I just have to highlight how you yet again misinterpret the definition of proportionality. Proportionality is not 1 Israeli dies, so one Gazan does.
Proportionality is there are 100 people here, not all 100 would die in a strike, however there is no question some might. There are Hamas operatives within the 100. Does striking this target, killing the Hamas fighters (who are committing war crimes by their very presence among civilians), outweigh the potential harm to civilians? This does not mean, does killing 6 hamas for 6 civilians work? As I have said before its not a numbers game. It is, does killing these Hamas war criminals, have justification despite the potential civilian casualties?
I have been on, and therefor seen first hand the opinions and sentiments of US college students, who will say oh grave heavens, look at the 50 thousand killed, yet they make no effort (as you too have not) to understand what proportion are and are not civilians, not a single even remote effort. This is also just what? 2 weeks off of hamas making a revision of thousands of casualties for which the author takes at face value. A PolitiFact article from May states "That’s because over most of the conflict, the figures have come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, an agency of the region’s Hamas-controlled government". But the author again takes the casualty assessments at face value and as true. When I talk about clear ignorance, this is exactly what I mean. Emotional reaction often replaced informed judgement.
Also I want to address your comparison of 10 jews for every one Nazi killed, and its comparison to Israel in Gaza. First of all there is 0 indication of such a tactic being used by the IDF in Gaza. Also, what is with the anti-Israel movements clear obsession with comparing the IDF or Israel to the actions of Nazi Germany, and on International Holocaust Remembrance day no less.
I should remind you, or enlighten you with the fact that Hajj Amin Al-Husseini was at that time a great friend of Hitler, having been given the "Honorary Aryan" title by him, and even touring Concentration Camps, so comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is not a good look, especially when considering the above.
If I may continue: Comparing the wholesale rounding up of people for their expressed faith, or even the fact that they had at least one Jewish grandparent, and their subsequent execution by the Nazis, (in some cases as retaliation for the murder of a Nazi), is not only inconsistent but frankly quite harmful and morally questionable at best. Indeed it is clear this point was framed in a way as to be a "Gothca" or perhaps to pull some strings, but I find it interesting someone has the nerve to compare collateral damage in a warzone, to the rounding up of men women and children. Interesting indeed.
To put it mildly, it is a cheap and dangerous distortion of history.
Re: Wylted (I cant mention you for some reason, always says "is not active")
Yeah, no. The book which is listed in my profile as "The Art of War" is indeed also the name of a book written by Sun Tzu. The book I am referencing is however by Helmuth v. Moltke. I have only read parts of the book you're referring to, certainly not enough to reference it.
First of all, I'd wager I understand the conflict more than you since I can follow the actual definition of proportionality whilst you (Yes I say again) believe it to be a numbers game.
Proportionality in international law, especially under the Geneva Conventions, isn’t about casualty ratios or percentages of population lost. It's about whether the military advantage anticipated outweighs the expected harm to civilians. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story — context matters: military objectives, who is being targeted, and how operations are conducted.
If Israel can accurately anticipate a strike will lead to a positive military outcome, in comparison to the possible civilian loss, then it cannot be called a war crime. A common misconception to newcomers of this topic, is they believe civilian casualties are by themselves a war crime. That simply is not true. Additionally, proportionality is not entirely a precedent setting , each strike, and its outcome are judged on their own.
Also, you are complaining that they're not giving enough warning, when they literally aren't required to give any warning period. In some cases it is not possible to give warning, say when the target is a high ranking Hamas official, of course warning cannot be expected, but in all cases, the idea that they need to do it earlier is at best, wishful, because frankly, the Palestinians are lucky they're getting a warning at all, as (as I have said) it is unprecedented.
On the charge that I am new to this site, and only engage in ad hominem, first of all, yes I am new to this site, no I am not new to debate, nor am I new to publicly debating this topic.
In other debates, like the one with the self obsessed Rhodes scholar, you can sit and pretend that's what I did from the start, since it suits your point, but that isn't true. After repeated attempts, and repeated rebuttals, yet persistent side stepping, I just called out the author on his clear BS, which is and always will be a fair thing to do in a debate when someone persistently avoids addressing your points.
Also, a list of books doesn't make me deserving of respect anymore than anyone else is deserving, it is merely a list of books I thought might be of interest to others, and so I suggested them.
