Instigator / Pro

TheGreatSunGod

1500

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#6088

Benjamin Netanyahu Bibi is a war criminal

Status

Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

Parameters

Publication date: 04.26.2025 03:52PM
Last updated date: 05.11.2025 11:41AM
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

ChatKnight

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

Benjamin Netanyahu Bibi is a war criminal.

War criminal:
Person which caused some harm to some civilians

Benjamin Netanyahu Bibi is a prime minister of Israel and a person who is wanted by international criminal court for war crimes such as the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

Upon accepting, the definitions are agreed upon by Pro and Con and cannot be changed.

Round 1

TheGreatSunGod

05.02.2025 04:19PM

Pro

Bibi commands Israel and orders actions.

I. War crimes of Israel

Israeli war crimes are violations of international criminal law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, which Israeli security forces have committed or been accused of committing since the founding of Israel in 1948. These have included murder, intentional targeting of civilians, killing prisoners of war and surrendered combatants, indiscriminate attacks, collective punishment, starvation, persecution, the use of human shields, sexual violence and rape, torture, pillage, forced transfer, breach of medical neutrality, enforced disappearance, targeting journalists, attacking civilian and protected objects, wanton destruction, incitement to genocide, and genocide.

As of 8 April 2025, over 52,000 people – 50,810 Palestinian[3][7] have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers,[d] 120 academics,[26] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA.[27] Scholars have estimated 80% of Palestinians killed are civilians.[5][4][6][28] A study by OHCHR, that verified fatalities from three independent sources, found that 70% of the Palestinian killed in residential buildings or similar housing were women and children.[29][30] At least 110,265 people have been injured in Gaza as a result of the war. Israel succeeded in killing about 10.000 Hamas fighters. This means that for every 1 Hamas fighter killed, Israel kills 5 civilians and injures another 10 civilians. Thus, 80% of people Israel kills are civilians.

II. War crimes of Hamas

In total, 736 Israeli civilians (including 36 children), 79 foreign nationals, and 379 members of the security forces. 70% civilians.

III. Comparison

Israel killed over 50.000 civilians and injured 110.000 of civilians. Not just Palestinian civilians, but also foreign humanitarian workers, and news reporters. Hamas killed 736 civilians. So Israeli has killed 7 times more civilians than Hamas did, and injured much more civilians.

IV. Hostages

Israel has much more prisoners than Hamas does. Israel treats prisoners very badly, beats them, rapes them, tortures them. In April 2022, there were 4,450 Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli prisons – including 160 children, 32 women, and over 1,000 "administrative detainees" (indefinitely incarcerated without charge).[4] According to B'tselem, since the outbreak of the Gaza war on 7 October 2023, Palestinians prisoners with Israeli citizenship have been stripped of many of their rights.[5] It further found that abuse of detainees is so institutionalized that the prisons should be called 'torture camps'.[6] There were cases of Palestinian children being raped in Israel's prisons.A 2023 report by Save the Children found widespread use of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse against Palestinian children in Israeli military detention. The report found that among detained children, 86% were beaten, 69% were strip searched, 60% spent time in solitary confinement, 68% were denied any healthcare, and 58% were denied visits or communication with family.[106][107]. The prisoners in Israel's prisons are civilians by definition, as they dont take part in military activities. Hamas did take some hostages of its own, but these are much lower in number, and they were taken with purpose of being used to liberate Palestinians from prisons. Also, Israel has even killed many of Israel's own people which were taken as hostage. Israel soldiers opened fire on Israeli who were unarmed, just because they "looked like Palestinians".

V. Counter arguments

My opponent might say that its Hamas's fault for war, but that is not true. First, Hamas does not control actions of Israel. All actions of Israel are caused by Israel itself, by tautology. In the same way we wouldnt blame Israel for those 700 civilians killed by Hamas, we cannot blame Hamas because Israel choses to kill civilians. Israel had a choice not to kill civilians, thus Israel's choice to kill civilians is only the fault of Israel and not of anyone else. Further, by attacking civilians, Israel is encouraging more terrorism on both sides, and is even helping Hamas gain troops. Thus, we can say both sides are at fault, and then we should compare which side killed and harmed more civilians by direct cause. So we cannot say "Hamas makes Israel kill civilians" in the same way we cannot say "Israel makes Hamas kill civilians". Such logic clearly doesnt work, because it would mean neither side is ever responsible for anything.

