Pick your debate - 4/5 topics

Just a few comments before going on to my opponent's premises: "Occasionally it can even be the most practical and reasonable way to achieve such ends." What I'll be proving in this debate is that it is never just, or moral (reasonable) to achieve one's goals through terrorism. "Terrorism can include these things but it no more implies or necessarily includes any of them than it does the struggle for rebellion." As we can see, the definition of terrorism directly contradicts this. Terrorism either directly puts innocent people in harms way or disregards their safety completely. "Viewed in isolation any such act is indeed unjust but in certain circumstances the killing of innocents is often justified on the premise that it will prevent a greater evil. My opponent's subsequent arguments regarding war all seem to disregard the clear fact that wars always end up killing 'innocent' people." That doesn't matter. Killing of innocent people is never just. Taking an innocent life is always immoral and unjust, no matter the circumstances. One may say it is for the greater good - and yes, greater good may come from it, but it does not negate the immoral and unequal treatment of that life taken. "I personally find it hard to disagree with this statement but the fact is that we often justify our unethical actions. If there was no question of an act being unethical then there would be no point attempting to justify it." This is a very naive statement in which my opponent assumes that if someone can irrationally talk themselves into justifying immoral behavior, it must be ok. I can talk myself into believing that dragons exist, but real evidence points to the contrary. "Wars kill civilians almost without exception and I would love to see a source detailing a war in which voluntary combatants were the only people harmed." My opponent makes the assumption that I believe that killing civilians during war time is just and moral. Killing of civilians should not happen (in Just War theory), and if it does, it is always an immoral act (and yes, I would go as far as to call it terrorism if the targets were deliberately targeted or disregarded). "None of this however alters the fact that many conventionally justified military actions fall under the definition of terrorism my opponent has provided" Again, my opponent assumes that I don't believe that actions that target or disregard citizens in times of war are terrorist acts. It doesn't matter which wars I believe were just or not, it only matters that if two warring factions were to disregard the safety of non-combatants in any way, their acts directly infringe on the Geneva convention. "That is precisely what happens in the majority of wars, which my opponent apparently thinks are justified. As I think I mentioned before, people usually justify these kinds of seemingly unethical actions by appealing to the concept of 'the greater good'." I believe that intents of some wars are justifiable, but if in the process they infringe on the right to life of innocent people in a terrorist fashion, that they officially step into immoral territory - no matter what the greater good may be. ------------------------------ My opponent's arguments "Firstly to show that something can be justified, I don't really need to show that something is objectively just, or believe it to be just myself, merely that it could potentially be interpreted as just by a rational mind." For something to be justified, it must be objectively just - it can not be only "interpreted" as just by a mind. Minds reason through things irrationally all of the time. It would not be immoral to rape an innocent woman if we threw the term "justified" as a subjective term that the perpetrator can use in any way he pleases to call his action "just." Also, you do not need to be clinically "insane" in order to commit an immoral and unjust act. -------------------------------- "War = Terrorism" Just because the intent and initiation of a war is just, does not mean that specific acts in the war can not be considered terrorist acts. All of the ones my opponent has listed can be considered terrorist, immoral acts by the parties initiating. And again, just because people can assume that infringing on an innocent person's right to life can be justified, does not mean it can be. Slaughtering of innocent people, taking their lives which are not yours too take, is always immoral and unjust. -------------------------------- "Terrorism = Justified" 1. IRA Again, just because freedom fighters may view their acts as just because they are being oppressed, it does not make the act of killing innocent people just or moral. 2. ANC Again, just because the struggle of freedom fighters is a just act, their attacks should have solely been on their oppressors and not aimed at innocent people who are not volunteering their lives for the struggle or have taken any part in the oppressing. If they have, then they are not innocent and it is not terrorism. Also, it would seem that people like Nelson Mandela could have justifiable cause for their struggle, but never justifiable cause to kill innocent people. He seems to not be infallible with his morals anyway as he has been criticized for support of the immoral blood diamond trade. ------------------------------------- --Murder and disregard of an innocent human being's life is never justifiable.-- Terror is not a moral response to terror and killing innocent people is not a moral response to the deaths of innocent people. For a just war to occur, one must respond to an immoral act committed on one by another nation or group of people, but if one engages in such a war by also committing immoral atrocities, their justification has been negated. Killing of volunteered combatants is not committing an immoral act, for you are engaging in self defense and volunteering your life (as they have done theirs) for war time activities that lead to death. The life of another human being should never be used as a means to an end. Justice asks of the punishment of a crime to suit or be proportional in severity to the crime. An innocent person has not committed a crime, and thus the taking and disregarding of their life is a direct infringement of Justice. No one can make the claim that your life is their property to take for the gains of other people. Life must be voluntarily given. -------------------------------------------- I await my opponent's next round with excitement :) Regards, Vi