Thank you to all who have voted on my debate. I want to say again now, there are no angry feelings towards anyone here who voted. I just needed the description to be the way it is to use the argument which I wanted to use there. I like limiting debate specifically to what I want to argue about.
I will admit that this was probably the most dirty debate description I ever created. I do like having some advantage over whoever accepts debate. Otherwise, all advantage goes to them.
I wouldnt say this violates any laws, given that I have taken the least extreme possible opposite position there is on this topic. I did it because it gives me maximum advantage in a debate by not having to defend any case under 16.
I really wonder how will Mall argue this. Its a difficult debate for Con, but there is actually one flaw in the topic which can be used to argue opposite. I want to see if Mall will use argument I have in mind.
That is very false. The words "if, then" represent cause and effect, where truth of first claim equals truth of other. It doesnt mean that first claim is true. It means that in case where it is, it leads to the other claim being true too.
"I didn’t say Hamas was better than Israel. I’m saying that’s what you said. Learn English and reading comprehension."
And I didnt even say that you were saying it. You really need to google what "if" means. These strawmans are not going to win you anything here. If you want to attack someone's argument here, you should usually make sure that you are not inventing a different version of it, which would be strawman. Also, personal attacks arent really helping you either. Insulting other people's religion and intelligence is maybe common in Israel, but here, it doesnt work.
"What I said — and still maintain — is that both use language which openly communicates intent to destroy another people"
Except that Hamas says they dont fight against those who dont fight against them and they respect all other religions. So now you are strawmanning their text here. Clearly, not all their text talks of destruction.
"If you believe the presence of peaceful words disproves the presence of violent intent, then you need to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to every other violent movement in history that said something pleasant once in a while"
Another strawman. My argument here was that some violent words dont always mean a presence of a completely evil intent. It is actually impossible to fight a war without using some violent words. If that makes group completely evil, then it would mean that Israel is completely evil and then the fight against Israel would be fully justified. So again, your logic here is very flawed. Most people use some violent words. It doesnt make them all equally bad people. I already said that Hamas does contain some bad people just like Israel does, Israel maybe even more. But it doesnt mean all people in Israel are equally bad people.
"now pretending you didn't say Hamas was better than Israel because Israel has done more bad things"
If you concede that Israel has done more bad things, then maybe you should be comparing Israel to Hitler to see if your flawed "analogy logic" works there.
You clearly said Hamas used same words as Hitler did, and these words represent their intent. Do you run away from that statement now?
"You’ve repeatedly claimed Hamas’s violent declarations are offset or undermined by a few peaceful-sounding lines in their charter"
If you want to attack my actual argument, I suggest you copy it instead of making your version of it.
For example, in this particular case, it was you who made an incorrect claim that all Hamas's words call to violence. I have simply corrected your claim.
"In this case, your argument is that Hamas cannot be deemed inherently violent because some of their statements mention tolerance or nonviolence. My analogy challenges that logic by asking: If we applied the same reasoning to the Nazis — who also said positive or patriotic things on occasion — would we excuse their crimes because of a few softer lines?"
This is just strawman. Again, if you are going to debate, I suggest you come up with something more than this nonsense. You are trying to say that my logic here is: "No one who says some peaceful things can be violent". If you are going to attack an argument no one ever even used, then you shouldnt be surprised why your arguments fail here. Again, your logic here was "Hitler used violent words and Hitler was bad, so if Hamas uses some violent words, Hamas is equally bad". This logic ultimately depends on assumption that Hamas is same as Hitler. Because if you concede that Hamas is not same as Hitler, then you cannot apply same reasoning to both equally. This is like saying "I like apples, so any person who likes apples is exactly same as me." Well, sadly, such logic is a miserable failure, and you already conceded that Hamas isnt Hitler, so there goes that argument.
I had a TV in my room, watched it late at night when those nasty things are shown on TV. You could say an obvious mistake of my parent to let me have TV in my room at that age.
Again, you repeat the same fallacy. I am not sure why you do it, but alright. To put it simply, you are trying to present two different things as equal. That is a logical fallacy because different things are not equal by definition. Such analogies are usually the weakest arguments due to such fallacy. Too easy to disprove.
