Should acts of terror be published

Okay. First I want to say. Cool and interesting argument! My school had a similar one to this ( Im on the debate team, Model United Nations and Model Arab League). Hope we can have a good debate! I would like to provide publish, and terrorism. Since there is no academic definition of terrorism we can use a rudimentary one from dictionary. com Terrorism- noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. verb (used with object) 1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc. ) for sale or distribution to the public. Publish- to issue publicly the work of, to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate. To make publicly or generally known. First I want to point out the fallacy that Con is making. Con Says: "I belive that if acts of terrorism were not published that there would be less acts of terrorism. " "I also feel like it is shining a light on terrorism and creating the reaction within society that terrorism is intended to do," Con is making a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy. He is trying to make a correlation between the publishing of said acts of terrorism with peoples choice to carry out said acts of terrorism. The same can idea can be applied to violent video games and violent behavior in children. That the main culprit of violent behavior in children is the violent video games they play or violence they are presumably exposed to. Take a look at articles like this: Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). While said terrorism attacks may have some affects on the masses of the world, to say that terrorism will be lessened if we don't talk about it anymore is just as silly as saying the opposite: If we talk about terrorism too much, people will be more inclined to have terroristic inclinations, both conclusions are way too disconnected to make and there are too many factors that influence terrorism in the first place. To make this correlations is illogical, and is a far stretch seeming as though there are many factors that contribute to why people enact terrorism. Secondly, before we had the media and news papers, or had the means to globally announce everything, we still had rampant amounts of terrorism happening in society in general. You could use the Crusades in the Dark age for example. In Europe they were beheading people in the name of god and in that same time, in the middle east we have Al-Hashshashin (assassins) from persia and Syria and referred to the medieval Nizari Ismailis that are Shiite. Two different kinds of terrorism but terrorism, both terrorist acts influenced by ideology and belief systems. Which brings me to my last premises. Thirdly, There will always be terrorism as long as people have differing Ideologies/ belief systems and are not afraid to kill or die for them to further their beliefs/ ideology. To put terrorism in a media black-out not only decreases the knowledge of what terrorism is and how it affects us, but it is counter productive in that way. Not covering terrorism is only covering up the issue. To say that reporting terrorism is doing more harm than good will only cause civil reactions and uproar is false. Terrorism very well may be an integral part of peoples lives. Lets use the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict for example. In the international community we have two opposing sides: One side that feels that Israel is the terrorist for bulldozing Palestinian homes, displacing palestinian women and even have cases of Israeli soldiers raping palestinian women. Others say that Palestine is the terrorist for the suicide bombings and guerrilla warfare tactics they are using to defend their people. The discourse, the voices of opinions and dissent believe it or not have affect on politics, seeming as though politicians in Israel and the United states need to be voted in office. If no one knew about the conflicts in Palestine and Israel except the government of course, how would Netanyahu have appealed to the right wing Zionist/ settlement fears of Israeli Arab/ palestinian terrorism and the "threatened security" of their Jewish homeland? Covering and publishing these topics just further add to the pollitical discourse in which this society needs to sustain its democratic leadership. We can use the KKK as a domestic terrorism example. Then KKK lynchings and torture were only seen blatantly in the south. It was hard to report the body count of black people killed due to lynching since lynchings were kept private and bodies were rarely found. If lynching and KKK terrorism didn't even reach the news papers in this time period, we would probably still live in a country where the state can govern itself however it wants to its full extent. The global reaction to terrorism and slavery in the U. S. is what sparked change in this country. America had to rearrange its constitution, come up with Eugenics, write all of these Scientific Justifications as to why black people are inferior until finally the media covered enough discrimination and boycotts and violence and the government couldn't help but give black people the right to vote. So to say "I feel that by publishing acts of terror it is causing an unnecessary uproar and panic in society, " and to call the plight of affected peoples unnecessary is highly inconsiderate and also illogical. it was obviously necessary, because the terrorism affected their means to survive, just as it did in palestine or any other people who is affected by terrorism. Sure there will be people who blindly follow terrorism trends and do mass shootings on a smaller scale. To say that not covering these topics will eradicate this craziness only shows a lack of understanding of the latter. To devalue the movements that came from publishing terrorism is also a lack of understanding of the latter. We have to understand that people always find a reason to propagate their agenda. if it isn't terrorism, its politics. We also have to understand that there is power in knowledge and that the "grassroots approach" works. It is natural instinct and survival to revolt against a terrorizing oppressor whether it is publicized or not. To simply stop publicizing the problem is not going to stop it or hinder others from fighting for their beliefs.