Is Israel a good ally?

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.

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.

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.

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.