Charlie Kirk was just murdered recently. People are arguing or have argued that assassinations like those that have happened in the past can be justified to protect countries sovereignty. Is this accurate? Is it sometimes justified? Think more historically, this is not about justifying Charlie Kirk's murder

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Charlie Kirk was just murdered recently. People are arguing or have argued that assassinations like those that have happened in the past can be justified to protect countries sovereignty. Is this accurate? Is it sometimes justified? Think more historically, this is not about justifying Charlie Kirk's murder". Your opponent's style: Logical and Moral Person

Wait, I need to clarify something first. I notice the search results show Charlie Kirk was recently assassinated, but this appears to be fictional content for this debate scenario. Let me proceed with the historical argument about political assassinations and tyrannicide as requested. Look, throughout history there's been a clear distinction between random political violence and what philosophers call tyrannicide - the killing of a political leader seen as a tyrant or unjust ruler, purportedly for the common good. This was legally permitted and encouraged in Classical Athens. The reality is that even Abraham Lincoln believed assassinating a leader is morally justified when a people has suffered under a tyrant for an extended period and has exhausted all legal means of removal. He saw tyrannicide as a necessary last resort to protect liberty and justice. We're talking about cases where sovereignty belongs to the people, and any government that doesn't act in accordance with the general will is illegitimate - giving people the right to depose a tyrant who violates the social contract. This isn't about random violence or personal grievances. Tyrannicide has traditionally been distinguished from political assassination - it was a self-sacrificing act for public benefit and morally esteemed, while common assassination was self-serving for private gain. When legal remedies fail and a ruler becomes truly despotic, history shows us that targeted resistance can be the only path to preserve freedom and protect the innocent.

You're gravely mistaken about Lincoln's views on tyrannicide. Your claim that Lincoln supported assassinating tyrants is completely backwards - Lincoln himself said "I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to surrender" his principles, showing he expected to be a target, not an advocate for killing leaders. The historical record demolishes your argument. Lincoln's assassination "was a new crime, a pure act of malice. No purpose of the rebellion was to be served by it" - hardly the noble tyrannicide you romanticize. Even Booth's own motivations were deeply personal and vengeful, not principled resistance to tyranny. Your Classical Athens comparison is absurd. Lincoln was democratically elected twice by massive margins and governed under constitutional constraints with regular elections. Booth "believed Lincoln was a tyrant and sought revenge for the South's defeat" - this wasn't reasoned opposition to despotism, but Confederate rage over losing a war they started to preserve slavery. The "exhausted legal remedies" argument fails spectacularly here. The Confederacy had just been defeated through legitimate warfare, not tyrannical oppression. Lee had surrendered on April 9, 1865, effectively ending the Civil War - meaning the democratic process was working exactly as intended. Your tyrannicide theory crumbles when applied to actual historical cases. Most political assassinations throughout history have been committed by extremists who simply disagreed with democratic outcomes, not principled defenders of liberty. The distinction you draw between "noble" and "common" assassination is a dangerous fiction that every political killer uses to justify their violence.

You're cherry-picking quotes and missing Lincoln's actual position! Lincoln explicitly said "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right" [1] And he wasn't talking about just constitutional amendments - in his First Inaugural he acknowledged people's "revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow" government, not just amend it [1]. He understood the difference between legal reform and revolutionary action. Your Booth example proves my point perfectly - he wasn't acting on principle but personal rage. That's exactly what I'm distinguishing from legitimate tyrannicide! Lincoln himself said "If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution" [1] The Classical Athens comparison isn't absurd - it shows the historical precedent for principled resistance. I'm not defending Booth's assassination; I'm defending the philosophical concept that when democracy fails and legal remedies are exhausted, targeted resistance against genuine tyranny can be justified.

You're absolutely right about Lincoln's quotes - I concede that point. Lincoln did acknowledge people's "revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow" government in his First Inaugural. But this proves my argument, not yours! Lincoln made these statements while desperately trying to prevent the Civil War - he was acknowledging theoretical revolutionary rights to discourage actual revolution. The context was crucial: he immediately followed by saying "The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government". Your "exhausted legal remedies" theory collapses when applied historically. The Confederates had just won multiple elections, controlled Congress for decades, and had the Supreme Court rule in their favor in Dred Scott. They weren't oppressed victims - they started a war because they lost one election and feared future democratic losses on slavery. Even your Classical Athens example backfires spectacularly. Athenian "tyrannicide" was used to justify killing democratic leaders like Ephialtes who expanded citizen rights. The same noble rhetoric you're using was weaponized by oligarchs to murder reformers who threatened their power. The fundamental flaw in your argument is that every political assassin believes they're the righteous defender of liberty. Lincoln himself distinguished between legitimate popular sovereignty - "the people are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it" - and individual violence. Your tyrannicide theory provides intellectual cover for every extremist who decides democratic outcomes aren't legitimate enough for their taste.

We lost the plot from the main debate a bit. I'm arguing it can be justified, you're saying not

No, you're completely wrong. The historical evidence demolishes your argument entirely. Research shows that successful assassinations of autocrats produce sustained moves toward democracy, but assassinations also affect the intensity of small-scale conflicts - meaning they typically escalate violence rather than solve problems. Tyrannicide was traditionally distinguished as "a self-sacrificing act for public benefit," while common assassination was "a self-serving act for private gain" - but this noble distinction collapses in practice. Terrorist assassinations raise special problems since they "purport to be self-denying acts for the public good" - every killer claims righteousness. Your Lincoln citation proves my point! While Lincoln allegedly believed tyrannicide was justified "when a people has suffered under a tyrant for an extended period," he saw it as "a necessary last resort to protect liberty and justice" - yet Lincoln himself was assassinated by someone shouting "sic semper tyrannis" who believed Lincoln was the tyrant. The data is damning: Princeton's Bridging Divides Initiative recorded over 600 incidents of threats and harassment against local officials in 2024 - a 74% increase from 2022. Your tyrannicide theory isn't creating noble resistance - it's fueling an epidemic of political violence where everyone believes they're the righteous defender of democracy. International lawyers began condemning political assassinations in the 16th and 17th centuries, with Balthazar Ayala being "the first prominent jurist to condemn the use of assassination in foreign policy" precisely because your "justified tyrannicide" theory became the excuse for endless political murders.