Terrorism should not be publicized

First debate on terrorism issues! Suggested by Egle & Martin who were able to get 2nd place. Congrats! šŸ™‚

It was also nice to see a great whip speech delivered by Paulius and rather good approach by Eriks to a loosing position by introducing different perspectives through which to look at the debate!

Debate Flow: Terrorism should not be publicized, 5th of October (to open the file, change its extension from *.pdf to *.xls)


3 thoughts on “Terrorism should not be publicized

  1. I was willing to give some comments on the debate about not publicizing terrorism:
    1) It was a pitty that Opp didn’t attack Gov’t arg that terrorism is so similar to any other crime. I would not agree to this as the purpose / reason of any other crime is to get some benefit on the other hand terrorism is meant for creating panic within people.
    – Of course Gov’t could argue that serial killer also just wants to spread panic; however, this is not the case – usually criminals like these do it for the basic pleasure of seeing how people die or for the reason to find out how it is to kill but they never actually commit such crimes for spreading the panic.
    – Would you agree?

    2) I was also suprised by the reaction of Opp2 (and also Opp1) to the extention of Gov’t 2. Of course case study (extention by narrowing) is completely valid extension; however, in this case I would have expected Opp2 to show that Hostage taking is so different from the “average terrorism” (bombing, killing, damaging etc.). If Opp would be able to prove that Hostage killing is not a good case study to talk about then Gov’t2 would have gone down the ranking. Unfortunately (or fortunately) no one did it.
    – What was your feeling about the extension?

  2. About the similarity between terrorism and any other crimes. To my mind, it is important to look at what those deeds do/mean for people committing or suffering. For those suffering terrorism has definitely the same impact – it does not matter whether you die because you’re in hijacked plane or shot in the street, or whether your house collapses because of plane crashing into it or because of arson. This way, even accidents have the same “value” for victims. This reasoning is also connected to the reason why people actually wouldn’t be interested in terrorist acts if it wasn’t so much publicised in media – if you walk by a burning house then you don’t care why the fire started usually, then why should you care what caused a building to collapse – a plane crash or a mistake in construction… Secondly, about those who commit these acts (both terroristic and other criminal). Theoretically all people should be rational and utility maximising – even terrorists, i.e. every deed is done for benefitting from it. And, in my opinion, arguing that serial killers are after spreading panic wouldn’t work too well, as their actions are quite often also rather widely covered in media.

  3. It is such a pity that Opp used mosty “It won’t work” tactics. The leading philosophy to my mind could have been: People elect the gov, who deals with the problem ( also in Jurij’s answer to the POI), therefore people have the right to know what is going on, because they make decisions whom to elect based on the information. If we believe that people are capable of making the right decisions in the elections then why do we believe that they are not capable of taking the information about terrorism? Gov. automatically assumes that people are irrational, but they have no proof to claim that. Therefore, people have the right to know.
    And overall, there could have been more discussion about rights of people. There was discussion why it would be more conveniant for the Gov. if the info didn’t spread, but opp never explained why people should know (above there is one version of explaining, idea is not originating from me, I have just developed it :)).
    Moreover, another idea is that as people anyways get to know (if your close ones die, also it is kind of hard to explain explosion in the metro, when people see it and there won’t be anything in the papers next day -> conclude that it had to be terrorist act etc). But people see only one side of the story, they see how terrorists blow up their people, but not for example what U.S does in Iraq and other countries (of course there can be some problems with how to define that what U.S does in the Middle-East, but surely it will take the chance and also ban reporting their action -> very easy way for U.S to use this ban as a propaganda tool), all this will lead to more discrimination of minorities and spread more hatred in the society!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close