This isnt a debate about Hitler, so that is just irrelevant. It would be very silly if you had to be Hitler to fight against Israel's crimes and occupation.
As I said, my arguments werent disproved. I could repeat same arguments and they would still stand. Then you resort to more personal attacks, which is okay, but I have no interest in trading insults. I prefer logic and debate right now, not insults. You will have to find someone else if your goal is to gain insults. I am certain there are members here who will be happy to insult you, but to me, you are source of information just like everyone else is. I learn from you, and make new arguments thanks to you.
I could repeat the same argument I used before and it would disprove you again. You resort to all these personal attacks to make up for that, but your arguments are rather weak and unsupported, I must say. But still, this is helping me for my debates about Israel in case someone accepts them.
This debate requires:
1. Definition of gender
2. Definition of male
3. Definition of female
We clearly dont agree on definition of gender, so it is very difficult to debate without agreed definition, as we would be debating two different topics entirely.
Also, there is no need to take this personally. I am merely collecting arguments for my debates. I have nothing against you. I even said that you are smart.
As I said, your argument was "Hamas calls for violence in their words". I have shown that their main document talks against violence of those who dont fight against them, and talks of tolerance of all other religions. So when judging words only, you must judge all words, and clearly, not all words call to violence, and some even call against violence. So the claim that all their words call to violence was disproved.
Further, if we are talking about intent, and if words reflect intent directly, then the words against violence reflect intent against violence. So not all intent is about violence either.
If you claim that most of their words call to violence, then that is difficult to meassure as you provided no statistics but just few quotes, but it still doesnt negate that many of their words call for peace too. So clearly, not all for violence.
"Hamas’s decades-long history of bombings, murders, executions, hostage-taking, mass rapes, and use of civilians as shields is not 'disproved' because you emotionally want it to be."
This is now moving the goalpost from words to actions, but it was already disproved because each group has some people who do bad things. Israel has done much more bad things, so logically, Israel has more bad people. As for fighting against Israel, it clearly means in many cases fighting against those who fight against them. No army on this world can control all its members, and some members of Hamas had their families killed by Israel, which makes it difficult for some to make reasonable choices, as it would for any other human in any other war.
Its okay. Even if you dont find time to vote, its no big deal. I understand that voting takes away time, and its not even mandatory for anyone to vote. This is just if you want to vote.
Thats a wide definition. Opens plenty of goalposts to be had, no specific goalpost set. I will consider accepting this after I check just how many goalposts will I lose if I accept.
You said that Hamas called for violence in their words in document charter. I showed that they called against violence of those who dont fight against them. So that has disproved your argument regarding to what they call for. You mention irrelevant example of Hitler, but Hitler didnt write the document we are talking about, so that is irrelevant, as Hitler =/= Hamas. So thats your one argument disproved. As for arguments about violence caused by Hamas, that was disproved many comments ago. Each group has some bad people in it. It doesnt put blame on whole group, otherwise Israel would be blamed as well, and then you get nowhere.
I was merely exposing the flaw of one of his arguments. I even bothered to read that hamas charter thing to see if it commands violence, and I find parts which command against violence of those who dont fight against them, and command respect of other religions. He basically fed me this argument.
"the correct approach is not blind acceptance of every word"
But this then negates your one argument. If you want to judge Hamas only based on their words, then you must include those words where they say they tolerate those who dont fight against them. But if you want to judge on some other basis, then probably avoid "these are their words" argument.
It was you who pointed me towards that text made by Hamas. But your case suffers from fallacy of cherry picking your own source. Hamas's words are either good source of their words or arent. If they are, then the message of tolerance for other religions is their word. If they arent a good source, then you cant use their words as a valid critique against their words. If source is part true, part false, then it is not a good source, thus cant be used to make argument, as your one argument is purely about what Hamas said, yet you willingly ignore many of their words which dont suit you and which negate your argument, making your argument flawed.
"Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts.
Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect.
