Instigator
Points: 35

Is Israel a good ally?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
bmdrocks21
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 15
Description
My opponent must argue that Israel is a good ally that deserves our support.
Round 1
Published:
I will be arguing that Israel is currently and has always been a terrible "ally" to the United States. An alliance with them is certainly not worth millions of dollars every day. Now, state your position, and round two will be arguments.
Published:
Warning violence (body-to-body mainly): Intro music and theme 

My angles will be severely defensive, there's a right time to debate cowardly and this is just that.

The alliance is strong, has purpose and Israel has indeed done horrific things but when you start to realise that Hamas is blackmailing PLO such that the Palestinian people are forced to be under Israeli nationality due to Hamas' insane aims to annihilate Israel at any cost, you will later realise that all the offensive points against Israel are about 'fighting a monster by being a more benevolent one' (ironically, Hamas and PLO will say the very same thing back to Israel meaning they are the better monster, so this will be a major area of debate involving in-depth analysis of what human shields are and who is truly responsible for their deaths).

I will not play the card of 'my enemy is supporting t*r**ists' as his angle will be that I support a t*r**ist state (I don't want to use that word in my formal debates, I have my reasons for not enjoying typing that word apart from in very strict environments and want to say hi NSA I respect you).

Anyway, the alliance has a few benefits that are pretty solid but they're all based on 'why lose it' rather than 'oh so massive gain'. I will explain more as the debate unfolds and despite being Pro will be the more 'destructive' one of my opponent's angles as opposed to creating many fruitful ones myself. This always has been my style in debating and has, at times, lost me debates but it's a style and I rock it well and it enables me to debate many at once so do I want to be a super artistic debater who does tons of research? Well, not really and Googling a lot about this conflict is a sure way to end on the wrong kind of radar. I am going to make this interesting, eye-opening and treat my opponent with respect. 

I hope we both appreciate how the other paints the other side as evil and understand that this is a debate, not necessarily entirely true opinions.


Round 2
Published:
One of my main complaints with our continued "alliance" is that it seems that they will do nearly anything they can in order to use America as a club against its enemies. They seem to only care about their own interests, even if it means we have to go to war for them. The first example of this would be in 1967 during the Six-Day War in which Israel sank our spy ship known as the USS Liberty. They initially stated they didn't know it was our ship. However, recently it has been uncovered that they knew it was our ship over two hours before the attack and expressed frustration that it wasn't sinking. They wished to destroy the evidence that they attacked it and blame it on the Egyptians so that we would become involved in their conflict and fight the neighboring Arab nations for them. 

This theme has continued to modern times. Netanyahu declared before congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction based on evidence that they had gathered. He said that taking down Saddam Hussein would have "positive reverberations" in the region. There were no WMDs, and based on threats such as ISIS that had arisen since that war, I think we can both agree that that was also a lie.

Israel also has far too much influence over American politics. Pro-Israel groups such as AIPAC have given millions of dollars to many politicians in the past eight years. A quote by a former AIPAC employee states “Everything AIPAC does is focused on influencing congress, you can’t influence the President of the United States directly but the congress can,”. Ex-congressman Jim Moran said that "If you have AIPAC's support, more often than not you're going to win". These organizations have caused a huge shift in policy that often supports Israel over American. One such instance is our reluctance to pay for a wall, yet we pay for security for Israel. Another was an email from Hillary Clinton exposed on WikiLeaks that said the best way to help Israel is to topple Assad in Syria (the war theme shows up a lot). All of this is in addition to the fact that Israel spies on us constantly, as AIPAC even funded the Canary Mission, which doxxes US college students by labeling them racist, anti-semitic, etc. 

Finally, Israel sent military technology to China that is used in the production of military equipment such as missiles. Iran has been trying to buy military technology from China for years. The hope may be that Israel gets weapons and the US will come in to crush Iran's military to save Israel once again, but this is speculation. 

