Blog - Debate About the Taliban

So, we all participated in the Taliban debate a few days ago on Wednesday and my position has changed slightly for the first time this semester. I initially chose to join the side espousing a military presence in Afghanistan for two primary reasons. One, the Taliban believe that the U.S. (and her allies in Europe) are direct products of Satan due to our support for Israel, our Christian values, and our belief in capitalism. Their primary objective involves destroying the West and completely eliminating all of its citizens in order to establish a worldwide caliphate for Allah. Two, the Taliban have no tolerance for individuals who happen to disagree with their radical beliefs. They torture and even murder innocent men, women, and children solely due to the fact that they do not concur with their extremist actions. In my eyes, a group that intends to subjugate our culture and that regularly bestows harm to innocent members of the Afghan populace is unacceptable. So, the question arises: how do we cease the Taliban from accomplishing their goal of global Islamic domination and precluding them from the continuation of their harsh civilian abuse? I still believe that a military presence can be employed to stop the Taliban forces if absolutely necessary, but I now feel that diplomacy could work based on the argument that one of the other sides expounded during our debate. The one assertion that compelled me to rethink my position involved the notion that an ideology, such as the one held by the Taliban, cannot be demolished (I’m fairly certain that Jono introduced this argument so all credit goes to him on this one). It’s impossible to eliminate every individual who embraces such radical beliefs because the ideology lives on and pervades other individuals who are observing it favorably from other countries. Adam Gadahn, an American-born citizen, joined Al-Qaeda in Pakistan during the late-nineties because he read, studied, and learned about jihad and Islamic terrorism while residing in California. If, by some miracle, all Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan were killed in the mid-nineties (before Gadahn officially joined them), Gadahn would still be alive in California and hence the ideology would remain extant despite the complete destruction of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. I believe this logic can be applied to our Taliban debate. Even if our military destroyed all the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, there would still be individuals abroad who support and sympathize with their causes just like Gadahn did with Al-Qaeda. In the end, I support diplomacy because it is better equipped and has a better chance at decreasing the extremism of an ideology than our military currently possesses. 

Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarian leadership functions just as efficiently and effectively as any other type of leadership in existence. For example, authoritarian leaders can accomplish a plethora of objectives within a rather short amount of time. Politicians and other governmental officials absolutely want to avoid lengthy debate and trivial quarrels in order to fulfill ambitious goals that will benefit their current societies and future generations. It is important to note that authoritarian rulers governed the Roman Empire throughout its entire history and their innovations pertaining to art, architecture, literature, infrastructure, politics, and entertainment continue to influence and impact our contemporary society. In addition, authoritarian leaders command military forces exceptionally well in times of intense war. Soldiers and other military personnel surely want to be told exactly which actions to perform by their commanding officers during urgent moments on the battlefield in order to gain the most certain chance of success over their enemies. It is definitely widely known that the authoritarian civilization in Sparta was far more superior militarily to all neighboring societies during the Peloponnesian War with the Spartans conquering, subduing, and completely dominating their democratic rivals in Athens. Furthermore, authoritarian leaders possess all power and authority within their respective societies. The majority of citizens around the globe absolutely desire a sole leader to guide them on the path towards greatness. It is fair to say that Napoleon Bonaparte sought to achieve this formidable task by inspiring the French populace, enacting the Napoleonic Code, setting up an efficient method of taxation, establishing government-run public schools, creating a much stronger centralized government to better serve constituents, and precluding utter chaos from befalling the country. All in all, authoritarian leadership functions extremely well in several circumstances as demonstrated by the realms of history. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32^nd President of the United States, exemplifies numerous qualities and characteristics pertinent to the representation of the quintessential leader. First of all, FDR aided in the dissolution of the Great Depression that befell the world during the twenties, thirties, and early forties. He convinced the U.S. Congress with his powerful persuasion to pass the New Deal which provided jobs to millions of unemployed Americans and supplied relief programs to millions more needy citizens around the country. This legislation proposed by Roosevelt made the government more responsible and much more friendly to the struggling populace of the time. Two, FDR guided the U.S. to victory and success during the Second World War. He was a tremendous voice of confidence during the entire global conflict by declaring courageously that the U.S. would continue to wage incessant battle until her enemies in both Europe and Asia collapsed completely. Not only did Roosevelt help defeat one of the most abhorrent alliances in history, he also established a U.S. war machine on the home front where every citizen collaborated together and contributed to the cause in some manner whether it was building aircrafts in factories or sewing uniforms for soldiers. Third, FDR was a polio patient since the year 1921. Having a disability, such as polio, was considered by many individuals of the time to be an inferiority and inadequacy. The fact that Roosevelt accomplished so much in the face of his subordinate medical condition demonstrates the extreme fortitude that he possessed and thus instilled in his fellow Americans. Four, FDR united both Republicans and Democrats on many concerns and doubts confronting the nation. He also appealed to adverse groups of individuals, such as union workers and businessmen, who held different beliefs concerning relevant topics to their prosperity. Five, FDR was a wonderful decision-maker throughout his presidency. He refused to make a final decision on any political, social, or economical issue until he had received all the necessary advice from the experts and the specialists surrounding him. Six, FDR truly cared about the well-being of the U.S. populace. He employed fireside chats to not only attain the trust and dependence of the citizenry, but also to enter the homes of a multitude of ordinary Americans as a friend who genuinely cared and supported them. His election to more than two presidential terms and the despondency felt amongst the masses upon his death attest to the certitude and the adoration that the American public held for him during his life. FDR is consistently regarded as one of most admired individuals of the 20^th century due to the optimism that he implanted, the honesty that he propagated, the charisma that he possessed, and the arduous conflicts that he conquered. All in all, Franklin D. Roosevelt saved our country and revived its national spirit during one of the bleakest and most dismal moments that history has ever experienced.