"They will not fight you in body safe in fortified villages or
from behind wells. Their adversity among themselves is very
great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are
diverse. That is because they are a folk who have no sense." Sura
59 (al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 14.
Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts
aggression against the rights of others. The Nazi Zionist practices
against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for
"States built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon
justice will last until the hour of Resurrection."
"Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on
account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that
you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo!
Allah loves the just dealers." Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana)"
I guess I can just stick to position that Israel is bad while at the same time considering Hamas bad as well. But I do need to do more research about the polytheism in Gaza. If Hamas is really treating polytheists that way, then I cannot defend Hamas.
"A day ago you were confident you could defend hamas and their attacks against jews"
But I am not sure if I want to anymore. I did check the population data, and yeah, there are many polytheists in Israel (sure, different religions from my own, but still polytheists), but no data on polytheists in Gaza. Gaza is 99% muslim and 1% christian according to wikipedia. Now, to me, this could easily mean that polytheism is oppressed there, because usually, there are at least some polytheists in a country unless there is active effort to oppress them.
It is a sensitive topic after all. You made a smart move by appealing to my polytheism. That does come close to convincing me that Hamas is bad, even tho I need to find out more to confirm what you are saying.
New users cant accept rated debates.
You should make this standard debate.
Thank you to all who have voted on my debate. I want to say again now, there are no angry feelings towards anyone here who voted. I just needed the description to be the way it is to use the argument which I wanted to use there. I like limiting debate specifically to what I want to argue about.
Sorry to bother you, but if you want, you can cast a vote.
Its their opinion on this issue. I am not going to try change it.
"You could have won this"
I dont care much if most votes are against me. I am happy if there are any votes.
I will admit that this was probably the most dirty debate description I ever created. I do like having some advantage over whoever accepts debate. Otherwise, all advantage goes to them.
If you want, you can cast a vote 😊
I wouldnt say this violates any laws, given that I have taken the least extreme possible opposite position there is on this topic. I did it because it gives me maximum advantage in a debate by not having to defend any case under 16.
But fishes sounds cute.
"While you're at it, change person to "people". That's also incorrect."
Oh, well, okay.
I am not sure if its legal to debate this, but here we are.
I really wonder how will Mall argue this. Its a difficult debate for Con, but there is actually one flaw in the topic which can be used to argue opposite. I want to see if Mall will use argument I have in mind.
"I find it very telling that you’ve said you respect Christians and Muslims, but conspicuously left out Jews"
You are right there. I have added Jews now too.
You think word "if" means "it is so".
That is very false. The words "if, then" represent cause and effect, where truth of first claim equals truth of other. It doesnt mean that first claim is true. It means that in case where it is, it leads to the other claim being true too.
Disapproval rate is high.
"I didn’t say Hamas was better than Israel. I’m saying that’s what you said. Learn English and reading comprehension."
And I didnt even say that you were saying it. You really need to google what "if" means. These strawmans are not going to win you anything here. If you want to attack someone's argument here, you should usually make sure that you are not inventing a different version of it, which would be strawman. Also, personal attacks arent really helping you either. Insulting other people's religion and intelligence is maybe common in Israel, but here, it doesnt work.
"What I said — and still maintain — is that both use language which openly communicates intent to destroy another people"
Except that Hamas says they dont fight against those who dont fight against them and they respect all other religions. So now you are strawmanning their text here. Clearly, not all their text talks of destruction.
"If you believe the presence of peaceful words disproves the presence of violent intent, then you need to explain why the same logic doesn’t apply to every other violent movement in history that said something pleasant once in a while"
Another strawman. My argument here was that some violent words dont always mean a presence of a completely evil intent. It is actually impossible to fight a war without using some violent words. If that makes group completely evil, then it would mean that Israel is completely evil and then the fight against Israel would be fully justified. So again, your logic here is very flawed. Most people use some violent words. It doesnt make them all equally bad people. I already said that Hamas does contain some bad people just like Israel does, Israel maybe even more. But it doesnt mean all people in Israel are equally bad people.
