Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6086
Israel did war crimes
Status
Open challenge
The first member to accept the challenge becomes the contender.
Debate will be automatically deleted in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
Open position
?
rating
?
debates
?
won
Description
war crimes definition:
Cause some harm to some civilians
Upon accepting the debate, these definitions are agreed by Pro and Con and cannot be changed in this debate.
Israel in this debate doesnt mean that each part of Israel did war crimes, but that some parts of Israel's population did war crimes.
Round 1
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
"I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas"
Well, that one is interesting. The numbers certainly dont favor Israel. I mean, 60000 civilians killed by Israel vs 1000 killed by Hamas. But maybe Con could argue something else there.
I'm not super well versed in the topic so it would be an interesting debate to read
I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas
"I mean when you say that Israel did war crimes you are not saying that a few rogue individuals did it and you are not saying that every single individual did it."
Sorry, but you dont get to determine what I am saying. Not sure why you even convinced yourself that you could do that.
"It would mean that there is a systematic effort to do them that is top down."
That is a very unclear definition, because I dont know what you mean by "systematic effort". If you mean majority, no one is arguing that. If you mean government, clearly not all parts of government think same. If you mean just the leader, then maybe that can be argued, but given that he is already wanted for war crimes, might be an easy win as well.
I mean when you say that Israel did war crimes you are not saying that a few rogue individuals did it and you are not saying that every single individual did it. Both definitions are similarly retarded. It would mean that there is a systematic effort to do them that is top down.
"It's impossible to argue the Con side."
Well, I am open for suggestions.
"It's a bullshit definition that you would qualify a few rogue soldiers going rogue is enough to say "Israel" did war crimes."
Well, no one is arguing that everyone in Israel commits war crimes, so really, the only thing thats left is "some".
This is a stupid topic for debate ngl. If we follow your definition of war crimes, Israel factually did commit war crimes. It's impossible to argue the Con side.
It's a bullshit definition that you would qualify a few rogue soldiers going rogue is enough to say "Israel" did war crimes.
Really looking forward to arguments like "There are no civilians in Palestine".