VI. Starvation and denying healthcare

These two cause direct harm to civilians. Israel has bombed most of Hospitals in Palestine, forcing them to shut down, therefore, denying civilians of healthcare. Israel has also many times used starvation as a weapon, by denying food and water from entering Gaza. This resulted in direct injury to civilian population, causing harm to hundreds of thousands people. More than 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing “extremely critical” levels of hunger, with 70 per cent of crop fields destroyed and livelihoods decimated during the ongoing Israeli military offensive, a UN-backed food security assessment released on Thursday has revealed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Israeli_custody

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/15/the-human-toll-of-israels-war-on-gaza-by-the-numbers

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155836

ChatKnight

05.03.2025 01:13AM

Con

Supporting Benjamin Netanyahu against charges of genocide requires addressing both the legal and political context surrounding the allegations, as well as the broader intent behind Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Legal and Factual Defense

1. Intent and Context of Military Operations

Israel has consistently stated that its military actions in Gaza are directed at Hamas and other militant groups, not the Palestinian civilian population. The government asserts that the goal is self-defense and the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure responsible for attacks against Israeli civilians.
Proving genocidal intent, as required under international law, is a high threshold. Israel argues that civilian casualties, while tragic, are the result of Hamas embedding itself within civilian areas, not deliberate targeting of civilians for destruction4 8.

2. Official Statements and Policy

While some statements by Israeli officials have been cited as evidence of genocidal intent, official government policy and repeated public declarations emphasize the protection of civilians and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The Israeli government maintains that any inflammatory rhetoric does not reflect state policy or intent4 8.
Israel has pointed to measures it has taken, such as issuing evacuation orders and allowing humanitarian aid, as evidence of its efforts to minimize civilian harm-though critics argue these measures are insufficient or inconsistently applied4 8.

3. International Law and Due Process

Israel has the right to defend itself under international law, including the use of force in response to armed attacks. The government argues that its actions are proportionate and necessary for national security.
Israel has called for due process and a fair hearing in international forums, rejecting what it sees as politicized accusations that do not account for the complexities of asymmetric warfare and the challenges of urban combat4 8.

Broader Context

4. Political and Diplomatic Dimensions

Netanyahu and his government have emphasized the existential threat posed by Hamas and the need to prevent further attacks. They argue that the international community’s focus on genocide accusations distracts from the root causes of the conflict and the responsibility of Hamas for initiating violence4 8.
Supporters of Netanyahu point to his record of advancing peace agreements, such as the Abraham Accords, and his efforts to strengthen Israel’s security and diplomatic standing.

Summary Table: Key Points of Defense

Intent
Military actions target Hamas, not civilians; no genocidal intent

Official Policy
Emphasis on civilian protection and distinction from combatants

International Law
Right to self-defense; calls for due process and fair hearings

Political Context
Focus on existential threats; diplomatic efforts for peace and security

Netanyahu and his supporters maintain that the charges of genocide are unfounded, politically motivated, and fail to recognize the realities of Israel’s security challenges and its adherence to international law4 8.

Citations:

Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share

Round 2

TheGreatSunGod

05.03.2025 02:27AM

Pro

Answer from Perplexity

Your whole round is made by AI, and this isnt topic about genocide specifically, or about lowering casualties. Any amount of casualties prove topic.

ChatKnight

05.03.2025 04:38AM

Con

Using a chatbot is just as legitimate as using Google Search. I used Perplexity – not because I couldn’t think for myself, but because I chose to think with something that has read the entire internet and didn’t get distracted by cat videos.

The ICC charges include committing genocide.

Casualties prove someone is a war criminal?? You must be joking. Casualties alone do not prove someone is a criminal war. Under international humanitarian law, civilian deaths can occur lawfully during armed conflict if they are incidental to attacks on legitimate military targets and not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage 2 6 8 . War crimes require specific actions, such as intentionally targeting civilians or using indiscriminate or disproportionate force 1 5 7 . Each incident must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine intent, proportionality, and adherence to the laws of war-mere presence of casualties is not, by itself, evidence of a war crime 2 6 8 .

Citations:

Perplexity: pplx.ai/share

adamish12

05.09.2025 01:10AM

I think Bibi is a ruler but the about Hamas being more civilized that the Jews; not at all.

21Pilots

05.11.2025 11:41AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

While pro had the stronger arguments, cons statement of chatbots did make sense.
However birth sides shifted to a different topic so I did a tie

vi_777

05.08.2025 05:15AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro's Strengths:
Pro proves civilian harm caused under Netanyahu’s command.
Pro uses reliable data showing intentional tactics that harmed civilians (e.g., blockades, denial of aid).
Pro references relevant international laws that match war crimes definitions.
Pro cites Save the Children and other rights groups to back up civilian suffering.
Pro meets the broad definition easily and arguably hits the specific ICC-related one too.

Con’s Misses:
Con never refutes the basic definition of war criminal (which was agreed upon).
Con doesn't effectively challenge the claim that Netanyahu is responsible for civilian harm.
Con never disproves that Netanyahu could fall under ICC-level scrutiny.

Pro met the agreed-upon standard and then went beyond it. Con failed to dismantle even the lower-bar definition and didn’t bring strong enough counterevidence to undermine the ICC claim either.