The Instigator
LaL36
Con (against)
Tied
11 Points
The Contender
4saken
Pro (for)
Tied
11 Points

Does Israel torture Palestinians?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,613 times Debate No: 33232
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

LaL36

Con

I've done this debate twice already but I haven't had a good debate in a while and I'm looking forward to one. I'd like to thank my opponent in advance and wish him luck.

Israel is the only country in the world whose judiciary has squarely faced the difficult issue of whether it is ever justified to engage in even a modified form of nonlethal torture unlike the current methods being used by the United States on captured al-Qaeda prisoners in order to obtain information deemed necessary to prevent a ticking bomb from killing dozens of civilians.

On September 6, 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court decided that not only is torture absolutely prohibited but even the types of physical pressure currently being used by the United States sleep deprivation, forced uncomfortable positions, loud music, shaking, hoods over the head are prohibited by Israeli law, even in cases in which the pressure is used not to elicit a confession but rather to elicit information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack. Prior to this decision, the Israeli security services did sometimes employ physical measures similar to those now being used by U.S. authorities against suspected terrorists.

Another fact to consider is that Israel used the death penalty only once on Eidolf Eichman who implemented "The Final Solution" a plan to kill all Jews. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org......

As for Israel's enemy Hamas. Before I go into saying how torture is their mindset towards Israelies, I would like to talk about how they treat their own people meaning Palestinians.
1. They have used children as human shields. http://www.examiner.com......
2. They have TORTURED members of Fatah. http://m.youtube.com......
3. They have TORTURED Gazans. http://middleeast.about.com......

Israel is suppose to "negotiate" and make peace with people like this? If this is what they do to Palestinians, their own people, imagine what they do to Israelies.
Good luck!
4saken

Pro

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate.
I wish him the best of luck and I look forward to an interesting debate.

First of all, allow me to give the definition of "torture": to afflict with severe pain of body or mind [1]
With that definition, I believe that Israel does torture the Palestinians.



1/ The treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

According to the Human Right Watch, there is differential treatment between the Jewish settlers and the Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel uses a network of checkpoints and roadblocks to restrict the Palestinians' movement, hindering their access to workplaces, education and health facilities. Israel also controls the water resources, as the result, the water consumption of an average Palestinian is only one fourth of the water consumption of an average Israeli. In many cases there are no legal justification for Israel's actions, which means Israel has violated "the prohibition against discrimination as well as a host of associated rights, including the right to freedom of movement, the right to a home, and the right to health". [2]

There is a Palestinian village named Jubbet al-Dhib in the West Bank. The children there have to "walk to schools in other villages several kilometers away because their own village has no school". The village lacks electricity and the Israeli authorities rejected their request to be connected to the electric grid. And only 350 meters away is a Jewish community which has both school and electricity. [2]

In Giza, seriously ill patients who wish to leave to hospitals outside are trapped here because of Israel's blockade. Many of those later died due to the lack of medical care. [3]

B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, said that "violence against Palestinians by Israeli security forces is not new; it has accompanied the occupation for many years". For example, from 2010 to 2011, B'Tselem reported 473 cases to the authorities in which they suspected that security forces used violence against Palestinians. B'Tselem demanded an investigation and prosecution of those responsible, however, most of the cases ended up with no punishment against the soldiers involved. [4]


2/ Imprisonment of Palestinians

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said that there are thousands of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention facilities. There are also "some 200 minors and 200 individuals held in administrative detention without trial". [5]

According to a report of Amnesty International, hundreds of Palestinians, children included, were detained by Israel and the procedures "often failed to meet international standards for fair trial". There are "some 300 children and 550 people who were held without charge or trial". Those Palestinians "were held in prisons in Israel in violation of international humanitarian law, which prohibits the removal of detainees to the territory of the occupying power". [3]

The report also stated that "Reports of torture and other ill-treatment by the Israeli General Security Service (GSS) increased, especially during interrogation of Palestinians suspected of planning or involvement in armed attacks. Methods reported included prolonged tying in painful stress positions, sleep deprivation and threats to harm detainees' families. Beatings and other ill-treatment of detainees were common during and following arrest and during transfer from one location to another." [3]


3/ The use of Palestinians as human shields by Israeli forces

According to a report of the Human Right Watch, the Israeli forces "engaged in the practice of human shielding, forcing Palestinian civilians to serve as "shields" to protect them from Palestinian militants". [6]

In the report, it's stated that: "Among the most serious "human shielding" cases documented in Jenin by Human Rights Watch were the cases of four brothers, a father and his fourteen-year-old son, and two other men who were used to shield IDF soldiers from attack by Palestinian militants while the IDF soldiers occupied a large house located directly across from the main UNRWA compound in the camp. In separate interviews with Human Rights Watch, the victims described how they were forced to stand on the balcony of the house to deter Palestinian gunmen from firing in the direction of the IDF soldiers. The Palestinian civilians also described how the IDF soldiers had forced them to stand in front of the soldiers when the soldiers fired at Palestinian gunmen, while resting their rifles on the shoulders of the Palestinian civilians." [6]

IDF (Israel Defense Forces) acknowledged these actions and tried to protest against the human shield ban. [7]
The ban became effective in 2005 but IDF was reported to continue the practice. [8]


Conclusion

With these evidences, I strongly believe that Israel does abuse the Palestinians both physically and mentally.