To "Wylted"
Yeah, I don't agree. Debates are meant to be fair in structure, there is little to no limitation on outside influence, and in any case, the information I provided is equally accessible to the Pro to rebut (though we see his skills in rhetoric are clearly lacking)
Incredibly weak argument for round 1. First of all, you treat proportionality as a numbers game, in other words, whichever side has more casualties, means the other is not responding proportionally. That's not how that works. (I would provide a complete rebuttal, but I am not the Con so I won't do so at this time).
Additionally, you're lending no weight to Hamas, who have manufactured the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, through the seizure of Aid and its subsequent reselling to Gazan civilians, as well as the real and true fact that hamas continually embeds itself in civilian infrastructure. A party wishing to commit genocide does not take the unprecedented step of dropping leaflets almost every time it conducts an airstrike. Like this argument is so poor, I am honestly mind blown pro would even think to enter this debate, since they clearly know so little about the conflict, its history, and complex components. Ill leave the rest for the con, but jesus mary and joseph, Pro should concede the rest of the debate.
You realize, right, that your response essentially was a parody — of yourself?
I didn’t even need to exaggerate you. You did it better than I ever could. You broke your own sacred vow of commentary silence — which you had announced with all the solemnity of a hermit monk retreating to a monastery at 7,500 feet — just to lecture me like I’d triggered a constitutional crisis.
You compared a mock quote on DebateArt to impeachment proceedings. You invoked Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and House Rules as if we were drafting federal indictments, not casually exchanging satire. That alone proves my point better than anything I could write.
You accuse me of misrepresentation while misrepresenting parody itself — demanding proper quotation in a parody, which by definition isn’t meant to be literal. That’s not logic, that’s ego. You seem less upset that I mocked you and more upset that I did it accurately — which is why you’re now spiraling into tangents about hieroglyphs, spiritual studies, and declassified Pelosi scrolls like a man possessed by a poorly footnoted ghost.
Also — and this part you keep conveniently avoiding — you still haven’t responded to a single argument I made before your theatrical vow of silence. Not one. You wrote pages about satire, honor, rules, and ancient coursework, but never once addressed the actual points I raised. The “wise elder” act collapses when the scrolls are empty.
You posture. Constantly. Your bio is a performance. Your book is self-published constitutional fanfiction. Your reaction to satire wasn’t an argument — it was a public spiral into the exact pseudo-intellectual melodrama I mocked you for. And the best part? You didn’t realize you were doing it.
This wasn’t a personal attack. It was observation. And you proved it with your own keyboard. So next time, before storming down from your digital monastery to deliver another self-important sermon, remember — all I did was hold up a mirror. The meltdown was yours. Not mine.
Not necessary but thank you. I only meant to give you some ammo to use in the debate, and judging by your win ratio, and clear understanding of the conflict, you have got it well in hand. I'll be back for the voting. Good luck.
I'm eager to see your responses, and arguments.
The assertion that Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and genocidal fails under scrutiny for three primary reasons: the legal basis for self-defense, the nature of Hamas’ military tactics, and the absence of genocidal intent or actions by Israel under international definitions.
Also, I present the moral conundrum which makes anti-Israeli's squirm:
If Israel is committing genocide, by withholding aid, or via aerial bombardment of areas hijacked by hamas death-cultists, or because through such bombardments civilians have died, then I'm afraid you need to call up your grandpa (Assuming you're from a country which fought in the second world war) and tell them they committed acts of genocide against the Germans. And if they didn't partake in any aerial campaign, they at least fought on a side which did. If that's something you're unwilling to admit, then you need to abandon your clearly flawed logic.
What should be argued, is that there needs to be a reorganization of international law which protects human life, but doesn't protect those who fight using asymmetrical warfare tactics like Hamas. Hamas knows there are idiots in the West who will scream and shout about genocide, genocide, genocide, and it knows that it can utilize civilian infrastructure, which it sees as a win-win situation. Either 1. Israel doesn't bomb civilian areas it is using and therefor its fighters don't die, or 2. its fighters die, but also civilians, so now it can send out a memo to Al Jazeera, or Al-Arabiya and before you know it, folks like NukeJelly are screaming Genocide, Genocide, hurting Israel's reputation further. Unfortunately, the war requires a realist approach, which will result in civilian casualties. The alternative is a war, and a world, in which terrorist organizations dictate the rules, right the outrage messages, and through time, eventually succeed because westerners simply don't have the stomach for realism.
