Israel has no "right to exist"
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 17 votes and with 91 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We will be debating Israels "right to exist". Does israel have a valid claim to the land?
Pro will be debating that Israel has no "right to exist"
and Con vice versa
Full forfeit by PRO
See PressF4Respect
Forfeit + Plagiarism
Argument: Pro plagiarized whereas Con didn't. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used a variety of sources to a bigger extent.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Forfeiture.
Full forfeit and a heavily plagiarized first round from the Instigator.
Full Forfeit.
Unreferenced arguments and plagiarism. Even still Con provided effective arguments, worthy of the points.
Argument: Con provided better arguments, but one missed, favoring Israel's right to exist is references in II Samuel 24: 18-25, and I Chronicles 21: 21-30 which documents David's purchase of the king's threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver. The King, Arauana, of the Jebusites, was willing to give the site, on Mt. Moriah, to David, but David argued to pay for it. No transaction since has paid David's descendants for the site .
Sources: While Pro offered sources in round 1, they were debunked. Further, Pro forfeited, losing any points otherwise.
S&G: Forfeiture
Conduct: Forfeiture
FF .
I humbly submit my vote...
I will keep this brief.
Better Arguments
- Con's arguments in Round 1 were not rebutted due to Pro's Forfeit in Round 2.
- Vote: Con
Better Sources
- Both had good sources
- Vote: Tie
Better Spelling and Grammar
- Both had good spelling and grammar.
-Vote: Tie
Better Conduct
- Pro forfeited Round 2
- Vote: Con
plagiarism and 50% forfeiture.
Full forfeit is bad conduct. Also, pro gets no points for plagiarized arguments.
swagnar takes a w
FF+plagiarism=autoloss. Simple math.
Pro did plagiarism! That's poor conduct!
They also forfeited the majority of the debate! That's also poor conduct!
Full forfeit and plagiarism
Forfeit. Also, Con had a far better argument. This line sealed the deal: "Not to mention, the land was legally recognized as theirs by the former owners (and most civilized countries) in 1948 [6], rather than through war as pro claims." If the owners of the land recognized Israel as legitimate, then that's a closed case, since the owners can give their land to whoever they like. Pro forfeits, so he failed to refute this argument (Posting it in the comments section doesn't count). Conduct and arguments to Con.
Especially if its an FF
Six months is way too long of a voting window.
and that's it
With this being a full forfeit, no one is going to care. But I still suggest in future avoiding that level of piggy back voting. A literal copy/paste would be better, and take less time to type.
Israel Is Not A Legitimate State
thanks and yeah I kinda missed doing it too man
Thanks!
Thanks for voting. And got to say it, I missed you saying that's poor conduct.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting, and doubly so for actually analyzing arguments even when it was destined to end in such a manner.
me either. I usually only set it for 1-2 weeks.
I really don't understand the need for a voting period that long.
only 179 days left until this debate will be finished.
Ragnar does not need to do this, as it is on me and my bad time planning if voters want to read my argument it is below.
I ask my opponent to forfeit round two as i had trouble with my internet connection and could not get my argument out in time. If by opponent does not do it, i ask him to put my argument up in his as i will paste it in this comment below
Preamble
Definition
To give clarity to my opponent and the voters, what I mean by Israel is the government/state (“country”), that goes by Israel. I am not mentioning the “human beings” unless they are leaders and represent the state of Israel, by governing it. And because you need land and sovereignty of the land to be able to have a government, I am also debating Israel’s claim to the land. And to not make it any more confusing for my dear opponent Ragnar, by land I mean the region in the southern Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River .
Burden of proof
I see that Ragnar is using the same tactics of the Israeli government to misguide and create falsehood about a topic to be able to make a point. I will apply the REAL literacy to the debate, as my opponent is trying to confuse you by making up statement/claims that I have not made.
I never mentioned that the people of Israel have no human rights, and nor do I agree with that statement. Rather I said that “Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing” And I made that claim to make the argument that Israel (The government), existence is disrupting and affecting the individual right of the Palestinians.
Tense
My opponent is trying to dirty little trick and to find “loopholes” in this debate and that’s why he is resulting to use this foolish argument. To rebuttal to this argument I say; To be able to prove that Israel has no right to exist in modern times, one must also analyze the foundation that it was built on. But to go along with this argument; the same arguments that are used to delegitimize Israel’s foundation can also be applied to discredit them in modern times, as the laws are still the same.
Rebuttals to Ragnar’s case
Human rights
As my opponent has misunderstood the debate topic and my arguments, “that the people of Israel are outside the bounds of human rights” Con still has not explained the made any valid arguments to defend Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians
And to reply to cons false statements that Arabs are treated like any the Israeli citizens with no systematical oppression in their way by using discredited sources. I rebuttal this by using a more credited source the Human Rights Watch where they say “The Israeli government continued to enforce severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians’ human rights; restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip; and facilitate the unlawful transfer of Israeli citizens to settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
The term “right to exist”
Cons ridiculous argument here can clearly be put in the words “ if you don’t like it u can leave” which is still not a argument to the legitimize to the Israel state so con still needs to give an argument to this. And to the claim that “Further if by Israel he means the land... It does not force people to live there, they may come and go without it offering any direct interference. It’s mindless dirt they chose to put under their feet.” I redirected con to the last source I put up there
source
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
2. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
3. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine
I also wanted to add that a clear distinction should be made between Israel the People and Israel the Land. This will help me as a future voter.
It seems to me that the description counteracts the resolution. The resolution states, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist.'" And yet in the description is the statement, "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" The two statements, "Israel has 'No Right to Exist." and "Does Israel have a valid claim to the land?" are two different statements. Also, the description begs the questions, "Define Israel?," and "Define the Land?" The burden of proof is heavily on Pro to define these terms in order for Con to accurately defend their side of the debate.
You’re running very low on time to publish an argument.
Sad to see Clawer has yet to overcome his or her overt racism. In light of that lack of personal growth, I will most likely be recycling some points from our previous debate on this subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133/israel-is-an-illegal-state
I think you need to define what you mean by "right to exist" in this context or change the wording. If it's about having a valid claim to the land, as you say in your description, then that seems distinct from the "right to exist" as a country now. Are you debating whether they should currently be allowed to reside in those lands and form a government? Are you debating whether the country should have been formed in the first place? You should really nail down what this debate is about before someone accepts.
lol