So, going forward in this debate, I would like to ask my opponent: Why should we be giving billions of dollars to a country that creates so many enemies for us in the Middle East, spies on us, and leads to the deaths of thousands of brave Americans by having us fight ceaseless conflicts with its neighbors?
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
While you did not rebut my arguments, I hope that you will be able to in the next round so that we can finish our debate. 

For now, I will clarify my position and answer what you have already posted. My position is not that we should support the local terrorist groups. I think that we should neither give aid to them, nor should we support the state of Israel. Their conflict will not end until one group is annihilated due to their diametrically opposed ideologies. We will not gain anything from helping either side through their unending wars. You mentioned that there are a few benefits to our alliance, but didn't list any of them. Your position is "why lose it?" in terms of the alliance. My answer: $38 billion over the next ten years. That money could have funded the wall or many other projects. We have a national debt that exceeds our GDP right now, so I don't think that we can afford to give that amount of money to a foreign power. This is especially the case, as my points prove their unworthiness of aid. They are the wealthiest nation in the region with an advanced military, and they are capable of defending themselves from terrorist rebels with nearly no funding. It is not our duty or in our interest to help Israel.


Published:
Though this was 3 days whatever I will enjoy getting to #4-5 on leaderboard and working my way up.
Round 4
Published:
In the absence of points offered by my opponent, I would like to encourage viewers to vote for me. 

Thank you! :D
Published:
This site has suddenly become infested with toxic voters. It doesn't matter how good I debate they use any reason to knock me.off my pedestal.
We ha e a multi accounted on Sparrow and Type1 able to roam freely despite me giving irrefutable proof to mods from PM and we have complete newjoiners that are frankly bad at debating so severely that they think each other are good.

For a long time I looked desperately for reason enough to loathe this site and online debating in general. I finally realise that there's an issue deeper than moderation at play; humans are shit at debating overall.

If you think Israel is a bad ally, try befriending Iran or try befriending noone in the middle East. Do you even know how useful Mossad has been to the CIA? You know only your surface level "money money" shit that they say Israel is guilty of having the attitude of.

Hamas is a mafia who rule Palestine and don't allow them to negotiate with Israel. Until you learn to thoroughly loathe this, you won't understand the other side.

Hamas is also Palestine only legal UN representation, so don't think that this is some kind of "Israel rules them against their will" shit, it's way way deeper than that with layers to the game and Hamas as a true villain to both sides.

