CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:10
Arguments:7
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (6)

Debate Creator

Dermot(5736) pic



Is it justifiable to resort to terrorism if one is occupied by a vast empire?

Add New Argument
2 points

A "Vast empire"? Is it a good empire or a bad empire? One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. There is not enough information in your question to make a decision. There will always be someone who doesn't like how things are being done, especially if there are different religious theories involved. If it is a fair, democratic empire there would be better ways than terrorism to settle things. If it is a brutal anarchy or theocracy (like Iran), almost any attempt at freedom is justified ... some might call it terrorism.

Dermot(5736) Disputed
3 points

If one is in a country that’s occupied by an empire it’s rarely out of choice , whether it’s good or bad well you can take it that the country that’s occupied did not invite the occupiers in

AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

On further reflection, empire was a bad word. It IS possible to envision an ethical and compassionate "Emperor", though. If one would rule and allow/respect voting by his/her people it COULD be a good "empire". Human greed and thirst for power makes that a bit unlikely I admit.

Being a "non-believer", albeit with an imagination, I can imagine an Emperor similar to the Christian Jesus, who (allegedly) would have made that type of "Emperor" .... without greed and with compassion, that could have turned an "empire" into a good thing, were few, if any, would resort to terrorism. However, those seeking "control" and power took over, as would be expected from humanity, and he would have HAD to be "god" to overpower those "terrorists". I don't believe he was, and didn't. Instead, he was immortalized. (I would really like to be wrong, but, this imagination can't seem to absorb any proof of the god concept). I hope this doesn't add to the confusion of my above remark.

When you think about it, though, an empire with a liberal Emperor that fed the poor, saw that the sick were healed, that the wealthy shared with the rest of the "empire" and had respect for the

"Emperor" who would never think of "grabbing" a li'l kitty, well, no occupiers would have a chance! ;-)

2 points

It's really going to depend on how much of a grip the empire has on its citizens. If it's like N.K.....I'd say potentially yes. If it's like the US or any other country where people actually do have a voice, I'd say no. I do not agree that murdering innocent civilians would ever be a good option through.

1 point

Well, one man's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

In such a scenario it is doubtful that the occupying force would permit democratic elections, such as the Polish were denied by the old Communist U.S.S.R, but which is afforded to the electorate of Northern Ireland.

Even in the circumstance of denial of a free vote terrorism always turns into bloody carnage as we observe with horror in Syria.

Gandhi was able to achieve independence for India through his brilliant powers of persuasion and, perhaps more importantly, being able to walk 1000s of miles in a pair of flip flops.

I mean 50 metres along the beach is enough for me.

1 point

Islam was beheading people and using jihad in its first years of existence and for the next 1400 years. In its first years and centuries of existence, Islam went on conquests of rape, pillaging, and land grabs all across the Middle East and North Africa. They even tried to destroy and take over all of Europe and China.

1 point

You can think 'yes' but type 'yes' or say 'yes' to this on a video and good luck finding a job in the future.

Just saying, the world is judgemental. Means-to-an-end mentality doesn't appeal to most.