Argument: Is violence an effective means?
Source of economic manpower
1. Feasibility
2. Failure to achieve the goal
Origin: international and domestic
Long-term military strikes have not received obvious results.
Survival has become a basic problem for terrorists.
Force: Solve accidents.
Terrorism: the product of extreme racism, nationalism and cultural value conflict, which can play a role in dealing with terrorist activities, but fight terrorism.
1: Fighting violence with violence has limitations.
2. Fighting violence with violence failed to achieve the original intention.
3. The source, development and result of violence against violence
Today, the other debater told us that the power guaranteed by coercive force is to fight violence with violence, but is this really the case? We say that today's economic sanctions, perfect legislation and diplomatic means between countries have certain coercive power. Is the other party trying to tell us that these are all violent means?
Today, another debater told us that fighting violence with violence can play a deterrent role and reduce the effective strength of terrorist organizations. This statement sounds reasonable, but it is wrong to think about it carefully. Are we serious terrorists who will carry out terrorist activities really frightened by such violent means? Do we say that the effective force of terrorism will really cause permanent losses because of violent means? What we are discussing today is to fight terrorism on a global scale, not just against a terrorist organization.
Firstly, several concepts are clarified. The so-called terrorism refers to the activities of some organizations or individuals in the international community to seek to realize their political opinions or specific demands through terrorist means such as kidnapping, assassination and explosion. Fighting violence with violence is to resist violence with violence and answer blows with blows.
Our judgment standard today is to judge whether violence can really strike terrorism from three aspects: the emergence, development and result of terrorism.
First of all, fighting violence with violence cannot attack the source of terrorism. As we all know, the sources of terrorism are divided into international and domestic aspects. The international source lies in the ideological differences between the East and the West and the double standards of some countries' foreign policies, and the domestic source lies in the global economy, which also causes some countries to be extremely underdeveloped and their people's living standards to be extremely low. Faced with such a huge and invisible source of terrorism, fighting violence with violence will lose its specific goal and will not achieve results.
Second, fighting violence with violence cannot curb the spread of terrorism. In the social background of rampant terrorist activities, many individuals or organizations in a weak position will turn to terrorism in order to realize their own ideas when facing superpowers or politically powerful forces. Moreover, many global arms trading and money laundering activities also provide protection for terrorist activities. Faced with this social reality, only through economic means and perfect legislation can we cut off the development channels of terrorism, which violence can't do.
Third, fighting violence with violence cannot reduce the occurrence of terrorist activities. The place and time of terrorist activities can no longer be determined in advance, so it is very unlikely to stop terrorist activities by violent means. As we all know, the main reason why many civilians become terrorists and join terrorist organizations is that their survival problem has been severely tested, that is to say, the deterrent effect of military means on them is very limited, and improper use of military means will be counterproductive, planting seeds of hatred in the hearts of more people.
Today, we also believe that the original intention of our two sides to discuss this debate is to explore effective ways to fight terrorism. However, in the face of this kind of terrorism, which originates from ideology, spreads on many levels and operates on a global scale, the fundamental limitation of fighting violence with violence makes it seem impossible to do this. Too much reliance on violence against violence will make more and more victims of terrorism. In a word, we don't think violence is an effective means to fight terrorism.
In fact, today, other debaters have been trying to tell us the superiority of violence against violence/expand the scope of violence against violence. But in fact, can economic sanctions really fight terrorism? Is it really feasible to impose economic sanctions on terrorist organizations? Of course, the target of economic sanctions is the countries where terrorist organizations are located. Then, will economic sanctions be imposed on these countries that are already extremely underdeveloped, which will also endanger the lives of ordinary people? In fact, economic means go far beyond economic sanctions, including economic assistance, infrastructure assistance and improving education level. Only by improving the humanitarian conditions in the birthplace of terrorist organizations can we really fight terrorism.
Since the emergence of terrorism, the international community has never reduced the intensity of its crackdown, but why has the trend of the spread of terrorism never weakened in today's increasingly developed technologies? In the final analysis, our understanding of terrorism is not deep enough, and we pay more attention to international politics when fighting terrorism, thinking that we can achieve results in a short time by adopting more direct means, but more and more realities tell us that this road can not achieve the expected results.
In 1. 1986, there were 170 terrorist incidents mainly targeting Americans, and in 1987, the number rose to 204. This became more obvious after the end of the cold war. How to treat the tragedy that America has become a living coffee table? (I just mentioned briefly that the other party bit to death)
2. When treating cancer patients, it is obviously a conservative therapy to only kill cancer cells without surgery on malignant tumors that produce cancer cells. What do you think this is to stop boiling? Or did you take a radical measure? It is obviously wrong for the other side to think that the White House will surrender its guns in order to kill all American soldiers. )
3. Which do you think will solve the problem more thoroughly?
Conclusion: Therefore, in dealing with terrorism, we should trace back to the source, find out the reasons, and then prescribe the right medicine. You can't just solve the urgent need and then return to normal.
