admin (PRO)Return To Top | Posted:
2017-04-23 12:54:19
TheFuror Juror (CON)Return To Top | Posted:
2017-04-26 07:28:58
admin: Thanks for your opening case. You've defined terrorism as being exclusively mainstream. Can you give some comparative to my case where I explicated that we should be equally aggressive against non-mainstream terrorism?TheFuror Juror: Sorry,I think I've not been able to drive home my arguments properly. Actually I said that when the so called "terrorists " kill people we tag it as "terror attack". However when the world's mainstream or majority that is normal citizens and countries retaliate and kill thousands of people in SYria daily under the banner of removing terrorism, we term TheFuror Juror: .we never term them as terrorists.TheFuror Juror: As for aggression in the case of non mainstream terrorism , I do not support aggression whether it is against mainstream or non mainstream terrorism.admin: I want to press you on that point because it sounds like you're rehashing your material. Will you ever provide any comparative on this issue with my case, or will you just continue to defend yours?admin: (PS, you are allowed to ask me any questions as well)TheFuror Juror: In your argument you referred to aggression against terrorism as a retributive justice . Well have a look at what wikipedia has to say. "Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender." I think this works in my favour.How do you think this will help the society??admin: First, you didn't answer my question. Second, you're citing material outside your round that is out of order. Third, just because it says something on wikipedia does not make it true. If it did, I could edit that wikipedia page right now. Fourth, I gave two substantive points of analysis directly addressing that point in my speech. First I argued that it is morally required. Second I argued it creates a more peaceful society. I provided ample analysis around both arguments and you chose to rebut none of them.admin: Since you're not answering my previous question let me ask another. Would you be willing to agree with me that terrorism is bad?TheFuror Juror: Yes I completely agree with you that terrorism is bad . It is fatal for the world . TheFuror Juror: As for the first question raised here I am with the answer. I clearly said in my round of arguments that aggression is bad and never did I limit myself to only mainstream terrorism. Aggression in the case of non mainstream terrorism will be like feeding fat to a spark. Of course this spark will transform into a fire. And if more fat is feeded it might just become a hungry wildfire. I mean to say that the non mainstream terrorism of today will become the mainstream terrorism of tomorrow if treated with aggression. Well I was ignoring this ques because I am willing to bring this up in round two.TheFuror Juror: And I never defined or even came close to defining terrorism as exclusively mainstream. All kinds of terrorism need to be dealt with the same urgency but that never means that aggression should be involved.Return To Top
admin (PRO)Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-01 16:24:44
TheFuror Juror (CON)Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-03 05:54:24
admin: So, you introduced a counter-model in the second round, when it is no longer possible for me to reply to it since this is a 2-round debate. Do you think judges should take account of arguments that I am not allowed to rebut?TheFuror Juror: You can always rebut in this cross examination session,right?admin: That would be introducing new material, while questions you ask of me must substantively relate to my material. Asking you questions about your case is not rebutting your case.admin: In my case, I presented the claim that terrorists kill more civilians than anti-terrorist groups. Do you agree?TheFuror Juror: No I don't.And if you have been ignorant I'd advise you to go through my case again. I even read out a report of the number of killings in this March.admin: Did you present any analysis in the debate as to why you don't believe this to be the case? Or did you just assert it as a fact?TheFuror Juror: Facts do not change on my or your belief. I clearly proved that terrorists do not kill more civilians than anti-terrorist groups by asserting facts.admin: Do you believe so-called facts carry any weight when you have provided no justification for us to believe they are true?Return To Top
TheFuror Juror (CON)Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-08 17:02:46
admin (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-05-11 17:03:01
Really sorry for missing the deadline!
BTW, in case you aren't familiar: reply rounds are half-length summaries of why we won the debate. Often labelled a "biased adjudication." Some countries call them cruxes. The speaking order is reversed in reply speeches so you go first.Posted 2017-05-06 11:43:38
TRANSCRIPT:
Cool. So I apologize to anyone who can't understand my voice. This was a message that my opponent brought out to me, in a private message, where he said he would prefer an annotation on Youtube. I'm not really sure how to actually do that, so instead what I'm going to do is, I'm going to write a transcript in the comments of the debate as soon as I get around to it, so that anyone who is having trouble understanding my case can refer to that to make sense of it.