NukeJelly supports what can be summed up as, weak warfare. It wasn't a regard for civilian or military infrastructure which won the war. Even though Germany at the very least didn't really utilize civilian structures the way Hamas does. No, the war was won because the German people lost the stomach for a conflict they were outmatched in, and neither the German army nor its people were offered any quarter. That's what won world war 2. NukeJelly, the second world war would've been much longer but for the nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing Israel should use its weapons in Dimona, however, overwhelming force will prevent Hamas from attacking again, not lying down and taking their rocket attacks. If that isn't allowed, then it will only be a matter of time until Hamas wins, because the Israeli people will lose their stomach, whilst the Palestinians (Who admit this), can wait years or generations because life is not just on this earth, but for all time, so who really cares about 76 years. That is who Israel is fighting, people who think in terms of centuries, not days. Kill the snake (Hamas) now, using realistic realist tactics, or wait another decade or two until Hamas gains the legitimacy and can fight Israel with better weapons, better numbers, and nation states behind them. Israel cannot, nor can it be expected to, take that, or wait for it.
Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.
"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"
"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"
"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"
ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?
I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.
Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.
"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"
You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.
What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.
You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.
The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.
The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.
Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.
One more comment I swear.
I just have to highlight how you yet again misinterpret the definition of proportionality. Proportionality is not 1 Israeli dies, so one Gazan does.
Proportionality is there are 100 people here, not all 100 would die in a strike, however there is no question some might. There are Hamas operatives within the 100. Does striking this target, killing the Hamas fighters (who are committing war crimes by their very presence among civilians), outweigh the potential harm to civilians? This does not mean, does killing 6 hamas for 6 civilians work? As I have said before its not a numbers game. It is, does killing these Hamas war criminals, have justification despite the potential civilian casualties?
I have been on, and therefor seen first hand the opinions and sentiments of US college students, who will say oh grave heavens, look at the 50 thousand killed, yet they make no effort (as you too have not) to understand what proportion are and are not civilians, not a single even remote effort. This is also just what? 2 weeks off of hamas making a revision of thousands of casualties for which the author takes at face value. A PolitiFact article from May states "That’s because over most of the conflict, the figures have come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, an agency of the region’s Hamas-controlled government". But the author again takes the casualty assessments at face value and as true. When I talk about clear ignorance, this is exactly what I mean. Emotional reaction often replaced informed judgement.
Also I want to address your comparison of 10 jews for every one Nazi killed, and its comparison to Israel in Gaza. First of all there is 0 indication of such a tactic being used by the IDF in Gaza. Also, what is with the anti-Israel movements clear obsession with comparing the IDF or Israel to the actions of Nazi Germany, and on International Holocaust Remembrance day no less.
I should remind you, or enlighten you with the fact that Hajj Amin Al-Husseini was at that time a great friend of Hitler, having been given the "Honorary Aryan" title by him, and even touring Concentration Camps, so comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is not a good look, especially when considering the above.
If I may continue: Comparing the wholesale rounding up of people for their expressed faith, or even the fact that they had at least one Jewish grandparent, and their subsequent execution by the Nazis, (in some cases as retaliation for the murder of a Nazi), is not only inconsistent but frankly quite harmful and morally questionable at best. Indeed it is clear this point was framed in a way as to be a "Gothca" or perhaps to pull some strings, but I find it interesting someone has the nerve to compare collateral damage in a warzone, to the rounding up of men women and children. Interesting indeed.
To put it mildly, it is a cheap and dangerous distortion of history.
Re: Wylted (I cant mention you for some reason, always says "is not active")
Yeah, no. The book which is listed in my profile as "The Art of War" is indeed also the name of a book written by Sun Tzu. The book I am referencing is however by Helmuth v. Moltke. I have only read parts of the book you're referring to, certainly not enough to reference it.
First of all, I'd wager I understand the conflict more than you since I can follow the actual definition of proportionality whilst you (Yes I say again) believe it to be a numbers game.
Proportionality in international law, especially under the Geneva Conventions, isn’t about casualty ratios or percentages of population lost. It's about whether the military advantage anticipated outweighs the expected harm to civilians. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story — context matters: military objectives, who is being targeted, and how operations are conducted.
If Israel can accurately anticipate a strike will lead to a positive military outcome, in comparison to the possible civilian loss, then it cannot be called a war crime. A common misconception to newcomers of this topic, is they believe civilian casualties are by themselves a war crime. That simply is not true. Additionally, proportionality is not entirely a precedent setting , each strike, and its outcome are judged on their own.
