EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2080

That terrorism is justifiable

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
21 points
krishna31krishna31 (CON)

First lets see how terrorism is defined. Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence to create a general fear in population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Creating Fear among people by violence for political objective.!!!! Does this sound justified. No not at all. Surprisingly its defintion itself makes a sense of unjustification.

Nevertheless there are motives defined behind terrorism some may even seem a little justified but the consequences of terrorism can never be justified. Take the case of 9/11 attack the motives were clearly stated. These motives may seem justified to some groups but does that justify the killingsof innocent people?????

Neither on the grounds of law nor on the grounds of humanity it can be justified.


Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-09 14:24:34
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BlackflagBlackflag
This is one of those dummy Indian accounts I warned you of.
Posted 2015-05-08 00:42:29
adminadmin
I would.
Posted 2015-05-07 22:34:57
RXR.RXR.
Who the hell would accept this debate ?
Posted 2015-05-07 22:25:47
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-05-12 14:35:26
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
I'm never going to award a debate to an affirmative team on the basis of a single question, which also just so happens to not contain any argument or even vague justification for the resolution. Pro had a burden to meet, and needed to do a little bit of work to achieve that.

Con did launch a counter-narrative, and that's all they needed to do. I felt like some of it was a bit out there - why does it sound unjustified? I'll expand on this in my feedback. Feel free to ask questions as always.

Feedback:
It would have been better to reframe the focus in something of an emotive way. For example:

"The victims on 9/11 were innocent. It is not right that innocent people should be killed for a cause that they cannot help. There needs to be some mercy and compassion for these..."

And so on. More of that kind of focus and less on the "oh there may be some justification but it's not as good" side of things that you also had going.

I'd also suggest to con to expand beyond looking just at narratives. There's lots of interesting philosophy with this topic you could have gone into - like, why it's better to spend finite political capital on achieving attention through nonviolent means as opposed to violent ones - that way people aren't like "oh they're big evil terrorists" and your (possibly legitimate) message just sends up being subverted.

Overall, an interesting first performance con, and disappointing from pro.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-12 15:14:47
VoiceJudge: Voice
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Well, Pro, uh, didn't post an argument. He had a huge BoP that he had to fulfill, but the lack of arguments from forfeiture resulted in the failure to do so. Con, on the other hand, presented a definition of "terrorism" due to the absence thereof, and then went on to give a (rather weak) counter-case argument about why terrorism is not ever justified.

Feedback:
PRO:

Pro, you are a rather good debater, but watch the forfeits. I feel like you could have provided effective arguments against Con's negating case if you had just posted an argument, but you only posted a couple of comments in the intermission between rounds.

CON:

Con, good first debate, but instead of saying that terrorism may be justified sometimes but it is still not good, you need to focus a little more on the aspect of innocent civilians being killed and how there needs to be at least a little mercy for uninvolved individuals.

Your final argument "Neither on the grounds of law nor on the grounds of humanity it can be justified" could have effectively been refuted by Pro by him saying that 1) law is relative to certain nations, so the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not exist everywhere; and 2) humanity/humaneness translates into morality, which is subjective. Is it not moral and humane to the terrorists to kill innocent people to make a point? So I suggest that you either refine that point or just don't bring it up next time you do a "Is Terrorism Justified" debate.

CONCLUSION:

Overall good debate from Con. I would have liked to see Pro actually argue; if he did, I think this debate would have been much more interesting.
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
14 comments on this judgement
BlackflagBlackflag
Yo, no burden of proof here. Instead we use BOR. Con is as obligated as pro to prove that terrorism is not justifiable.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
@Stag , BoR typically only applies where a BoP has been met in the first place - otherwise the rejoinder part makes no sense. You can force both sides to make a constructive case but this would not affect the legitimacy of BoP. Ultimately a winner needs to be picked in the event that no side makes an argument.
Posted 2015-05-15 06:11:31
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin then my advice is to judge expecting the same burden from both pro and con, or ignore b urden altogether and realize that debating is about convincing, and not proving hypothetical forfeits. I also think that debates where both pro and con fail to post, neither side should be judged for as neither side made a convincing argument.

