John Brown was crazy.

You ask whether or not everyone who supported slavery deserved to be killed. To answer your question, yes if "supported" means that they did not just hold the belief that slavery is wrong but also acted on it. By this definition obviously I would not advocate killing individuals who were on the fence over this issue, but those who clearly actively supported it are fair game. If you are willing to say that we are ever justified in taking violent action to stop slavery (which you agree we are), then yes, everyone who believed in and advocated the perpetuation of slavery be it by owning slaves, by moving to Kansas to abuse the political system in place there, by threatening or committing violence against abolitionists, or by simply publicly advocating the belief is equally deserving of punishment. I asked you to propose some sort of moral reason why there should be a distinction between any of these types of supporters and all you said in response is "but then we would have to kill everyone!" No, no we wouldn't. My argument suggests that an act of violence against any of these individuals is equally justified, not that John Brown should have led the abolitionists in an all out total war to cleanse the land of any pro-slavery advocate. My argument also suggests that even innocent casualties at Harper's Ferry are a necessary evil of justified violent acts. In addition to the philosophical justification I provided, in my last post I gave several tangible reasons why the use of violence was justified (Slave revolts are an attempt to stop the physical abuses you clearly agree needed to stop, abolitionists had already been violently attacked, the threat of violence forces slavery advocates to react when peaceful methods can't change their actions) and you failed to respond to any of those justifications for the use of force. At this point, even if you do not believe that the individuals killed were deserving of death (which you failed to prove), I still prove why their deaths were still justified. Your only other argument is that we ought not use violence against people who have different views than us. The problem is that all wars are fought against people with different views. You do not seem to be willing to suggest that the violence against slave-owners was not justified. Why not? This is also harming individuals because of a particular moral view they hold. The reason why we believe fighting to stop slavery is justified is because those moral views do not just remain in the minds of individuals, they are acted upon and result in horrific abuses of the natural rights of other individuals. Killing people based upon their moral code is certainly immoral if we are killing them because of something private, such as the God they worship. However, the moment those moral beliefs infringe upon the rights of other individuals we are certainly justified in taking action. After WWII we did not just try the Nazis who worked at the camps or made the orders to kill people. We also tried the people spreading pamphlets, talking on radio stations, and endorsing the cause in other ways. We also killed innocents, or men pulled into battle that did not support the cause. Despite their various levels of participation, they are all responsible in some way for the immoral acts of Germany. You fail to explain why the situation of slavery is any different. In conclusion, I think I pretty clearly showed why Browns actions were justified no matter how innocent or guilty you perceive his victims to be. I've shown the important effects his and other violent actions have in these sorts of situations. At the end of the round, the only ground my opponent has left is "chopping people up" is crazy.