CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
12
Yes, it was wrong. No, it was justified.
Debate Score:34
Arguments:25
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it was wrong. (16)
 
 No, it was justified. (9)

Debate Creator

Quocalimar(6469) pic



Was it wrong to not let Osama's family bury him?

After Osama Bin Laden was killed. His body was recovred and sank in the ocean so as to not make a martyr out of him.

Dead he can't do any harm. If people want to avenge him, they don't need to dig his body up to do it. 

A caption picture of osama bin laden

Yes, it was wrong.

Side Score: 22
VS.

No, it was justified.

Side Score: 12
2 points

In my description I kind of took a side because I really don't see how just letting him have a normal burial could be wrong.

He's dead, he can't do any harm anymore. They say he was buried at sea so that his followers wouldn't rise up and make a martyr out of him, but the simple fact that he's dead gives them all the motive they'll need, and maybe more motive because they will never again be near the person they held so much faith in.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
1 point

I agree yes if they allowed his family to bury him it would run a risk of his followers having a shrine of sorts but if they want to avenge him they will whether he has a grave or not, if anything not allowing his family to bury him runs the risk of creating more militants, his followers could argue that he was right and the west have no respect for Muslims beliefs, it could also cause other members of his family to follow his route to avenge him.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
2 points

He was an ass hole and i hated him for instigateing 9/11 and killing two of my family members but still his family should have burried him. I don't care that he is a terrorists but still, no one should be denyed that right.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
1 point

There's also the question as to whether we can trust that he's actually dead...

Most likely he is, but what kind of elitist bullshit is it that we, the American people, aren't allowed to see the "pictures" of his corpse or the video him dying? Just a couple of well-liked reporters and politicians that we can all trust?

Getting pretty tired of this Empire crap.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
2 points

The reason is simple. People praise the abstract knowledge that he was killed, but actually seeing the act of terror would wake a proportion to consider it an illegal act of terrorism outside of due process.

Side: No, it was justified.
2 points

True. Do you support the justification of his body not being given to the family though?

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

Maybe because it was, however that is up for us to decide. The government withholding information from us can only be justified through Machiavellian logic, and at that point the government is admitting that it is an authoritarian regime.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.

Also true. There is so much the government doesn't tell us. Perhaps he was publicly buried so we would all see someone being put in the ocean, but they actually caught him, and are brainwashing him into being there head influencer. Maybe he already worked for him, and saying they killed him was a scapegoat to get Obama accepted.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
1 point

Nothing wrong happens by becoming fish food he was first time good for something...

Side: No, it was justified.
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

But the government didn't own his body. After a person in America dies, their family get's the remains if the person isn't a donor or sold to science. So it'd be fair to give the body to the family, rather than making a public statement that they won't be burying it.

Also, we are often on opposing sides, I want you personally to know I have no bad blood with you and still value your opinion.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

SO for you is better go give body out for some idiotic ritual in stead of giving his kidney to someone who needs it to survive... How does missing kidney or heart affect those rituals?

Side: No, it was justified.
1 point

They may make a shrine of him and do something insane like that he is talking to them and he tells them to blow up the empire state building

Side: No, it was justified.
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

He is already dead. There is no talking involved.

You do not need a body to make a shrine. There are many religious people who build a shrine to Jesus in their homes. The mere fact that he is dead, what he stood for, and what he died for makes him a symbol so giving his body to his family to honor in death wouldn't have made a difference of that.

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
1 point

I don't see why the US government should have let his family bury him. There is no honor in being a terrorist and ensuing fear in innocent people, especially after the 9-11 incident.

Side: No, it was justified.
Del1176(4967) Banned
0 points

He's a cunt.

Side: No, it was justified.
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
3 points

You don't add to a debates point. He's a cunt. is not a valid argument, it's just a statement. Even if that was a statement adding to the point, you did't answer how. But that doesn't add to the point so I ask, how is him being a cunt justifiable reason for them to not let his family bury him?

Side: Yes, it was wrong.
Del1176(4967) Disputed Banned
2 points

Cunts are not valid people.

Side: No, it was justified.