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

==My Observations== 1. Reciprocal burdens was accepted. 2. I concede my opponents objection to my observation. As such, I must show that legitimate merits exist, as he mentioned. ==Opponents Observations== 1. Death vs. Good --> My opponents explanation doesn't prove that the two are mutually exclusive, just that there are elements which can be different. As such as long as I prove that the good achieved by his death warrants a celebration, I have met the topical burden. --> The act of dying, resulting in death is something that is void in and of itself. To say that we celebrate X is because of the externalities that exist because of X. As such, celebrating a death would mean we are celebrating the externalities of that death. Like we dont celebrate the death of Joe down the block, but we do celebrate Osama's death because of what it does and what it represents. 2. Good vs. celebration Burden --> Yes that is an appropriate burden. ==My (Pro) Case== C1: Justice Opponent: XA Observation - Death vs. Good --> XA my argument against his observation. --> In this case, it is the fact that the notion of justice being victorious over evil. It is important to note that Osama's death is the prerequisite requirement for this point and all my other points. His observation is inapplicable to these arguments because it is assuming death within a vacuum. This just isnt the case. As mentioned above externalities are going to exist and my opponent cannot logically separate the two just for arguments sake. The notion go justice is being fulled in the matter of Osama's death because it is proportional retribution for 9/11 and the death of 3000 Americans. His death is necessary for justice to be achieved. That is what we are celebrating -his death is the prerequisite and necessary component for justice to be done. As can be seen in many videos that night, people kept referring to the killing as fulfilling justice. Justice is something intrinsic in most humans. The death of Osama made sure that justice for the U.S. was done, and since the magnitude of this justice is immense (due to the nature of 9/11) celebration is warranted in comparison to your local burglary. C2: National Security Opponent: XA observation - we arent debating representations --> Again, XA my response --> Even though I used the words "represents," this point goes way beyond that. It is not just a representation, it is a tangible result and consequence of the death of Osama. It is a weigh-able externality. As the contention says, it has revealed multiple terror plots against the U.S., and has immensely destabilized the command and control structure of Al Qaeda. This has greatly increased the protection of the US and its national security. Again, the death of Osama was a necessary compnent of this. It is because of X (Osama's death) that the U.S. has achieved Y (more protection). As such, the killing of Osama is something to celebrate, since it was the necessary key. C3: Psy. Warfare A) Demoralization Opponent: alternatives exist, such as surveys --> I think my opponent is missing the point. The impact of the footage of US. citizens in the street shouting "USA USA USA" and waving the flag has a much bigger psychological impact on the enemy. It definitely shows that massive support exists and that the US people want these terrorists shot in the head and killed. --> Surveys can be skewed as they normally are. Thus, alternative doesnt solve 100% of the Pro point. Opponent 2: Support =/= implementation --> As implied by the tagline, its psychological. As long as the enemy perceives massive domestic support for the War on Terrorism and the killing of anyone who stands in the US' way solvency is achieved. This access' the deterrence advantage. B) Moralization Opponent: Support =/= celebration --> Well we arguing if people should celebrate and rejoice. The patriotic sentiments shown by the American people will show the military that they are showing support for the military's action. Again, the perceptive reality. Opponent 2: People can support but not celebrate --> This doesnt have the perceptual impact that celebration has. Just silently support wont access the moralization advantage since the military has to see that yes we d support them. Active celebration is the best way to go about this. C4: Islam Opponent: Doesnt warrant celebration --> Yes it does because it represents the death of one of the biggest distortions of Islam. Islam gets a bad rap, and the more we kill terrorists the more we help to purify Islam!! ==His (Con Arguments)== 1. The passage from Plato --> (Kritik) This not valid because of his lack of interpreting Platos words from an esoteric standpoint. Wikipeda gives a good synopsis: "In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing, commonly understood to advance the argument that some philosophers write esoterically in order to avoid persecution by political or religious authorities. A few readers of Strauss suggest esoteric writing may also seek to protect politics from political philosophy – the explosive reasoning of which might well shatter fragile opinions undergirding the political order. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus), Strauss proposed that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning." Thus, my opponent is using an argument which he himself has not delved into and he has not tried to unveil the esoteric meaning that Plato often writes in as argued by Leo Strauss. As such, my opponent has made a large assumption is using the text of Plato. --> Just because Plato says so isnt right. This is an appeal to authority with no backing, warrants or analysis given besides the quote itself. 2. Death isnt good --> Assumption. He provides no grounding, warrant or justification for this. --> I argue that death depends on agency and action, namely death is bad for good people and good or neutral for bad people. This is true because killing represents a loss of rights. The loss of rights for evil doers is not bad or evil in itself. Death can only be weighed by the agency of the person dying or being killed. Death is simply an act of existence, namely the end of physical existence. Death just is. To make the claim that death is bad is an unfounded claim. True death is undesirable, and people dont want it, but that doesnt judge somethings normative qualities, or lack thereof in this case. Thus, death to evil people is something that isnt bad. As mentioned above, death cannot be weighed outside its externalities. Those will determine the qualities of death in a specific scenario. 3. Alternatives --> His alternative is not unique. Since death is determined by the externalities involved, then celebrating the triumph er evil would entail the death of the evil, namely the person doing evil. Remember, death is the necessary and prerequisite component of the positive externalities outlined above, thus the US shoudl celebrate it in the case of OBL. --> He doesnt provide an advantage to the alternative, as such even if he wins the alternative he doesnt show why it outweighs and/or is mutually exclusive to the plan of celebrating Osama's death. *GL to my opponent in the next round* : )