Instigator / Con
4
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#3092

THBT Palestine Should be Considered a State

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
13
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

Con: Palestine should NOT be considered a state
Pro: Palestine should be considered a state

Burden of proof is shared

State: "A state is a polity under a system of governance with a monopoly on force. There is no undisputed definition of a state.[1][2] A widely used definition from the German sociologist Max Weber is that a "state" is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, although other definitions are not uncommon.[3][4] A state is not synonymous with a government as stateless governments like the Iroquois Confederacy exist.[5]" -- Wikipedia

We will debate over which term of State is acceptable, and whether Palestine fits that definition.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This debate has curious interrupts to judging a straight-forward debate that is only slightly marred by Pro's confusion regarding which role Pro should play. The roles are very clearly defined by Con and should have been recognized by Pro upon acceptance of the debate.

However, Con complicated the debate by forfeit of half the rounds, and providing argument in only the third round, thus losing the debate by de facto forfeit.

Argument. The fact is, Con's R3 did, in fact, present nearly sufficient argument to deny the Resolution that Palestine deserves consideration as a state, but the argument fails by lack of any demonstration why this is so. There are, in fact, sufficient arguments against the alleged de facto statehood of Palestine, but Con does not bring them, let alone cite them. Pro wins the points be default for having a structured argument as well as Con's failure of sufficient arguement and de facto forfeiture.

Sourcing: Con offered no sources at all. Pro offered sufficient sources, such as by UN designation. Con could have argued against this notion, with sufficient evidence to support that the UN recognition fails to satisfy statehood recognition, but Von did not bring it. points to Pro.

Legibility: Pro loses by failure to understand the proper assigned roles, making his entire first round incongruent to the Description.

Conduct. Pro wins by entry of argument in all rounds, although they were incongruent in R1.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con only offered arguments in 1 of 4 rounds. That said, he could have gone somewhere good with the danger factors and the SHOULD in the resolution, but he needed follow up.

Pro on the other hand, in addition to being able to switch gears so well, made a case that it both is a state and with a well worked appeal to authority of the United Nations, that it should be recognized as a state.