So thank you to my opponent for continuing this debate. I didn't feel like there was a lot of interaction in this debate with the case that I already raised - which is a bit problematic because I had the burden of proof, I'm the affirmative, and my opponent has to disprove my case in order to win this debate. So what is the case that I actually made? First of all, I argued there's a moral obligation to have an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mentality, and that's really good. Secondly, that aggression and death is a disincentive for terrorists. And third, that it provides closure for victims and communities impacted. What did he say to that? Absolutely nothing. He did not provide any rebuttal to any of those points, he did not link any of his material to any of my points. So I hope that he does this in the second round, and I hope we can actually get some engagement going, because I'm just about to engage with all of his material. It's totally not fair if he doesn't engage with mine. Following them I'm going to issue an extension where I'm going to be talking about international relations.
So first of all looking at his case. We think one thing that is really critical to notice here is that he does not provide a counter-model. That means he accepts my implicit assumption that we cannot stop terrorism. In both of our models, our goal is not to eliminate terrorism - it's to tackle it. It's - what should our response be to terroristic activity? So what arguments did he actually raise?
First of all he argued, that moral aggression is causing for terrorism. And we dispute that claim for three key reasons. First of all, because it's a simplification. He himself admits that there are many causes of terrorism - such as, needing to kill for the "purpose of life," their beliefs, political, economic, religious - all of these factors all lead to becoming terrorists. And if you look at the real terrorists around the world today, there's little commonality, for example, between Boko Haram and Chechnyan seperatists. And the reality is, that, all of these different kinds of terrorists - only some of them were caused by past violence or atrocities committed against those individuals or groups. There are other causes of terrorism. Secondly, that violence or aggression can have other impacts, not just terrorism. In fact, counter-terrorist groups are going to do their upmost to prevent further terrorism from arising as a result of there being terrorists, as a result of the very nature of what they do. So we feel like, overall, this issue is very, very murkey. There might be some impact where aggression causes more terrorism. But there is many, many more cases where aggression causes less terrorism in the world. And we don't feel like it's a moral outcome you can really raise in this debate - by contrast, we feel like moral obligations are very clear, because moral obligations like those that we brought forward, are things that are present right now, that you can literally measure and say like - "ok, that's justified in light of what has already happened." Furthermore, niether of us is trying to stop terrorism so we feel like, questions like "if aggression causes terrorism how can you stop terrorism?" are ultimately unhelpful because we're not trying to stop terrorists.
The second thing he argued is that it might hurt civilians. Well, we feel like terrorists, who are literally targetting civilians, are more likely to hurt civilians than intelligence agencies, who not only have the technology, but also the capability, and the incentive mind you, to not hurt civilians insofar as is possible, and cause collateral damage. But even if there is collateral damage, we feel like the amount of lives that you save by not having these terrorists running around blowing people up, is probably going to outweigh the number of people killed by stopping mass murder. So we feel like even in that case there's a trolley problem for a justification.
Finally he talked about wasting money, but then he agreed that terrorism is bad, so, he can't counter-model, he can't claim this fight against terrorism is going to be completely free.
So, in my extension, we feel like terrorism is actually really, really good for international relations. We feel like the non-aggressive, or what we might call passive actions against terrorism, tend to get internalised within a country. And that makes that terrorism really targetted and really bad for the civilians in that country. But when it's international, you tend to get whole international alliances, coming together to stop this terrorist group. And we think that's really, really good for two reasons. First of all it's because many minds are better than one. You're more likely to stop terrorism if you actually work together to solve this problem. And we're seeing that happen right now in many countries with international alliances fighting against terrorist groups, for example ISIL. The second thing is that that co-operation can extend to other areas. For example, that the military has shared drills, improving their capability. They can open trade deals as a result.
So for all of these reasons we are incredibly proud to propose the motion.Posted 2017-05-01 16:25:22
hey there, i have sent you the same message twice by mistake . Never MindPosted 2017-04-29 05:30:36
@TheFuror Juror Hey - great opening round. So if you don't know how cross-examination works, it's basically a time between rounds where we can ask each other questions. It's the American way of doing it - the BP equivalent would be points of information. I've put up one just now, so feel free to respond to it when you get a chance.
When we're both ready ... I have another couple of days to accept.Posted 2017-04-18 08:38:30
So when will this debate start?
Posted 2017-04-18 04:38:34
Extremely sorry .You see I am new here and unknowingly all this happenedPosted 2017-04-18 04:35:01
You sent me this challenge twice haha.
I might possibly accept one of them ... once I have my assignment done ...Posted 2017-04-18 00:51:09