ONB: Israeli annexation of the west bank would most likely benefit palestinians in the long run
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No semantics or dirty trick, this is a serious issue. BoP is shared.
Definition from Cambridge:
-Annex: to take possession of an area of land or a country and add it to a larger area, usually by force:
---In our case, it means to make the west bank a part of Israel and grant its inhabitants Israeli citizenship.
-Beneficial: helpful, useful, or good
West Bank, area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. [Britannica]
- P1: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from freedom, human rights, safety, stability, a good democracy and a healthy economy based on innovation instead of oil
- P2: Israeli citizens enjoy theese goods
- C: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from being Israeli citizens
At the same time, the charter does not prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments, fails to extend rights to noncitizens in many areas, and authorizes restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion that exceed what is deemed permissible under international human rights law. [ibid]
There have been no national elections in the West Bank and Gaza since 2006. President Mahmoud Abbas has remained in office despite the expiration of his four-year term in 2009. The Palestinian Legislative Council has not functioned since 2007, and in 2018 the Palestinian Authority dissolved the Constitutional Court. [state.gov]
The law provides citizens with the right to change peacefully their government, and citizens exercise this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage for adult citizens...Israel is a parliamentary democracy, with an active multiparty system representing a wide range of political views [ibid]
Israel has gained a worldwide reputation for its ability to turn barren desert into useful and arable land. [israel21c.org/top-10-ways-israel-fights-desertification]
Israel's standard of living is significantly higher than all of the other countries in the region and equal to West European countries, and is comparable to that of other highly developed countries. Israel was ranked 19th on the 2016 UN Human Development Index, indicating "very high" development. It is considered a high-income country by the World Bank. Israel also has a very high life expectancy at birth." [wikipedia]
- P1: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from freedom, human rights, safety, stability, a good democracy and a healthy economy based on innovation instead of oil
- P2: Israeli citizens enjoy theese goods
- C: Palestinians would in the long run benefit from being Israeli citizens
In politically stable times, as much as one-tenth of the Palestinian population travels daily to Israel (where they are not allowed to stay overnight) to work in menial jobs. Political tension and outbreaks of violence often led Israeli authorities to close the border for extended periods, putting many Palestinians out of work. [ibid]
In November 2012, Buttu said that conflict between the Palestinians and Israel would not end until Israel "completely withdraw from the West Bank and from the Gaza Strip [1]
If it succeeded, Israel annexation of the West Bank would bring economic prosperity, political stability and human rights protection on the life of many Palestinians.
R1:
Pro builds a well sourced case, easily presented in syllogism form. He further outlines why Palestine as a nation would be worse for any human inhabitants, first due to a weird legal system they like, and due to their current rulers (Hamas) who would presumably still be in charge.
Con kritiks that Hamas wouldn't allow it to happen, and further that many locals fear it. He advokates that the two-state solution is better, but is also unattainable.
R2:
Pro accuses con of drifting off topic, by ignoring the benefits if it occurred to instead deny that it would. Pro further reminds us that the fear the locals feel, is likely already worse under current circumstances.
Con concedes... but then doubles down on the Oh Well Kritik...
R3:
Skimmed, and I'm seeing more of the same.
---
Arguments:
Credit to con for their work, but they argued side stepped the resolution, and thereby failed to refute pro's simple case. If annexation would be difficult, is not the topic; rather if the benefits are likely to outweigh the harms. Further bolstering that Hamas sucks, fed straight into pro's case for improved safety for the locals.
I wrote a guide for Kritiks, which I highly suggest reading before trying such a tactic again (the Oh Well, does not rate highly).
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
Sources:
Pro leads on this, but I am leaving this tied.
Legibility:
I did prefer pro's formatting, but that is never enough for the point.
Conduct:
Both were fine. And my dislike of a certain tactic, speaks more toward the argument points.
Thank you for voting
Vote bump
Israel is a waste of taxpayer money. America first.
As a potential voter, it would be inappropriate to add comment at this time.
What do you think about my R1?
And, as others've pointed out, the res is a truism.
I'm not interested. Maybe I would be more interested if the resolution of the debate was "Israel ought to annex the West Bank", because as it stands now your resolution assumes utilitarianism and the proposition expressed therein, even if true, would not go against the main reason why I oppose an Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
I suggest changing "could" to “most likely,” and give con the BoP of most likely harmful. A tie of course would then be implied as the outcome being indeterminate.
"Could" is truism.
You might be interested in this.