not applicable to them and killing them is not justified. --------------------------- 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. Since I agree to that standard, I'm not really sure what Con's point is in this regard. I have argued that terrorism as we have been defining it (and in the way which I have explained is applicable - i. e. the taking of innocent lives) is indeed always unjust. --------------------------- Regarding rationality, Con says, "I'm talking about the rare instances where a rational person can make a clear minded decision that an act of violence is likely to bring greater benefit and more long term peace and that the ultimate loss of innocent life will be less in the long term because of it. " He then proceeds to present the example of killing Hitler before Hitler had the opportunity to kill others. Now ignoring the obvious argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacy and the fact that Hitler waged war (which again is irrelevant to the debate), there are several problems with this analogy. .. aside from the fact that I don't know if that example even constitutes systematic terrorism as we know it. Nevertheless, in Con's example, Hitler had not yet killed anyone as he mentions Hitler's *intent* and not Hitler's actual deeds. That said, it is important to make the distinction between a moral and practical justification. Killing the innocent parties is indeed murder, and 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: when is violence justified? How can we know? Who gets to make the decision? It is easier to distinguish specific situations than it is to draw lines that will allow us to make decisions reliably in the future. And what good are these lines, anyway, if they are not universally accepted? " [1]. I hope we can universally accept that unnecessary death via the form of murder (or terrorism) is wrong. So in Con's example, if we kill Hitler - i. e. murder to his family - then their "unnecessary" death is the result. If we don't, then more people die -- there is even more "unnecessary" death. 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. 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. Another argument in that regard is Kant's theory of deontological ethics [2]. Kant explains that we have a duty to the individual and autonomy of the will. In other words, the lives of the individuals in Hitler's family are just as valuable as other lives, and they have a right to it until they forfeit that right - which they have not. --------------------------- We now move onto the idea of necessary vs. just. One might argue that while it isn't just to kill Hitler's family, that it might be necessary to save the lives of other people. However just because something is necessary does not mean that it's just (morally right). If it's not just, then how can it be justified when the definition of justified itself reads "proven to be just? " Think of it this way -- 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. You may rationalize your action to assume that it was justified in order to further your own survival, but just because your greatest desire is to survive doesn't mean that killing is the rational thing to do. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman's thesis presumes that morality has a biological origin, the 'animal pity' we feel when we see another human being suffering. The idea is that morality precedes civilization and functions independently of it, surviving like a weed in the cracks even when civilization does its best to extirpate it [3]. Indeed countless psychological studies show that humans have an innate resistance towards acting violently or killing other human beings if they are rational people; I think this much Con and I can agree on. --------------------------- 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). However there is no way to 100% guarantee that they would have actually killed. In a court of law, for instance, there is no liability in tort for consequences that cannot be foreseen (see: Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad). And since said parties are innocent until they are guilty, then in the end you're still taking an innocent's person life. 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). --------------------------- Con points out that terrorism deals with those who are "non-combatants. " Agreed, though I think it's clear that non-combatants assumes that they have not taken another's life. As such, it would not be justified for me to take their life - such as the life of a politician who voted for war, or someone who gave a false alibi for the one who murdered my family (according to Con's example). --------------------------- Conscripted combatants are irrelevant to the debate; they are part of war - not terrorism. --------------------------- I'm out of characters, but I don't believe any more needs to be said and I have addressed all of Con's points : ) [1] . http://www.spectacle.org... [2] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] . http://www.spectacle.org...