“He lifted himself from a wheelchair to lift the nation from its knees.” – Jean Edward Smith

Blog - Rogerian Activity

So, on Monday our professor had the entire class partake in an activity in order to introduce us to a new style of debate: Rogerian argumentation. The activity entailed the girls leaving the classroom and the guys remaining inside. After a few minutes or so, the girls were to return and each one was to sit down and speak individually with one of the guys. I can’t speak for the girls but the guys were instructed to ignore the girls completely the first time they spoke and then listen to them sincerely the second time they spoke. Honestly, the first time was difficult for me because my family raised me to always listen to those who speak to you. But, as instructed, I did everything possible to ignore Dominique (checked my cell phone, stared at the walls, played with my friend’s stapler, etc). I couldn’t help but shoot a few glances at Dominique and her eyes said it all: “I’m extremely angry and you’re being an asshole”. Eventually, she ceased speaking to me altogether. I felt terrible so I tried to persuade her to continue speaking but she refused adamantly. We both just sat there awkwardly until it was time to commence the second round where I could actually listen to Dominique and contribute to the conversation. It was so much more fun and easy than the first time around and, more importantly, her eyes weren’t full of anger directed towards me. So, what are my thoughts about Rogerian argumentation thus far? All in all, I think it can be an effective way to win an argument. My experience with Dominique, for instance, was the opposite of Rogerian argumentation and it resulted in anger, disappointment, and awkward silence. I feel that other methods of argumentation are much more likely to reproduce such negative sentiments as opposed to Rogerian since two of its main objectives are to avoid aggressive debating and to listen completely to the other side. Other Rogerian features I admire include gaining comprehension of the other side’s perspective, attempting to find common ground, and achieving a win-win situation. However, I’m not convinced just yet that Rogerian argumentation is the best way to win a debate. My main concern pertains to finding common ground and achieving win-win situations when debating extremely contentious issues such as abortion. I just feel that the passions and past experiences on both sides of that issue would preclude everyone from finding common ground and attaining a win-win situation. Anyways, I like Rogerian argumentation but I need to learn more about its features and its implementation before I espouse my complete support for it.