Also, you are complaining that they're not giving enough warning, when they literally aren't required to give any warning period. In some cases it is not possible to give warning, say when the target is a high ranking Hamas official, of course warning cannot be expected, but in all cases, the idea that they need to do it earlier is at best, wishful, because frankly, the Palestinians are lucky they're getting a warning at all, as (as I have said) it is unprecedented.
On the charge that I am new to this site, and only engage in ad hominem, first of all, yes I am new to this site, no I am not new to debate, nor am I new to publicly debating this topic.
In other debates, like the one with the self obsessed Rhodes scholar, you can sit and pretend that's what I did from the start, since it suits your point, but that isn't true. After repeated attempts, and repeated rebuttals, yet persistent side stepping, I just called out the author on his clear BS, which is and always will be a fair thing to do in a debate when someone persistently avoids addressing your points.
Also, a list of books doesn't make me deserving of respect anymore than anyone else is deserving, it is merely a list of books I thought might be of interest to others, and so I suggested them.
On Israel/Palestine? Not that I have seen, could you link it perhaps?
To "Wylted"
Yeah, I don't agree. Debates are meant to be fair in structure, there is little to no limitation on outside influence, and in any case, the information I provided is equally accessible to the Pro to rebut (though we see his skills in rhetoric are clearly lacking)
Incredibly weak argument for round 1. First of all, you treat proportionality as a numbers game, in other words, whichever side has more casualties, means the other is not responding proportionally. That's not how that works. (I would provide a complete rebuttal, but I am not the Con so I won't do so at this time).
Additionally, you're lending no weight to Hamas, who have manufactured the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, through the seizure of Aid and its subsequent reselling to Gazan civilians, as well as the real and true fact that hamas continually embeds itself in civilian infrastructure. A party wishing to commit genocide does not take the unprecedented step of dropping leaflets almost every time it conducts an airstrike. Like this argument is so poor, I am honestly mind blown pro would even think to enter this debate, since they clearly know so little about the conflict, its history, and complex components. Ill leave the rest for the con, but jesus mary and joseph, Pro should concede the rest of the debate.
You realize, right, that your response essentially was a parody — of yourself?
I didn’t even need to exaggerate you. You did it better than I ever could. You broke your own sacred vow of commentary silence — which you had announced with all the solemnity of a hermit monk retreating to a monastery at 7,500 feet — just to lecture me like I’d triggered a constitutional crisis.
You compared a mock quote on DebateArt to impeachment proceedings. You invoked Adam Schiff, Pelosi, and House Rules as if we were drafting federal indictments, not casually exchanging satire. That alone proves my point better than anything I could write.
You accuse me of misrepresentation while misrepresenting parody itself — demanding proper quotation in a parody, which by definition isn’t meant to be literal. That’s not logic, that’s ego. You seem less upset that I mocked you and more upset that I did it accurately — which is why you’re now spiraling into tangents about hieroglyphs, spiritual studies, and declassified Pelosi scrolls like a man possessed by a poorly footnoted ghost.
Also — and this part you keep conveniently avoiding — you still haven’t responded to a single argument I made before your theatrical vow of silence. Not one. You wrote pages about satire, honor, rules, and ancient coursework, but never once addressed the actual points I raised. The “wise elder” act collapses when the scrolls are empty.
You posture. Constantly. Your bio is a performance. Your book is self-published constitutional fanfiction. Your reaction to satire wasn’t an argument — it was a public spiral into the exact pseudo-intellectual melodrama I mocked you for. And the best part? You didn’t realize you were doing it.
This wasn’t a personal attack. It was observation. And you proved it with your own keyboard. So next time, before storming down from your digital monastery to deliver another self-important sermon, remember — all I did was hold up a mirror. The meltdown was yours. Not mine.
Not necessary but thank you. I only meant to give you some ammo to use in the debate, and judging by your win ratio, and clear understanding of the conflict, you have got it well in hand. I'll be back for the voting. Good luck.
I'm eager to see your responses, and arguments.
The assertion that Israel's war against Gaza is unjust and genocidal fails under scrutiny for three primary reasons: the legal basis for self-defense, the nature of Hamas’ military tactics, and the absence of genocidal intent or actions by Israel under international definitions.
