Its fair for palestinians to want the whole of Israel back
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
- 2
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.
Some people would say that It's not only the Palestinians house, that Jews have lived there for thousands of years, but those jews were a small minority, like any other minority. They lived in relative peace with the Palestinians, when you look at the demographics today they are not a minority, those Jews are mostly people that adhere to Judaism, that have no connection to the land, but was able to arrive through the discriminatory law thats called "the law of return" or they're jews whose ancestors lived there 3000 years ago. But just because your ancestors lived there 3000 years ago doesn't mean you have a right to live there and displace the locals, in that case the greeks should displace the turks and have a right to live in Anatolia, just because their ancestors lived there a thousand years ago.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I also want to pint out that jewish migration really started in the (1890)
First of all, I do not see the conduct as significant enough for point allotment.
While 1216 characters instead of 500 is a lot, there seemed no ill intent; it was not setup to capitalize on it; and new members should be afforded some extra leeway.
Proposal Debates
Something ought to change…
A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
* If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
* If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.
https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#proposal-debates
Pro did have implicit benefits, but con was able to outweigh them with greater harms (basically repeating the same cycle pro was against).
With more rounds and a higher character limit, pro likely could have capitalized on the openness of the resolution (the harms are separated from the pure desire), but this debate did not get that in depth for semantics to get analyzed.
"basically it sucks that it happened."
Yeah. Well. That's what happens when you side with Nazis and lose. Your land gets redistributed to people who owned it thousands of years ago and were displaced by Muslims.
Honestly, PRO could have nailed me if he focused on the "want" part. After all, there's nothing wrong with someone "wanting" something - this would also have made my real-life impacts irrelevant.
I suggest either arguing against the modern establishment of Israel (basically it sucks that it happened, but no comment on them continuing to exist today), or find an angle against them now which isn't a double standard. You could also do strict comparison debates, such as Israel's military tactics are less humane than those of neighboring Arabs.
Also always advisable to research winning arguments from the other side:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133-israel-is-an-illegal-state
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1755-israel-has-no-right-to-exist
Care to vote?
When homosexuals were killed, it was a product of the time. When homosexuality was legalized, the times changed. When conquering other countries is the norm, it’s a product of the time. When conquering other countries doesn’t happen anymore, then the times have changed. But Israel has owned its land for a long time now. A one state solution for Israel will produce the same effect as a one state solution for Palestine.
Borders are fluid i think, thats why i think the Israelis claims are not valid, just because som of their ancestors lived there 3000 years ago doesn't mean they have a right to the land. But this comparison to Rome i don't think is a good comparison, Rome was a multiethnic empire, most of the land was inhabited by other ethnic groups and never inhabited by Romans therefore they didn't displace anyone. If I understood you correctly you are saying that theft is ok because everyone did it before, I would say that we don't live in the 17th century an longer, just because something was normal some time ago doesn't make it right now. An example is the right to be homosexuell, it was very normal to kill homosexuals, it doesn't make it ok now.
I was just reading up on some of the hostilities in the area... Syria if effing insane, they outright gave their highest medal to a man for being a sadistic cannibal.
The difference between thieves robbing and countries invading is every country to this day is to an extent built on stolen land. All the countries where Rome invaded got independence and stole the land from the Romans. The same is true for China. The same is true for America and the African countries. In a world where everyone is a thief, theft is legal. In a world where stealing land is the norm, stealing land is legal. The UN tried to put a stop to it since stealing land usually results in death. But it’s always happened, and it probably will continue to happen unless the world becomes one nation and then there are no more wars over land because everyone would live in the same country. But we are going to have to very homogenized at that point and the world is too different to be the same country unfortunately.
If you’re in agreement with me, then why do you want Israel to get completely returned to Palestine? Me personally, I’m an American so I don’t care what happens to foreign countries. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would have a bias. But I’m neither. A one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will produce the same result whether that one state is Israel or Palestine. The only difference would be the flag and the name of the country. It’s not like calling the area Palestine is going to result in the land being less Jewish or calling the land Israel will result in people being less Muslim.
"I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?"
I think that borders are fluid, well atleast more often and more normal in the past, thats what i said when i talked about the argument that Jews used to live there.
I'm in agreement with you, although I'm not sure what you by "It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other." clarification would be great
“ Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.”
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?
Borders are very fluid over the course of thousands of years. It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other.