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

Without ado, lets begin!Op. Observations1. I agree; we both share the burden of proof.2. I disagree. Reasons:The word "Justification" that my opponent uses is in conflict with the word "Should" that is present in the resolution. A similar issue had come up before I accepted this debate (evidently seen in the first few comments of this debate). Here's what I said:“But it would be an easy win for you since celebrating Osama's death is popular and so acceptable.”Indeed, what is acceptable is justified. What I proposed and on what did we agree? This:“What I agreed on was: Should we rejoice over Osama's death? This debate would be about the merits of such celebration.”My ObservationsWe must remember what we are debating. We are not debating whether or not the death of Osama is good for the world or not. We are not debating: should the death of Osama and what his death represents be celebrated?. We are debating:" The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden". Please keep this in mind.Also, I need to establish that not all good things are celebration material. For example: a very important and respected man dies after suffering a disease for 2 to 5 years. His family consists of devout Catholics who, along with the religious town, pray for God to take him away to heaven so that his suffering would end. When he dies his family feels relief and their doubts due to evil ceases to exist. Now do they celebrate? No! Death is the result of sin and so it would be silly to celebrate. Of course, I won't bring sin or religion to this topic and will try to appeal to as many people as possible. However, I wanted to show you that not all good things are celebration material. Opponents Arguments Concerning Justice What type of Justice are you talking about? Evidently an "eye for an eye" type of justice. The death of Osama could be the symbol for free ice-cream, but that would not change the fact that Americans are celebrating the removal of an eye. As I said in the "My Observation" section:"We are not debating whether or not the death of Osama is good for the world or not." Concerning national security “This strategic victory against Al Qaeda is further justification for celebration. It represents a critical loss to Al Qaeda and thus a safer U.S.” "Represents"... We are debating over the death of Osama. The resolution doesn't read:“The death of Osama and everything it represents ought to be celebrated” Concerning Psychological Warfare a) This could be easily done in other ways, for example, surveys. ---> "Openly celebrating the death of Osama shows domestic support for a highly controversial war"Celebrations express support and not implement. ---> "As such, the U.S. will have the support needed to find and kill terrorists"b) Supporting the death of Osama =/= "the celebration that was seen was a heavily publicized and viewed showing of U.S. support for the military's actions"You can support the death of someone and not celebrate it. Also, shouldn't the military focus on the people they protect rather than on the lives they take away? That is their purpose after all and should be the source of their courage. Concerning Islam Again, Osama's death could represent even more: the knowledge of what is the true religion. Even so, that wouldn't make his death celebration material. My Arguments Do good men do evil? Have you read the Republic by Plato? One of his arguments in Book One is: "But ought the just to injure any one at all? Undoubtedly he ought to injure those who are both wicked and his enemies. When horses are injured, are they improved or deteriorated? The latter. Deteriorated, that is to say, in the good qualities of horses, not of dogs? Yes, of horses. And dogs are deteriorated in the good qualities of dogs, and not of horses? Of course. And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man? Certainly. And that human virtue is justice? To be sure. Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust? That is the result. But can the musician by his art make men unmusical? Certainly not. Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen? Impossible. And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking general can the good by virtue make them bad? Assuredly not. Any more than heat can produce cold? It cannot." (http://www.classicreader.com...) Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. So, where am I going with this? Well, here is the answer: 1. Good people celebrate good events 2. Death is not good (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.) 3. People should not celebrate death. Alternatives Celebrate death? Why not celebrate our victory over evil and how good prevailed or our luck in being born in a free nation? Celebrating, for example, the prevalence of good over evil is bigger and grander. =========================================================================== Thank you for your time and I hope that you found this interesting.