Also, I present the moral conundrum which makes anti-Israeli's squirm:
If Israel is committing genocide, by withholding aid, or via aerial bombardment of areas hijacked by hamas death-cultists, or because through such bombardments civilians have died, then I'm afraid you need to call up your grandpa (Assuming you're from a country which fought in the second world war) and tell them they committed acts of genocide against the Germans. And if they didn't partake in any aerial campaign, they at least fought on a side which did. If that's something you're unwilling to admit, then you need to abandon your clearly flawed logic.
What should be argued, is that there needs to be a reorganization of international law which protects human life, but doesn't protect those who fight using asymmetrical warfare tactics like Hamas. Hamas knows there are idiots in the West who will scream and shout about genocide, genocide, genocide, and it knows that it can utilize civilian infrastructure, which it sees as a win-win situation. Either 1. Israel doesn't bomb civilian areas it is using and therefor its fighters don't die, or 2. its fighters die, but also civilians, so now it can send out a memo to Al Jazeera, or Al-Arabiya and before you know it, folks like NukeJelly are screaming Genocide, Genocide, hurting Israel's reputation further. Unfortunately, the war requires a realist approach, which will result in civilian casualties. The alternative is a war, and a world, in which terrorist organizations dictate the rules, right the outrage messages, and through time, eventually succeed because westerners simply don't have the stomach for realism.
NukeJelly supports what can be summed up as, weak warfare. It wasn't a regard for civilian or military infrastructure which won the war. Even though Germany at the very least didn't really utilize civilian structures the way Hamas does. No, the war was won because the German people lost the stomach for a conflict they were outmatched in, and neither the German army nor its people were offered any quarter. That's what won world war 2. NukeJelly, the second world war would've been much longer but for the nuclear weapons. I'm not arguing Israel should use its weapons in Dimona, however, overwhelming force will prevent Hamas from attacking again, not lying down and taking their rocket attacks. If that isn't allowed, then it will only be a matter of time until Hamas wins, because the Israeli people will lose their stomach, whilst the Palestinians (Who admit this), can wait years or generations because life is not just on this earth, but for all time, so who really cares about 76 years. That is who Israel is fighting, people who think in terms of centuries, not days. Kill the snake (Hamas) now, using realistic realist tactics, or wait another decade or two until Hamas gains the legitimacy and can fight Israel with better weapons, better numbers, and nation states behind them. Israel cannot, nor can it be expected to, take that, or wait for it.
Re: Your #26
Have you ever heard of parody? You're acting like I forged a statement to congress or something.
But because you sent a truly hilarious response, so comes more parody.
"Must break my own rule of commentary during debate...."
Translation: "I swore I wouldn't speak, but this affront to my legacy has forced my hand" further translation "How dare you disrupt the sanctity of my digital constitutional convention with parody"
"I never wrote those words, If I did, cite it, please, or I demand a retraction"
Translation: "Please respect the constitutional sanctity of my DebateArt comment section"
"That amounts to personal attack, and that is a losing argument, always"
Translation: "I am above this, but also deeply wounded by it"
ITS PARODY!
You're responding like I forged the Magna Carta and stapled it to my resume. You can write all the fictional books about candy, mint shortages, shortages of letters (Manufactured a supply chain issue for a children's book?), and Constitutional angels, but I can't write a fake quote?
I did a quick google of your book, evidently I found other books too. I am less than impressed. Your Bio rang like a founding fathers, a true intellect, someone who James Madison would quote if he were still alive, but I must say I was disappointed to see that all your books were...... self published...... i.e. its a hobby, not a job.
Because I can't critique every part of the bios under your books, I will just critique your bio on here.
"Freelance writer and illustrator"
Translation: "I'm not just a thinker, I produce culture" should just write renaissance man.
"Business and personal experience in over 30 countries"
Translation: "You can't debate me, I've been everywhere" not enough elaboration either.
"Fluent in English, French, Italian, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs"
Translation: "I'm not just well-read - I can decode dead languages" (It's funny you label here that your fluent, but elsewhere you state it was just a university course.
"Enjoy gourmet cooking, gardening, woodworking, greeting card fabrication with original illustrations and verse"
Translation: " I am not bound by your narrow concepts of expertise"
"Two Phd's, History and English Lit"
Translation: "You better come correct - I'm academically untouchable" (Also, you have a double Phd, but working in what is essentially Quality Control in an industrial setting?)
"Fauxlaw is the title of......"
