How should Israel respond? Have they proceeded in a way that is justified and will keep them safer?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Both sides have a history. Both sides we should feel empathy for civilians.
As entertaining as pro’s trolling was, he gave no justification for any of his single line ideas. Against a true vacuum they would win but con rose a little above that.
Con argued (well mostly asserted) Israel should be more precise in their attacks, and focus a war on localized propaganda (hearts and minds) to prevent the next generation from continuing this trend of violence.
All that said, pro did make a case that con was cheating to have been offered any advice in the comment section, and as I am specificity named in that I will leave it as a tie. Don’t get me wrong, had con copy pasted or even paraphrased any counter plan from the comments (such as Brother.D’s religious call to bomb them) I would be voting against him, but such was clearly not the case.
.
BARNEY QUOTE TO GARRETTWEST38: "Your arguments should provide a counter plan for what Israel should do in response to Hamas’ aggression."
The very simple solution is what the Hebrew Torah Old Testament states for what the Hebrews are to do subsequent to being invaded by Muslims on October 7th:
"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; AND HATH GONE TO SERVE OTHER GODS, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, THAT SUCH ABOMINATION IS WROGHT IN ISRAEL ; Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, AND SHALL STONE THEM WITH STONES, TILL THEY DIE." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
Instead of stones in the 21st century to kill sweaty smelling goat herder Muslims, the Jews now have bombs and American made aircraft to carry said bombs!
.
Thank you! Not exactly an easy task because of the fact no one seems able to solve this but I have some more general concepts based on some research.
Your arguments should provide a counter plan for what Israel should do in response to Hamas’ aggression.
You should also refute your opponents idea of surrendering, as in spell out for the audience why surrendering is a bad idea.
Right now a voter is likely to be forced to choose your opponent, simply because they’re the only one suggesting any course of action.
It's now a little sided against you, but as a voter I do get what you mean. Is their plan for safety good or bad? It's obviously bad if it outright makes them less safe than doing nothing; but doing nothing might be the absolute worst option... So maybe build a counter plan in your arguments which would most likely make them more safe. A lot of plans have been tried, and nothing has worked; but it's a good starting place to build an argument.
I changed it. Haven't really had a debate yet.
With that one sided of a resolution, expect to be Kritiked.
For starters, traditional ideas of defense and their current tactics are not mutually exclusive.