You have to be consistent in many regards. Do not judge using equal obligations in some scenarios and not in others
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
Sorry @Stag , debates are meant to be judged. If you don't want to be judged, don't engage in a competitive debate. It's like a competitive figure skater getting angry at losing a tournament because they fail to compete - if you don't want to be judged for that you shouldn't enter a figure skating tournament. This is why burdens exist. If you come into a debate, there is an expectation that you make an effort to debate. Something that, despite your spurious thoughts, you seem to be unable to do of late. Hence why BoP exists and is relevant.

No idea where this idea of judging using only a single standard comes from. In some debates a winner may be chosen based on argumentation, and in another on style, and in another on strategy - this is not at all, in any way, inconsistent. In the same way, in one debate burdens may matter, in another they may not.
Posted 2015-05-15 14:19:17
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin I deserve to lose this debate. Con made arguments and I didn't. Simple as that.

I am advising against iz i boi's claim that the affirmative in this debate has a greater burden to uphold over con, because the argument that "Terrorism is justifiable," is weighted in his opinion.

That is ridiculous in every respect. If pro is more convincing than con, pro could still lose because he has BOP, and not just any BOP, an extremely large burden of proof due to the topic being controversial.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
A better summary of what I am saying is that the topic or the role the debater is taking (pro/con) should not factor into the judgement.

If A was more convincing than B, then the topic shouldn't matter, A already won.

If B was more convincing than A, then whether B was the affirmative or not shouldn't matter. B already won.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin I deserve to lose this debate. Con made arguments and I didn't. Simple as that.

I am advising against iz i boi's claim that the affirmative in this debate has a greater burden to uphold over con, because the argument that "Terrorism is justifiable," is weighted in his opinion.

That is ridiculous in every respect. If pro is more convincing than con, pro could still lose because he has BOP, and not just any BOP, an extremely large burden of proof due to the topic being controversial.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
It is all about who is more convincing imo. The one exception is a debate in which neither side participates. No one deserves to win a debate they did nothing on, no matter the circumstances. That should be a tie.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin I deserve to lose this debate. Con made arguments and I didn't. Simple as that.

I am advising against iz i boi's claim that the affirmative in this debate has a greater burden to uphold over con, because the argument that "Terrorism is justifiable," is weighted in his opinion.

That is ridiculous in every respect. If pro is more convincing than con, pro could still lose because he has BOP, and not just any BOP, an extremely large burden of proof due to the topic being controversial.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
"A better summary of what I am saying is that the topic or the role the debater is taking (pro/con) should not factor into the judgement. "
@Stag - That's more understandable, but still kind of silly. What about British Parliamentary teams? Do you disbelieve in the rule of extensions or something?

Also, watch the multiple posting.
Posted 2015-05-16 00:50:57
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin
"That's more understandable, but still kind of silly. What about British Parliamentary teams? Do you disbelieve in the rule of extensions or something? "
Nah, I still don't think roles matter. If the opening affirmative is more convincing than either of the two negatives, but the two negatives combined were more convincing than the opening affirmative, the opening affirmative should still win because the opening affirmative was the most convincing.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
So you don't think failing or making a burden can be convincing?
Posted 2015-05-16 01:37:22
BlackflagBlackflag
@admin
"That's more understandable, but still kind of silly. What about British Parliamentary teams? Do you disbelieve in the rule of extensions or something? "
Nah, I still don't think roles matter. If the opening affirmative is more convincing than either of the two negatives, but the two negatives combined were more convincing than the opening affirmative, the opening affirmative should still win because the opening affirmative was the most convincing.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
adminadmin
Also, I'm pretty convinced that your computer is submitting each vote comment, like, 200 times or so. I'm not sure why, since it just seems to be you. Any idea?
Posted 2015-05-16 01:38:47
2015-05-12 15:36:55
2001bhuJudge: 2001bhu
Win awarded to: krishna31
2015-05-12 16:02:20
TejreticsJudge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Conduct - Con. While both sides forfeited rounds, the proposition forfeited the majority of the debate (one more round), thus forfeiting all rounds except for the cross-examination, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Con. | Arguments - Con. Con made the only arguments in the entire debate. Thus, arguments to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

Feedback:
I recommend that both debaters strengthen their cross-examination by being prepared with questions. The negatory did not ask any question in the cross-ex, which is generally not advised. I also recommend that the debaters don't forfeit rounds, since it would be a violation of conduct and severely hinders one's ability to present arguments, defend one's case, rebut or counter-rebut, thus severely hindering debate progression.
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
BlackflagBlackflag
lol, you do not have to judge by the DDO point system here
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56
2015-05-12 18:34:39
RXR.Judge: RXR.
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Pro forfeited so all points go to con.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
3 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-13 01:03:58
HelloJudge: Hello
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Pro forfeited so Con wins by default. Pro did not present an argument, so Cons was automatically more convincing.