Translation: "The Supreme Court, the president, congress, and the American people, are all wrong, I alone see the truth"
"Although I am monetarily affluent, my true wealth... is the knowledge I've gained"
Translation: "Yes, I have money, but I'm enlightened- not materialistic. So much so, that I need to showboat on an online debating forum"
"I approach that subject [Debate].....
Translation: "I am the wise elder, and even your naive rebuttals have value to me"
For a double Phd. you write like an undergrad.
You are right, perhaps what I said was harsh, however I would like to point out that what I wrote was only done after Con repeatedly sidestepped any calls for clarification or proof. Now as you have seen he has gone shy and stepped off the stage. "detractors note, I will now not answer any comments with pseudo-intellectual rubbish, for fears that my clear and obvious inability to confront your points, and sidestepping/deflecting are becoming much too obvious".
In any case, if you, Lancelot, want any good points, I'd be happy to help, though you seem to got this well and handled. I'll be back to vote, unless Plato comes back to feed some more nonsense.
What a pathetic response. Your position is not defendable. Either you concede your entire argument is predicated on one mention of the lord being "In the year of our lord", or you continue to look like a pseudo-intellectual, whose shallow comments and clear attempt at wit (though failing), and acumen in debating continue to do you no good. The choice is yours.... now cue another long-winded labyrinth of mumbled nonsense. People usually go to sites like these to learn the ropes of debate, not frame a debate to work entirely in their favor, and not only not debate anything meaningful, but basically act as a word nazi, deflecting any such jab at the clearly flawed basis for this so called debate. As said previously, you will not concede because you have written on this topic, and miraculously been published to-boot, so one cannot expect you to throw that all away. One must at least ask why someone who writes on the topic, would then attempt a debate? It seems to me that the purpose of this is to merely reaffirm what you already believe. What strikes me is, how can someone write a whole book on such a topic. I am published as well, but I don't debate on public forums the things I have been published on, no, I debate in public, where the rules are not made by me.
You’ve clearly established a debate which — yes — in its framing makes it difficult to win from the Pro side. As Sir.Lancelot correctly notes, Pro isn’t unwinnable, but fauxlaw is focused entirely on plain textual observation rather than contextual interpretation or implied meaning. This debate is not about whether the Constitution is implicitly secular or religious — no amount of historical comparison or appeals to other documents will matter here. What Con cares about is isolated words, and words alone. And that highlights a larger issue with self-authored debates: they can be framed however the instigator wants. Given that Con has written on this topic professionally, it makes sense he would construct a resolution tilted toward his own strengths. In a more balanced, open-ended debate — one not designed by him — he would have a harder time convincing anyone with sound judgment and no financial stake in the matter. Because to most reasonable people, the Constitution is clearly not a religious document, and “in the Year of our Lord” is no more an invocation than “Thursday” is a tribute to Thor. The rhetorical flourishes and pseudo-intellectual framing are just that — a mirage of depth, obscuring a debate that ultimately lacks substance.
The Constitution of the United States does not mention “the Lord” or “God” in any legal, structural, or substantive way. The only remotely relevant reference — “in the Year of our Lord” — is a standard 18th-century dating convention, not a theological or doctrinal inclusion. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, or Mayflower Compact — all of which openly invoke God — the Constitution was deliberately drafted without religious language. That was a conscious choice made by the framers, most notably James Madison, to ensure neutrality and protect both government and religion from mutual interference. The lack of a religious test in Article VI and the First Amendment further reinforce this secular character. Appeals to other documents, personal faith of the founders, or historical tradition are irrelevant to the legal text of the Constitution itself, which speaks clearly through its silence on the matter. It’s also worth noting that you (Con), who has written about this topic professionally, may have an understandable but entrenched reluctance to concede the plain meaning of the text — one shaped more by commitment to a viewpoint than by what the Constitution actually says.
Perfect!
It’s good to know Con isn’t debating the Constitution — just proofreading it for bonus points.
The core claim of the Con position is that “the Lord” is mentioned in the Constitution. Yet we see no quote from the Constitution itself to substantiate this — because no such quote exists. The only possible reference is a dating convention in the closing line: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” That phrase is ceremonial, not theological. It has no legal or religious significance, nor does it reflect divine authority behind the Constitution.
Con instead leans on other documents — the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact — none of which are the U.S. Constitution, and none of which have binding constitutional authority. The absence of any direct citation proves the point: the Constitution is intentionally secular. The authors knew how to invoke God if they wished — as they did in other writings — and they chose not to.