Instigator / Con
18
1565
rating
6
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#765

Is Israel a good ally?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

We will be debating whether or not we should continue an alliance with the state of Israel and use of funds to support their military.

-->
@Incel-chud

I heard something about that, don't know the details.

I'd just generally disagree that taking away further impetus for negative blowback in the future (and I'd stress that simply abandoning the Middle East would have its own blowback, since it, too, is an action with consequences for the region) necessarily stops all future desire to cause harm. The US has been in the region for a long time. Saying that we made a mistake and leaving doesn't make the pain of that prolonged presence go away. It might give them less impetus to attack us, but it certainly doesn't suddenly reduce it to zero.

Nukes have their own set of principles that everyone plays by in order to prevent them from being used. Mutually assured destruction is certainly a motivator, but the actions it motivates often have nothing to do with actually using nukes.

-->
@whiteflame

I know it would have changed. I think we cause as many humanitarian problems as we solve, so it would probably work itself out. Didn't the United States just a few months ago drone some civilians. Not in a way where they were collateral damage, but actually targeting them?

Besides, becoming isolationist would mean zero blow back. Blow back is caused by actions, therefore end actions and end blowback from actions. 9/11 was blow back for example. 9/11 happened because of American presence helping Israel in the middle east. There is literally zero reason. To attack the United States if no reason is given for attacking the United States.

Besides, being ready to launch a nuke at any attack and erase a country from existence, is a really strong motivator of making sure America stays safe.

-->
@Incel-chud

My strategy would have changed as well if that was the case. The argument just would have been focused on more current and probable future problems.

It affects the availability of global resources, leads to refugee crises and generally causes massive humanitarian concerns that we cannot just ignore.

I refuse to debate that until I read the book "the case for israel" by Alan derschowitz.

-->
@whiteflame

See below. But how do you think that Iraq fighting Kuwait would effect the global stage? Shit is just between them.

I don't understand how this debate was close. Bmd rocks could have made the debate more precise, and avoided just turning this into an excuse to bash Israel 's past actions.

I would have worded it something like

"America should stop sending foreign aid to Israel"

-->
@Incel-chud

And if someone else is willing, you're welcome to argue it with them.

I disagree with how you think things would play out if Israel and the US functionally removed themselves as players in the Middle East. I think it would be more complicated than that, and old tensions would die hard if at all.

-->
@whiteflame

It would be more fun to argue the ethics of creating pedophile rings to entrap American politicians like mossad did with ghislaine maxwell.

Usually I can find a way to argue any position, but I think I would have a hard time arguing that Muslims would stop being violent extremists if Israel siezed to exist. At least they would just turn that violence inwards if Israel disappeared and America took an isolationist approach. We could just put a fence around that part of the world and forget about it.

-->
@Incel-chud

Now, if you want to argue that the Middle East would just become peaceful if Israel was disbanded, we can do that. I don't think your position would be possible to win, but you're welcome to try.

-->
@Incel-chud

I didn't argue that it was ethical. You asked if them spying on us was worse than us spying on them. I said no. It's bad both ways. And no, I'm not interested in debating that.

And no, I haven't claimed that there is something as bad done by American spies in Israel, though I think determining what is the worst act of spies depends entirely on the party that was harmed in the process. Determining who got harmed and to what degree by spy activities that may still largely remain confidential is not the kind of debate I want to have.

-->
@whiteflame

Would you like to debate whether it was ethical for mossad to have ghislaine maxwell blackmail American politicians by setting them up to be filmed having sex with minors?

Also you claim that technique us no worse than what is used by American spies. Can you name one instance of American spies doing something similar to what ghislaine maxwell did?

-->
@Incel-chud

No to both questions.

Further more, do you think Israel spying on the United States is worse than visa versa because of their techniques. For example epstein's lover being connected with mossad and them bringing politicians on pedophile Island to black mail?

-->
@whiteflame

"Our role as a global strong horse places us in a unique position to elevate powers to that status. In aligning ourselves with a proxy strong horse, we create a stabilizing force in a region without a clear top power, and conversely, if we abdicate that role, we invite aggression. Israel functions as that stabilizing force"

Do you think that since Israel is the lightning rod for all the conflict there, it would just go to being a peacefumiddle east if Israel was disbanded

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, an actual vote would be nice. Your choice, though.

I'm not going to bother to write out a full RFD because I don't have the time or the inclination, but Whiteflame won and the other guy lost.

-->
@coal

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: coal // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: PRO won the debate because he successfully showed that based on what is good for the US militarily and economically, and the international community more generally; is best served by Israel's alliance with the US. Very few of the harms cited by CON were attributable to the US-Israel alliance. Most of CON's rebuttals talked past PRO.

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, a voter must complete all three steps set out in the site's voting policy. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. It is not clear how Pro "successfully showed" that Israel is a good ally from this vote due to a lack of analysis of the main arguments and due to a lack of any explicit weighing based on such analysis. While the voter may have performed these steps in their own reasoning, these steps must be detailed explicitly in the vote itself. The voter can find the site's complete voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@bmdrocks21

Sounds good to me. Again, don't intend on introducing new stuff, but I might have more data to present in later rounds.

-->
@whiteflame

Yeah, if you would like we always have the option to add new points, as long as it isn't the conclusion. Just separate rebuttals and new points to make it clear they are new.

-->
@bmdrocks21

I mean, I'm good with R1 being arguments only, but I'd like if we can introduce new points going out to R3 (not that I'm expecting to do that, but I want the option).

-->
@whiteflame

So, how do you want to do each round? Round 1 will be arguments, then 2 is rebuttal, 3 can criticize rebuttal, then 4 restate main points?