Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6112

Should Israel Seize All Of Gaza?

Status
Voting

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

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro (Israel has the right to defend itself) focused on self-defense, but completely ignored:
The decades of occupation.
The ongoing blockade of Gaza (since 2007).
The disproportionate civilian casualties.
The settler violence in the West Bank.
The fact that Israel is the powerful occupier, not a powerless victim.
They cherry-picked October 7 and erased everything before and after it.

Con (Palestine deserves justice and Israel is the aggressor) called out:
The apartheid system (even Human Rights Watch uses that term).
Ethnic cleansing in Gaza right now.
Historical context: 1948, Nakba, settlements, and colonization.
That Hamas doesn’t equal all Palestinians.
That Israel is not defending itself, but waging a brutal campaign.
They framed it not as terrorism vs. defense, but oppression vs. resistance—and backed it with decades of history and international law.

Strategically:
Pro used emotional appeal (hostages, Hamas terrorism) and repeated the "right to defend" mantra. But they collapsed morally, because they couldn't explain:
Why that "defense" includes bombing refugee camps and hospitals.
Why civilians are paying the price.

Con destroyed that framing by:
Exposing double standards (like how colonizers often use “defense” to justify violence).
Showing how resistance is the only option left when all diplomatic channels fail.