The second serial asked:
1. Do you agree that violence can get rid of a hater, but it can't eradicate hatred?
2. How did Chinese civilization last for thousands of years? (It is the spirit of the Chinese nation, as bright as the sun and the moon, and it is remembered by the endless words and deeds of the descendants of the Yellow Emperor. )
Do you agree that as long as the spirit of the Chinese nation is immortal and the beautiful Chinese language is not old, the centripetal force like a magnet will always be there? (sense of dependence and belonging to the motherland)
Therefore, logically speaking, the other party is actually admitting that terrorists will launch terrorist attacks whenever, wherever and whatever the situation is, as long as hateful thoughts are still there. As for how to dispel the idea of terror, we have made it very clear in a debate.
The third serial asked:
1. Have you been vaccinated against hepatitis B at school?
2. This vaccine, you don't need to fight if you don't fight, and you don't need to fight if you fight. Then why do you think our school should organize students to get it?
3. It is more effective to plan ahead than to remedy afterwards?
It is cheaper to kill terrorists in the cradle and prevent them from launching terrorist activities than to suppress the lives of soldiers by force after the incident?
Conclusion: As for how to stifle and explain the validity, we have made it very clear.
The fourth serial asked:
1. What action did China take after the US bombed our embassy? (Solemnly declare and strongly condemn)
2. Did our country say, "Let's bomb his state of Hawaii, too?" ?
3. Does this once again show the world that the Chinese nation is a peace-loving nation, and has it once again strengthened China's good international reputation?
4. Can this partly explain why the terrorist attacks on our citizens are far less than those in the United States?
The fifth serial asked:
1. When the United States launched wars such as Iraq, did you find it difficult to understand that the United States was attacked by terrorists?
2. Therefore, the evil of heaven can exist, but the evil we commit cannot live. The United States uses violence against violence, so do you think terrorists will give in and wait for death?
Will the dispute between the two sides come to an end in the near future?
How long do you think we have to wait? Five, fifty or five hundred years?
Free debate:
1. When the United States armed the jihadists in Afghanistan. Was the bombing of the United States in September asking for trouble 1 1?
2. Would there be so many terrorist activities in Russia without America's covert support for Chechen terrorists?
3. Why is there more than one cheering voice in the world after the September 1 1 incident?
4. Why do 40% of terrorist incidents target the United States every year? Flies don't bite unstitched eggs!
5. Why has the United Nations repeatedly asked every country to avoid the use of force? Because there is a country that it can't do!
6. The war on terror is the most effective method that all mankind can think of?
7. When the war on terror is ignited in Afghanistan, should thousands of refugees applaud this most effective way?
8. How to smooth the strong desire for revenge of people whose emotions are out of control? Endless violence and death?
9. If terrorists demand the death of the United States, isn't that what they want to do with violence?
10. Won't American hegemonism and power politics arouse an Arab's disgust or even hatred out of normal human feelings?
1 1. There is no obstacle to the spread of terrorist ideology, and terrorists are eliminated one by one, but new terrorists are growing in batches. Is this the result of the most effective method?
12. Is the security and psychological pressure brought by terrorist attacks and unrestricted military actions in the name of counter-terrorism the most effective evaluation?
13. The most effective way said by the other side is that the United States has killed more than 5 100 people and injured 35,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 100 trillion dollars has not defeated Al Qaeda?
14. Is your so-called most effective method that the number of American soldiers killed has exceeded the number of terrorist attacks in September 1 1 day, not counting the family tragedy caused by the disability of more than 30,000 people?
15. Is the war in the name of anti-terrorism the peace that mankind strives for?
16. It is not once or twice that the United States plays the role of a thief shouting to catch a thief. Didn't the other debater see through this?
Refutation:
1. Is direct and fast the most effective? I bought a bottle of acne lotion and used it up in one day. The next day, I was covered with acne. Is this the most effective?
1. Wildfire never completely devoured them, and they grew taller again in the spring breeze. Poetry tells us that as long as the seeds of hatred remain, the terrorist forces will last forever.
2. If your pursuit of me is rejected by me, do I have the obligation to repeat my mate selection criteria to you?
3. If violence is really the most effective way to fight terrorism, then why have there been such appalling incidents of Tibetan independence (July 5 incident) and Xinjiang independence since the first terrorist incident?
Didn't the so-called just war on terror kill the children who cried and shouted "Where are your parents?"? ?
