In defense of evil part 1: The Unabomber was justified in his actions.

I would first like to start the final round by thanking my opponent for participating in this debate. Rebuttals, "He had a set of ideas that he believed in political can be defined as "" motivated by a person"s beliefs or actions "" he clearly believed in what he was doing therefore it can be regarded as a political statement. " I'm not sure my opponent understood what I was saying. I'm not disputing that Kaczynski had political motivations. I was stating that his actions would more accurately be described as acts of revolution then mere political messages. "" You have provided no evidence to suggest his actions would save billions of people. I would like to point out since industrialisation of the world the average life expectancy has increased year on year worldwide this is down to improvements in medicine and our understanding of the world we live in this directly contradicts your unproven argument. " I've shown how the industrial-technological society harms close to every person on the planet and in many cases kills them. My opponent never contested the arguments I made showing that. I've also shown that many if not most people would prefer to risk death then face losing their autonomy. So yes I have proven that Kaczynski's actions were meant to save billions of lives from the harm of the industrial-technological system. I've also shown that these harms are worth saving them from. Arguing that the industrial revolution has extended people's lifespans is pointless. It's added years to their life but they've had to sacrifice their autonomy to achieve it. I've already shown psychological studies that show people prefer death to a loss of autonomy. " ok so you think it is ok for one man to play god and take people"s lives in order to make a statement about the way we live ? . Let me ask you would you still have the same view if your mother, farther, brother or sister had been blown to pieces by a man who deemed their life insignificant compared to the masses. " My opponent is still using an appeal to emotion, but it doesn't work in his case. The industrial-technological system the unabomber was fighting against has killed and maimed significantly more people then the unabomber could ever dream to. You keep painting his actions as a political statement. These are acts of revolution painting them as a political message is deceptive. If you want to argue that his revolution wasn't justified fine, but it is wrong to paint his actions as mere statements. On another note I would be both sad and honored if a relative of mine lost their life so many more could one day gain their freedom. "" I will not accept advise on sources from anyone who deems wikipedia as a valid reliable source. " I was just pointing out the opinion piece you used as a source actually disagreed with the type of analysis you gave for Bin Laden's actions. The vast majority of my sources aren't from Wikipedia. The times I do use Wikipedia sources it is to give a brief overview of a complicated subject. In those instances it's obviously preferable to do that, then to waste space quoting upwards of 20 sources in wikipedia's place. "Both men killed innocent people to promote their ideas. They both killed innocent people to send their own message. Bin Ladens actions and that of the Unabomber are very similar in principle. If you defend the Unabombers right to low people up the you also defend Bin Ladens as you cannot have double standards. " Bin Laden was protesting America's foreign policy in relation to Israel. Kaczynski was sparking a revolution against the industrial-technological system. So no, I don't see what connection your trying to stretch to make here. It seems like you're just trying to make the 2 fit together to fit your argument. However hard you try, showing Bin Laden's actions were unjust in no way shows Kaczynski's actions were unjust. """ There is a natural/god given right to revolution. "" There is also a commandment that states thou shall not murder. No matter what country or religion you are part of no one has the right to kill another human being. " The reference to natural/god given rights was in no way a religious argument or statement. Don't get tripped up on the word god it's just a reference to a philosophy of freedom. "Democratic proses is far more effective than bombing people into acceptance" My opponent has neither made arguments showing the democratic process to be superior to revolution for complete overhaul of society, or has made any rebuttals of my arguments showing why the democratic process isn't appropriate in this situation. Summary, 1. I have shown that the unabomber's motives were justified my opponent has not disputed any of the evidence given for the unabomber's motives. 2. I have shown how revolution was the proper course to take in this scenario and why the democratic process wouldn't be effective. My opponent has failed to offer any rebuttals for the justifications I have for revolution. My opponent has failed to offer rebuttals to the arguments I made showing the political process would not be effective in this scenario.