I don't care about debating online anymore. I genuinely am too good at it for voters to comprehend my greatness at this stage. I'll take a break after my current batch is over and may end up bottom of the leaderboard for all I fucking care. 
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Pro FF a round in the middle of the debate which entirely brought the debate to a halt which hindered the pace and the conversation.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not meet any of the three criteria for awarding argument points, which are: surveying the main arguments, weighing those arguments, producing a verdict.
************************************************************************
#18
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Hello! I will hopefully be repeating this debate within the next few days with whiteflame. I will repeat most of the same first round arguments and will provide the links in case you are curious :D
Instigator
#17
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
If you feel there are people with multiple accounts report them.
Just because new people come in and have to adjust to voting doesn't mean you should start giving up on debates
Just because your "Debate skills" are challenged, doesn't mean you should curse the website for that reason or the above reasons.
taking a break is a good idea! Debates don't need to be taken personally or cause stress to such a degree. Enjoy your R&R! and come back wiser and stronger.... and humbler, please.
#16
Added:
Palestine Liberation Organization
The Palestine Liberation Organization is an organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle, with much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians.
Had to google PLO
#15
Added:
--> @whiteflame
Hello. PM me
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Well, that’s disappointing. I’d be happy to have this debate with you sometime, if you’d like to remake after this finishes.
#13
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
While sanctions are a powerful tool, this will likely never happen either. You have states passing anti-BDS legislation. BDS(Boycott Sanction Divest) is a movement by private companies to do those three things. They often lose state contracts or are punished other ways, so the government is not on board with doing anything anti-Israel at this point in time.
List of states and anti-BDS laws: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation
Instigator
#12
Added:
I always humble my views on foreign affairs because I know that I can't know everything about it so easily. Intuitively, I want to say no to alliances with Israel. Thinking broadly, I would say that at the very least, we should be sanctioning them and putting general pressure for them to act with a certain degree of ethics. I think the problem is that with the idea of "not being aligned with them" being off the table, Israel has no real motivation to meet any standard of behavior. So it's one of those things where we don't necessarily have to diverge from them, but we have to be serious enough that we're willing to do so if they don't meet a certain standard.
That's really the furthest I could ever go on this subject with honesty
#11
Added:
--> @Alec
I am not a Palestine supporter, I support America. I believe that Israel is a terrible ally, but that no ground can be gained in the Islamic community in terms of an alliance. We made a mistake by continuing involvement in the Middle East after the Cold War, and it would be best for us to stop wasting money on unending conflicts.
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @whiteflame
Oh.
#9
Added:
--> @Alec
...I didn’t say that. It’s his territory because he’s debating it now.
#8
Added:
--> @whiteflame
"Not going to get into any specifics because that’s RM’s territory"
Wait, RM is from Palestine?
#7
Added:
--> @Alec
Quite a bit, actually. Not going to get into any specifics because that’s RM’s territory, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s value in the relationship. The question is whether that value outweighs or is outweighed by the harms of said relationship.
#6
Added:
Free Palestine, Israel is a terrorist far-right ethno-state that is guilty of genocide.
#5
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Are you a Palestine supporter?
#4
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con instigates but throws over to Pro with a deeply subjective thesis and no definitions, so Pro's choice of an "severely defensive" argument seems strategically weak. In practice, little defense is offered by either side.
Pro argues that the US-Israeli alliance is strong and purposeful without warrant.
Pro argues that Israel is a figurative monster fighting a worse monster, Palestine which is characterized as insane and blackmailed without definition or warrant.
Pro goes on to irrelevantly characterize Pro's future arguments as well as Pro's skill as debater.
Con argues that Israel places Israeli interests before American interests. Since all alliances are predicated to a large degree on national self-interest, this argument is not particularly compelling.
Con offers 4 examples:
Con asserts that the Israeli attack the USS Liberty was attacked as a deliberate ruse to trick the US into joining the Six-Day War on the Israeli side. Of course, if this was true Israel would most likely have pursued the attack until all Americans were dead or captured to prevent contradictory witness reports. Since
Israel refrained from issuing a coup de grace and even participated in helicopter search and rescue missions shortly after the attack, this accusation seems pretty insubstantial.
Con asserts that Israel supplied false evidence of Saddam Hussein's capacity for waging war using weapons of mass destruction. Since the Bush administration had already publicly supplied its own false evidence of WMD in televised testimony before the United Nation, Netanyahu's claims could effectively be characterized as an effort to stand by it allies even knowing American intelligence was faulty. Not very compelling.
