Debate Info

Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it No, here's why
Debate Score:7
Total Votes:7
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it (3)
 No, here's why (1)

Debate Creator

Kinda(1649) pic

Acknowledging/Negotiating terrorism only promotes it?

A quick thought...

Negotiating with terrorists means that they make some form of headway. I would even go as far as to say that acknowledging it means that terrorism has its impact meaning that every act of terrorism has some form of success.

So do you agree that reacting to terrorism means it has achieved (even if its minimal) success?

Obviously I don't mean backlash for example Taliban bombed a building - Everyone goes and kills the taliban <- which I would say is the most effective but hardest possible action to take.

Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it

Side Score: 4

No, here's why

Side Score: 3
2 points

People wanting to negotiate with terrorists only justifies their use of violence on the innocent to achieve their goals. As soon as somebody is willing to give something up to a terrorist it means that their act of violence has achieved success.

Going further

Acknowledging the violence... fearing it also means that the terrorists have managed to get our attention and even worse leads us to negotiate with them...

Side: Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it
ta9798(316) Disputed
3 points

Terrorism is a tricky subject because any reaction to it acknowledges it exists and the effect it is having.

I think how you react, however, is what further promotes it or not. Negotiating or just talking to them, I don't think emboldens them or tells them they won. Talk is cheap and easy, making a war on them is expensive and hard. If a terrorist act can get a nation to make war on a group of people or another nation, then that reaction affirmed that terrorism worked in that case with that group of people.

Also, terrorism often breads terrorism in the various forms of retaliation. Take for instance the shock and awe strategy. Are not the overwhelming show of air power and massive explosions all methods to subdue and demoralize the enemy? To terrorize them against a force they can't possibly beat and thus they must succumb and give in. Sure its on a larger scale but the primary means of using fear as a weapon is similar.

Waiting/enduring the terrorists out seems like a emotional tactic of stubbornness which will only encourage the terrorists to devise greater, in magnitude, acts of terrorism in an attempt to create a volatile reaction.

There are terrorists who will never negotiate with us but reacting first with violence carries the potential to further their cause. The current US wars both are demonstrating that terrorism works against the US and gives the terrorists more potential recruits who are marginalized by the reckless attacks by the US.

While the terrorist cells are a problem we need to look deeper. Why do these cells exists? What possible policies(US or other) is giving people a motivation for violence and suicide? The idea that we can eradicate terrorism is foolish, but we can certainly reduce it as well as reduce the sympathy some terrorists receive.

Side: No, here's why
1 point

Hmmm.... true on many levels.

Terrorism is definately a very complex issue but I don't really want to get into a discussion on how to reduce/prevent or root it out.

So sticking to the issue:

Ultimately ignoring an act of terrorism is basically a bluff. It's like somebody punching you in the face and you act like it doesn't hurt. This could lead to two scenerios:

1. They stop hitting you, realising that they don't want to hurt you or there's another way to go about it.

2. They try and hit you harder.

However if they continuously terrorise the nation and everybody refuses to acknowledge their cause... eventually you will win. They will probably try and go about it in a completely non-violent way or economical or w/e, but eventually they will get worn out. Problem is it is EXTREMELY hard to ignore them especially because of the attrocities caused.

Side: Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it
1 point

after reading all of the comments i am now more neutral about the subject, but not entirely. the best defense is a good offense. thats one common ideology terrorist hold. we do must do the same. however again, all out wars like Iraq can have devastating effects. did America want good to come to Iraq when intervening? of course, but unpredicted results have risen and now Iraq, even though safer to an extent, is more chaotic. but for terrorism, the con person mentioned a very effective strategy. going to the root and ending it there. this is true, if terrorist loose the support and purpose for fighting, they are obsolete. for instance, if Israel thought hard on a way of giving more freedom to Palestine in some sort of way, more Palestinians may have gone against Hamas because Israel showed trust, even when there was none, of course Israel has not done this on some cases, but sometimes when it does happen, Palestinians have more respect for Israel. this is just a example of how terrorism could of died out more in Palestine. but all in all, terrorism is like a weed, you can cut the leaves off, but if you leave the root intact, they will grow back.

Side: Yes, we shouldn acknowledge it
No arguments found. Add one!