Post: Debate of the Week 1 - December 29-January 5, '09
Options
12-30-2008, 05:45 AM
#1
Rushied
Banned
Topic: Let's start with something easy. Is it morally acceptable to let thousands die, for the better good?
Specific Rules: Keep the Iraq war out of this, that wasn't for the greater good, it was for the fattening of politician's wallets.
This will draw heavily from wars, but no racist remarks. Don't act like a total douche, "OMFG COMMIES DIE WTF RUSSKIES DESERVED TO BE OWNT" kind of comments are not accepted.
If you can't make an intelligent argument and not look like a stupid shit, I'll have your post deleted.
Start debating. Once someone takes a side I'll take the other to jump-start the debate.
The rewards (Hopefully haxed from Outie):
25 Rep OR 25K vBux for first place
15 Rep OR 15K vBux for second
10 Rep OR 10K vBux for third
K, NOW start debating.
12-30-2008, 06:20 AM
#4
MATT51723
Guest
"Is it morally acceptable to let thousands die, for the better good?"
This is a great topic to start off with.
First I'll take a little trip back to FDR's presidency. Back in the late 30's, many Jews and minorities traveled over to the U.S. to escape certain fate from Hitler and other dictators of the time. FDR deported every one of the refugees back to their homelands.
His reasoning was for a few reasons. The main reasons were because of attempting to stay out of World War 2 with Hitler and the other one was to keep Americas commercial business in tact. Recently coming out of the Great Depression, FDR didn't want to risk the effects the refugees had.
That could be easily debated in two ways. Was he right or wrong? Did he sacrifice their lives for the greater good?
FDR's decision was hard, and to debate this subject is hard, but I'll do my best to debate this in a way I feel is right.
I believe FDR made the right choice. Back in the reigning days of Hitler, his crazed Aryan dreams were pretty much unstoppable. FDR knowing of how insane Hitler was, he was smart and did his best not to piss off Hitler. Even though the united states ultimately went into war, it was because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It could have been worse having an insane dictator send a bunch of skin head prisoners and skin head aryans into our country and **** shit up.
Also our economy was a piece of shit. It was finally coming around from the Depression and we were NOT going to risk going back into that hell that affected everyone.
All in all, FDR made the right choice, which also answers the question:
"Is it morally acceptable to let thousands die, for the better good?".
Yes.
This is a great topic to start off with.
First I'll take a little trip back to FDR's presidency. Back in the late 30's, many Jews and minorities traveled over to the U.S. to escape certain fate from Hitler and other dictators of the time. FDR deported every one of the refugees back to their homelands.
His reasoning was for a few reasons. The main reasons were because of attempting to stay out of World War 2 with Hitler and the other one was to keep Americas commercial business in tact. Recently coming out of the Great Depression, FDR didn't want to risk the effects the refugees had.
That could be easily debated in two ways. Was he right or wrong? Did he sacrifice their lives for the greater good?
FDR's decision was hard, and to debate this subject is hard, but I'll do my best to debate this in a way I feel is right.
I believe FDR made the right choice. Back in the reigning days of Hitler, his crazed Aryan dreams were pretty much unstoppable. FDR knowing of how insane Hitler was, he was smart and did his best not to piss off Hitler. Even though the united states ultimately went into war, it was because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It could have been worse having an insane dictator send a bunch of skin head prisoners and skin head aryans into our country and **** shit up.
Also our economy was a piece of shit. It was finally coming around from the Depression and we were NOT going to risk going back into that hell that affected everyone.
All in all, FDR made the right choice, which also answers the question:
"Is it morally acceptable to let thousands die, for the better good?".
Yes.
12-30-2008, 06:38 AM
#5
DirtyDudeOnline
:y::n:
YES!
I would rather kill thousands to save millions. Let me go back to the dropping of the A bomb, An ignorant bitch like tojo was a hard nut to crack. He wasn't going to back down easily we had to show him he's lost. If we sent troops in to Japan to die both the good guys and the bad ones would have died slowly and in greater numbers who knows we might have not even won. We couldn't show to him slowly we had won so we showed him with one big blast.
Did it not work?
I would rather kill thousands to save millions. Let me go back to the dropping of the A bomb, An ignorant bitch like tojo was a hard nut to crack. He wasn't going to back down easily we had to show him he's lost. If we sent troops in to Japan to die both the good guys and the bad ones would have died slowly and in greater numbers who knows we might have not even won. We couldn't show to him slowly we had won so we showed him with one big blast.
Did it not work?
12-30-2008, 06:51 AM
#6
Rushied
Banned
I say no. If you have a choice of choosing a path that lets many die, or to let some live and some die, you might as well have killed those people themselves. If people would die anyway, what gives those who you saved any more right to live than the ones you deliberately sacrificed? If a million people would die, you have no right to stop them. Death is a natural part of life's cycle. If you were to kill a thousand people so that million would live, you're trying to control who lives and dies. If another guy's being a douchebag and saying "lol gonna kill a millyun peeps" and you say "Well imma kill a thousand so that million won't die" you're as bad as the man responsible for the million. A life is a life. Wasting them for others good is the most selfish thing you can do.