"now pretending you didn't say Hamas was better than Israel because Israel has done more bad things"
If you concede that Israel has done more bad things, then maybe you should be comparing Israel to Hitler to see if your flawed "analogy logic" works there.
"I did not say Hamas is the same as Hitler"
You clearly said Hamas used same words as Hitler did, and these words represent their intent. Do you run away from that statement now?
"You’ve repeatedly claimed Hamas’s violent declarations are offset or undermined by a few peaceful-sounding lines in their charter"
If you want to attack my actual argument, I suggest you copy it instead of making your version of it.
For example, in this particular case, it was you who made an incorrect claim that all Hamas's words call to violence. I have simply corrected your claim.
"In this case, your argument is that Hamas cannot be deemed inherently violent because some of their statements mention tolerance or nonviolence. My analogy challenges that logic by asking: If we applied the same reasoning to the Nazis — who also said positive or patriotic things on occasion — would we excuse their crimes because of a few softer lines?"
This is just strawman. Again, if you are going to debate, I suggest you come up with something more than this nonsense. You are trying to say that my logic here is: "No one who says some peaceful things can be violent". If you are going to attack an argument no one ever even used, then you shouldnt be surprised why your arguments fail here. Again, your logic here was "Hitler used violent words and Hitler was bad, so if Hamas uses some violent words, Hamas is equally bad". This logic ultimately depends on assumption that Hamas is same as Hitler. Because if you concede that Hamas is not same as Hitler, then you cannot apply same reasoning to both equally. This is like saying "I like apples, so any person who likes apples is exactly same as me." Well, sadly, such logic is a miserable failure, and you already conceded that Hamas isnt Hitler, so there goes that argument.
It was a different time back then. Not many people even cared much to put effort in preventing such things.
Also, had internet without supervision lol
I had a TV in my room, watched it late at night when those nasty things are shown on TV. You could say an obvious mistake of my parent to let me have TV in my room at that age.
I was one of those advanced 8 year olds. I saw sex on TV, and later on internet.
Again, you repeat the same fallacy. I am not sure why you do it, but alright. To put it simply, you are trying to present two different things as equal. That is a logical fallacy because different things are not equal by definition. Such analogies are usually the weakest arguments due to such fallacy. Too easy to disprove.
This isnt a debate about Hitler, so that is just irrelevant. It would be very silly if you had to be Hitler to fight against Israel's crimes and occupation.
As I said, my arguments werent disproved. I could repeat same arguments and they would still stand. Then you resort to more personal attacks, which is okay, but I have no interest in trading insults. I prefer logic and debate right now, not insults. You will have to find someone else if your goal is to gain insults. I am certain there are members here who will be happy to insult you, but to me, you are source of information just like everyone else is. I learn from you, and make new arguments thanks to you.
I could repeat the same argument I used before and it would disprove you again. You resort to all these personal attacks to make up for that, but your arguments are rather weak and unsupported, I must say. But still, this is helping me for my debates about Israel in case someone accepts them.
This debate requires:
1. Definition of gender
2. Definition of male
3. Definition of female
We clearly dont agree on definition of gender, so it is very difficult to debate without agreed definition, as we would be debating two different topics entirely.
Also, there is no need to take this personally. I am merely collecting arguments for my debates. I have nothing against you. I even said that you are smart.
As I said, your argument was "Hamas calls for violence in their words". I have shown that their main document talks against violence of those who dont fight against them, and talks of tolerance of all other religions. So when judging words only, you must judge all words, and clearly, not all words call to violence, and some even call against violence. So the claim that all their words call to violence was disproved.
Further, if we are talking about intent, and if words reflect intent directly, then the words against violence reflect intent against violence. So not all intent is about violence either.
If you claim that most of their words call to violence, then that is difficult to meassure as you provided no statistics but just few quotes, but it still doesnt negate that many of their words call for peace too. So clearly, not all for violence.
"Hamas’s decades-long history of bombings, murders, executions, hostage-taking, mass rapes, and use of civilians as shields is not 'disproved' because you emotionally want it to be."