5. Why did the other debater repeatedly ignore the only superlative word with obvious pointing meaning in the debate?
For any independent and powerful country, where there is oppression, there is resistance.
7. What other way is more expensive than war? Soldiers' lives, high war funds.
8. Terrorists have no reason to burn, kill and rob. Do we?
9. Are there fewer terrorist attacks by separatists in Xinjiang? Haven't the lessons of the 7.5 incident been profound enough?
10. Why should we give them the initiative? In this confrontation, we should always take the initiative.
1 1. Under the protracted war on terrorism, the world order established after World War II almost collapsed.
Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda may still be the bane of new york, but the burning wars in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon remind people that hatred among human beings is a dark cloud hanging over the whole world. How long will it take for hatred to fill the hole in people's hearts? 50 years, 500 years or forever? (Free debate) I'll end with this. )
Reduced to the last material:
Violence: the force of coercion; Force, especially the coercive force of a country.
American academic organizations claim that 9? 1 1 was planned by radicals in the White House to find excuses for invading and occupying some Arab oil countries.
Before each terrorist attack, the famous Spanish terrorist organization "ETA" must repeatedly make public statements, accurately pointing out the time and place of terrorist attacks, so as to protect people from accidents; When they found that the announcement didn't work and the attack might cause heavy casualties, they simply gave up the attack.
Military force and the use of high-handed means can never solve the problems between countries. Soldiers are weapons. Terrorist incidents are actually violent acts, and force is also violent acts. The difference is whether it is "legal". The Iraq war itself is an act of terrorism.
With the development of world politics towards multipolarization and economy towards globalization, terrorists take the opportunity to establish international networks and push terrorist activities to the whole world. The global fight against terrorism needs the leadership of the United Nations. According to the Charter of the United Nations and international law, only through the United Nations can the actions against international terrorism in the world have legitimacy. The Security Council adopted a resolution demanding that all countries take necessary measures to severely crack down on organizations or individuals that provide funds, advice or shelter to terrorist organizations. At present, the concrete actions of the global anti-terrorism struggle are being carried out on the military, financial, intelligence and diplomatic fronts. People all over the world have issued a strong voice: the action against terrorist organizations should have clear goals and avoid hurting innocent people, and the fight against terrorism should not be linked to any particular religion or nationality.
From a strategic perspective, it seems that terrorists' grasp of the international community's war and strategy against terrorism, as well as the loopholes and problems in the anti-terrorism struggle, far exceeds the international community's understanding of terrorists. It is not difficult to understand why international counter-terrorism is "more counter-terrorism". If the United States wants to use "anti-terrorism" as an excuse to carry out other military strikes, then terrorism in the world will only continue to increase.
China's basic position on counter-terrorism is as follows: First, a fair and reasonable new international political and economic order should be established. Second, we should strengthen North-South cooperation and eliminate poverty. Third, pursue multilateralism in international affairs and oppose unilateralism and hegemonism. Fourth, strengthen understanding and cooperation among different civilizations and religions, and build a harmonious international society. Fifth, all countries in the world should unite and cooperate to fight terrorism. Sixth, there should be a unified standard for counter-terrorism, and double or multiple standards cannot be implemented.
The key is to gradually improve the international and domestic legal documents to punish terrorist crimes and the full cooperation between countries, eliminate the injustice that leads to the emergence and spread of terrorist crimes in time, fundamentally put an end to the occurrence and development of terrorist acts, and prevent or reduce anger and revenge. The provisions of national legislation are the premise and foundation of international cooperation, and regional and all-round cooperation of the international community will consolidate and strengthen this foundation. In the fight against terrorism, countries should resolve contradictions and estrangements and properly resolve oppositions and confrontations.
For terrorism, we must first resolutely crack down and never tolerate it. Second, it is necessary to further strengthen international cooperation. All countries should take a unified stand on anti-terrorism actions, jointly fight terrorism, establish information exchange and action coordination mechanisms, and set up relevant organizations to coordinate anti-terrorism actions of all countries. In the fight against terrorism, the international community must thoroughly study the specific situation of terrorist organizations in various countries and prescribe the right medicine for their timing and psychology. It is necessary to focus on cracking down on al-Qaeda, completely destroying its base areas, leadership and organizations, sealing up overseas bank accounts of terrorist organizations and cutting off their sources of funds; At the same time, establish an inter-country anti-terrorism alliance, strengthen anti-terrorism cooperation, establish a government anti-terrorism emergency mechanism at home, and strengthen the construction of professional anti-terrorism forces; Trace the clues of terrorist organizations found and resolutely crack down. A just, comprehensive and long-term solution to some territorial and ethnic disputes that breed terrorism.