12-30-2008, 03:12 PM
#7
[iRx]gobucks31
Guest
Yes, depending on the situation. Say you have a hijacked plane with 100 people on it coming in to the US and you know their intentions are to crash the plane.
What do you do?? Send out some fighter jets and take it out over a empty field or let it go crash into the Empire State Building or in a largely populated area?? I say in that instance, you take the plane out. Would you rather have 100 dead or 10,000??
Either way you pick in these bad is going to happen. It's a pick your poison type of thing, nothing good can really come out of it.
Here's another example. Say you have a terrorist holding 50 hostages and they demand you let some of the terrorist leaders released and give their terrorist group some missiles. The terrorist would most likely have a bomb strapped to his chest threating to blow up all of those people. What do you do, let him kill the 50 people or wait and see what his terrorist group does with their leaders back and a couple high power missiles??
Again it's a pick your poison type of thing. Sometimes you'll have a third option to stop whatever's happening, but most of the time when you have the option to save more people, why not take it??
What do you do?? Send out some fighter jets and take it out over a empty field or let it go crash into the Empire State Building or in a largely populated area?? I say in that instance, you take the plane out. Would you rather have 100 dead or 10,000??
Either way you pick in these bad is going to happen. It's a pick your poison type of thing, nothing good can really come out of it.
Here's another example. Say you have a terrorist holding 50 hostages and they demand you let some of the terrorist leaders released and give their terrorist group some missiles. The terrorist would most likely have a bomb strapped to his chest threating to blow up all of those people. What do you do, let him kill the 50 people or wait and see what his terrorist group does with their leaders back and a couple high power missiles??
Again it's a pick your poison type of thing. Sometimes you'll have a third option to stop whatever's happening, but most of the time when you have the option to save more people, why not take it??
12-30-2008, 09:29 PM
#8
MATT51723
Guest
Originally posted by DirtyDudeOnline
YES!
I would rather kill thousands to save millions. Let me go back to the dropping of the A bomb, An ignorant bitch like tojo was a hard nut to crack. He wasn't going to back down easily we had to show him he's lost. If we sent troops in to Japan to die both the good guys and the bad ones would have died slowly and in greater numbers who knows we might have not even won. We couldn't show to him slowly we had won so we showed him with one big blast.
Did it not work?
I would rather kill thousands to save millions. Let me go back to the dropping of the A bomb, An ignorant bitch like tojo was a hard nut to crack. He wasn't going to back down easily we had to show him he's lost. If we sent troops in to Japan to die both the good guys and the bad ones would have died slowly and in greater numbers who knows we might have not even won. We couldn't show to him slowly we had won so we showed him with one big blast.
Did it not work?
Even though America had to flex our muscles a tad more and bomb Nagasaki which was totally unnecessary. Historians say it was just Americas way of telling the Soviet, 'We're stronger than you, don't f*** with us'. So in a way you're right and in a way you're wrong.
I agree when you say the first bomb on Hiroshima was necessary, Nagasaki was not.
12-31-2008, 01:34 AM
#10
My answer is partial.
For my answer to be yes it would have to depend on the situation. One such as gobucks brought up. Should we give 100 lives to save 1,000? Yes we should because if we left it as it was those 100 people in that plane would have died anyway, but they would have taken many more with them.
On the other hand, why should innocent lives be given away when they could have been kept by not declaring war.
"Older men declare war,But it is the youth that must fight and die. ~Herbert Hoover
This can also refer to all the innocent lives lost because the president or the dictator felt that they could achieve peace by war. What president of the United States has ever been killed while fighting for their country? None. Because to them the army is a large group of toy soldiers. The civilians are the toys that are thrown to the side and ignored while they lie there helpless being destroyed by war.
Why should those people not be in a bar or hanging with friends, instead they must fear every seconds of their lives during a war.
For my answer to be yes it would have to depend on the situation. One such as gobucks brought up. Should we give 100 lives to save 1,000? Yes we should because if we left it as it was those 100 people in that plane would have died anyway, but they would have taken many more with them.
On the other hand, why should innocent lives be given away when they could have been kept by not declaring war.
"Older men declare war,But it is the youth that must fight and die. ~Herbert Hoover
This can also refer to all the innocent lives lost because the president or the dictator felt that they could achieve peace by war. What president of the United States has ever been killed while fighting for their country? None. Because to them the army is a large group of toy soldiers. The civilians are the toys that are thrown to the side and ignored while they lie there helpless being destroyed by war.
Why should those people not be in a bar or hanging with friends, instead they must fear every seconds of their lives during a war.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