This is now moving the goalpost from words to actions, but it was already disproved because each group has some people who do bad things. Israel has done much more bad things, so logically, Israel has more bad people. As for fighting against Israel, it clearly means in many cases fighting against those who fight against them. No army on this world can control all its members, and some members of Hamas had their families killed by Israel, which makes it difficult for some to make reasonable choices, as it would for any other human in any other war.
Its okay. Even if you dont find time to vote, its no big deal. I understand that voting takes away time, and its not even mandatory for anyone to vote. This is just if you want to vote.
As someone who started watching porn at age 8, I can say for sure I wouldnt wait until 16. This topic triggers me.
Just giving me topics I cant resist accepting >.<
If I defined it in description, trap would be too obvious lol
Thats a wide definition. Opens plenty of goalposts to be had, no specific goalpost set. I will consider accepting this after I check just how many goalposts will I lose if I accept.
I mean, whats the definition of "should" here? If its "improves health" or "reduces distractions", then its not really possible to argue against.
You said that Hamas called for violence in their words in document charter. I showed that they called against violence of those who dont fight against them. So that has disproved your argument regarding to what they call for. You mention irrelevant example of Hitler, but Hitler didnt write the document we are talking about, so that is irrelevant, as Hitler =/= Hamas. So thats your one argument disproved. As for arguments about violence caused by Hamas, that was disproved many comments ago. Each group has some bad people in it. It doesnt put blame on whole group, otherwise Israel would be blamed as well, and then you get nowhere.
@WyIted
I was merely exposing the flaw of one of his arguments. I even bothered to read that hamas charter thing to see if it commands violence, and I find parts which command against violence of those who dont fight against them, and command respect of other religions. He basically fed me this argument.
"the correct approach is not blind acceptance of every word"
But this then negates your one argument. If you want to judge Hamas only based on their words, then you must include those words where they say they tolerate those who dont fight against them. But if you want to judge on some other basis, then probably avoid "these are their words" argument.
My opponent forfeited last round, but its not full forfeit, so somewhat harder to vote on because arguments still must be weighed. But please vote!
It was you who pointed me towards that text made by Hamas. But your case suffers from fallacy of cherry picking your own source. Hamas's words are either good source of their words or arent. If they are, then the message of tolerance for other religions is their word. If they arent a good source, then you cant use their words as a valid critique against their words. If source is part true, part false, then it is not a good source, thus cant be used to make argument, as your one argument is purely about what Hamas said, yet you willingly ignore many of their words which dont suit you and which negate your argument, making your argument flawed.
This is from Hamas charter about other religions.
"Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts.
Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect.
"They will not fight you in body safe in fortified villages or
from behind wells. Their adversity among themselves is very
great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are
diverse. That is because they are a folk who have no sense." Sura
59 (al-Hashr, the Exile), verse 14.
Islam accords his rights to everyone who has rights and averts
aggression against the rights of others. The Nazi Zionist practices
against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for
"States built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon
justice will last until the hour of Resurrection."
"Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on
account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that
you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo!
Allah loves the just dealers." Sura 60 (Al-Mumtahana)"
I guess I can just stick to position that Israel is bad while at the same time considering Hamas bad as well. But I do need to do more research about the polytheism in Gaza. If Hamas is really treating polytheists that way, then I cannot defend Hamas.
"A day ago you were confident you could defend hamas and their attacks against jews"
But I am not sure if I want to anymore. I did check the population data, and yeah, there are many polytheists in Israel (sure, different religions from my own, but still polytheists), but no data on polytheists in Gaza. Gaza is 99% muslim and 1% christian according to wikipedia. Now, to me, this could easily mean that polytheism is oppressed there, because usually, there are at least some polytheists in a country unless there is active effort to oppress them.
You seem like a very smart person. Rarely does anyone here succeed in changing my mind. This was well played.
It is a sensitive topic after all. You made a smart move by appealing to my polytheism. That does come close to convincing me that Hamas is bad, even tho I need to find out more to confirm what you are saying.
Thank you all for voting. I dont know what happened in this debate. My opponent maybe posted arguments in the wrong debate.
This one is easy vote. Opponent forfeited 50% of debate.