Feedback:
Pro did a good job of avoiding grammatical errors and logical fallacies.
But Pro should stop forfeiting rounds and start presenting arguments.

Con defined a key term, 'terrorism', and addressed the main topic.
However, "Does this sound justified. No not at all." was kind of weak. It might be the case that something can be justified without sounding justified.
Con insinuated that killing innocent people isn't justified without supporting evidence.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 comment on this judgement
nzlockienzlockie
I loled at "Pro did a good job of avoiding grammatical errors and logical fallacies."

Nice.
Posted 2015-08-26 09:59:37
2015-05-13 04:20:11
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Trademark first round forfeit by PRO.

CON set some definitions and made an assertion that Terrorism was not justified. Unsupported and insignificant as it was, it was the only point scoring move made in this "debate".

The win therefore goes to CON.


Feedback:
PRO: I really think you need to stop accepting debates that you can't complete. In this instance you didn't even make an attempt. This sentence literally contains more characters than your entire effort.

For the benefit of anyone looking at this topic, I'd approach PRO's side by pointing out that "Justifiable" is a relative term. One needs to look at the negative impacts of an action, and weigh those against the potential positive impacts.
If, from MY perspective, the postive impact outweighs the negative, then that action can be said to be justified. TO ME.

My second argument would be one of utility. Terrorism is only what we call it when the action is happening to us. If we are the ones doing the terrorist acts, we call it all sorts of other things, most of which could be categorised under Guerrilla warfare.
From a utilitarian point of view, Guerilla warfare makes a TON of sense and is easily justifiable. It is far cheaper in terms of man power, training costs and equipment costs. Numerous examples from history can show its effectiveness.

These arguments may not be the best ones, but either of them would have been better than the strategy employed in this debate.

CON: Well done for making an effort here.
On the positives, you made the correct start by giving us some definitions. This could have been done using some formatting options to make them a bit more clear, and you really should have defined "Justifiable" since that was also an important word in this debate.

You also made several assertions, namely that Terrorism is NOT justified, and that on two different grounds. Assertions are good and important and for THIS judge, that's what won you the debate.

BUT - assertions need to be backed up with reasoning and ideally evidence. This you did not provide.
Rhetorical questions are not reasoning. You can't support an assertion by simply appealing to me to use MY opinion, that's not how debate works.

You would do well to assume that your judges have no opinion, or even knowledge, of your resolution. You may even like to assume that they disagree with your position. Either way, you need to spoon feed them the logic and reasoning you have used to support your assertion if you want to win.

Well done on completing your first debate!
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
adminadmin
I really liked the part of this judgment where you provided a full constructive case on behalf of pro. That was cool.
Posted 2015-05-15 06:13:26
2015-05-14 17:00:14
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: krishna31
2015-05-20 16:11:00
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Forfeiture
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-21 13:20:43
ColeTrainJudge: ColeTrain
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Krishna gets this one. Stag forfeited each round of argumentation, and only asked a vague question in CX yielding no support for his stance.

Feedback:
Pro: Forfeiture gives this one to Con. If using CX, at least ask a question that could benefit your side, or follow up with one that will, based on your opponent's answer.

Con: Though the argumentation was vague, it was present. Perhaps more expansion on your points and a broader range of reasons would be beneficial.
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-26 16:17:32
Beekeeper12Judge: Beekeeper12
Win awarded to: krishna31
Reasoning:
Stag forfeited (again) and pro had a burden to meet. Krishna had a good edeb8 debut.
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-29 14:34:30
shiva221Judge: shiva221
Win awarded to: krishna31

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 12 hours
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29