Con asserts that Israel corruptly influences American politics in pursuit of policies contrary to US interests.
Although not well supported, this voter finds Con's claim fairly evident and reasonably compelling. However,
since Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Canada, etc likewise engage in corrupt influence over US Foreign Policy, the argument suggests that the US has no good allies and so Israel is not shown to be better or worse than others.
Con asserts that Israel sells military technology to China which may in turn benefit Iran. Since Iranian missile capacity represents a more immediate threat to Israeli interests than US interests, this argument would probably prove less persuasive even if backed by some sort of documentation or testimony.
Con's best arguments are swallowed up in a final question to Pro: Israeli support is expensive, Israel spies on the US. Of course, the US also spies on Israel but there's little doubt that Israel benefits from US investment far more that the US benefits from Israeli investment.
Pro forfeits, flushing away a good opportunity to attack Con's vulnerable premises.
Con nicely points out that all of Pro's claims are unsubstantiated and wisely restates his best argument: support for Israel is expensive.
Pro counters that intelligence shared by Israel is useful without any evidence. Pro argues that Palestine is illegitimate without linking Palestine's interests to either Israel or US. Palestine is a monster, a villain without warrant that justifies (I infer) a US-Israeli alliance.
Arguments were weak all around. Arguments go to Con because Con's examples were specific and linked to the topic. Pro's arguments were entirely general, unsupported, and barely relevant to the topic. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeiture, lazy engagement, and irrelevant self-promotion.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit because the contender did not bring in a single argument. Even if the contender said something everything is a non-sequitur to the debate at hand which was about "Is Israel a good ally?" not an introduction or forfeiting or complaining about time restrictions and voting.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: Con wins this mainly due to his case being unchallenged. Had there been a real debate, I am sure he would have expanded his points. Pro on the other hand wasted his conclusions by talking about himself and dislike of voters.
Conduct: Pro forfeited.
Sources: I’m unsure the relevance of Michael Jai White, but he is amazing. No other sources, nothing to substantiate any claim.
Aid Money (con): Sounds like a lot. Pro’s counter to this seems to be that it’s a sunk cost (he really should have outlined a challenge to the amount claimed by con, in addition to pointing out that a relationship can be maintained without being a sugar daddy). Con did a nice follow through with concluding his R2 by inquiring why we should continue to pay.
Human Shields (pro): Under the unstated presumption that we must have some influence in the area… That Hamas murders people via using them as human shields, nothing better was said for any neighboring country. Ethically, the side not dedicated to the cause of genocide makes sense as an ally.
Betrayal (con): Sinking one of our ships and influencing our politicians (plus some conspiracy theory stuff about them watching us right now), they’ve been a bad ally. This went uncontested.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is essentially a full forfeit - as Pro offers a single round of arguments, the abdicates the remainder of the rounds. Conduct goes to con. For pros forfeit.
For arguments - con raised several issues including the influence of Israel, manipulation of the US then points out the cost of the alliances could be better spent elsewhere. I don’t feel that this was particularly strong - but was unrefuted by pro. Pros opening round doesn’t list any actual specific benefits at all, merely stated he would go on to explain in further rounds (which he didn’t). Arguments to con too.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Well then.
R1 BMD gives assertion that israel alliance isn't worth the "Millions of dollars" we give them.
R1 RM Asserts that Hamas is basically blackmailing the PLO (palestine liberation organization) and israel is fighting against it by being Kind or benevolent to the PLO. I have no idea who he is asserting that supports terrorist. he then states he will give evidence later on and compliments his own style of debating.
R2 BMD Talks about israel sinking one of the U.S. ships, Israel involving U.S. to find the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) How AIPAC affects U.S. congress through lobbying and How israel sent technology to china. Would have been more convincing with links!!!!
R2 RM Forfeits, loosing conduct point
R3 BMD gives counter idea to supporting israel, simply by not giving them money and asserts a 38 billion dollar net increase over 10 years. meaning we must give israel 3.8 billion dollars a year? LINKS!
R3 RM doesn't rebut nor give information he said he would in round 1
R4 BMD concedes round and says vote for him.
R4 RM complains about DA.com for 3 paragraphs and misspells ha e? Have? i have no idea but i assume in the context it is "We ha e a multi accounted on Sparrow and Type1" (Side note, investigate possibility of multi accounts. mods!) Con further re asserts that hamas is holding power over Palestine and doesn't allow them to deal with israel and is the legal representative at the U.N. Again, need links. Though i agree that hamas is an enemy to both plo and israel.
Last 2 paragraphs contain unneccessary cursing by RM
In light of the assertions and lack of evidence in all of this, i cannot award sources.
BMD shows better arguments, not by his merit or assertion but simply because con counters back with assertion when he does address it. Ill leave arguments neutral due to lack of evidence.
RM misspelled have, but i was able to understand it in context of sentence structure.
RM blatanly curses and goes off topic.