By the way, I don't really understand Con's part about Hamas. This debate is about Israel, not Hamas. Whatever Hamas does, it doesn't justify Israel's actions.


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.hrw.org...
[3] http://www.amnesty.org...
[4] http://www.btselem.org...
[5] http://www.un.org...
[6] http://www.hrw.org...
[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[8] http://www.btselem.org...
Debate Round No. 1
LaL36

Con

My opponent is correct. The part about Hamas was sort of irrelevant and therefore I apologize. I just wanted to show that while Israel is harshly criticized about torture which THEIR OWN LAW PROHIBITS, they should look at Hamas.

The treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

The story goes beyond what my oppoent has stated as the Palestinian refugee problem is a very complicated problem. First of all, 54 Muslim countries. Can another country either than Jordan help their Muslim brothers and settle them. I understand that they believe they deserve a state, but if they are getting "tortured" like my opponent is saying, other Muslim countires should help out. King Hussein even admitted it himself "Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestinian problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used the Palestinian people for selfish, political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal" King Hussein of Jordan, 1960. http://www.peaceforourtime.org.uk...

In my opponents first paragraph he mentions about the roadblocks and the blockade. What he neglects to mention, is why the blockade was set up in the first place; due to Palestinian violence. There was no security fence along the West Bank prior to violence of teh second intifada, during which suicide bombers walked into Israel from Palestinan communities. Also, there are dozens of countries that have fences and/or walls at their borders, including the US, Turkey, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands, India, Spain, thailand, Finland, and Yemen. And Less than five percent of the fence is made of concrete. This was done to protect civilians from sniper fire. The majority is either chain link or barb wire. So when this precaution was taken, explain to me how torture is Israel's agenda? Israel has been sensitive to them maybe not sensitive enough, but Israel has changed the location of the border fence in areas in which the Supreme Court has ruled that there could be a better location that will impede less on the lives of people in the area. But overall, the fence has worked as suicide bombers are less frequent considering suicide bombing is encouraged by 40% of Palestinians. http://www.cameraoncampus.org...

Now everything else you mentioned about the kids walking to school is unfortunate but that means that Israel isn't sensitive enough, the Muslim countries should settle them, or different measures should me taken. But it does not prove that Israel has directly tortured Palestinians. And by the way, the Palestinians are living in heaven compared to what is going on in Syria. People jump to criticize Israel including Assad's wife. (I won't be cheap again and state a source about something slightly irrelevant Pro).

My opponent also mentioned that the Israeli government has not penalized the soldiers that Btselem SUSPECTED of using unneccessary violence. But my opponent's own source says that only 134 out of 200 of their accusations went unpunished. While this may seem high, it shows that an investigation was held based on what they accused soldiers of and some were penalized and it proves that torture is not their mindset the fact that they penalized those that did.

Imprisonment of Palestinians

While a fair trial is important, it has nothing to do with torture so I am disregarding it.

My opponent also claims that torture was used while transferring the prisoners. Do you know how hard it is to regulate that. If an officer is left alone he might do something stupid because I don't know he lost his family from Palestininans and wants to take it out on a criminal. I am not saying that this is good. And also torture does not occur inside the actual prisons because the Red Cross has even visited it. http://www.maannews.net...

By the way the source I just stated also proves that Israel canceled visits in 2007 because they wanted to pressure Hamas into releasing Gilad Shalit and not because they wanted to be annoying.

Human Shields

It is prohibited today and Shaul Mofaz was condemned by many. So this doesn't prove that Israel currently tortures Palestinians.
4saken

Pro

1/ The treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

Con said, "if they are getting "tortured" like my opponent is saying, other Muslim countires should help out". It is a flawed logic. Just because other Muslim countries doesn't do anything, doesn't mean that the Palestinians are not being abused. Then he said, "They have used the Palestinian people for selfish, political purposes", which basically nullified his own argument. He has presented an explanation why they didn't help: Because they are selfish.

Then Con explained why Israel made the security fence. But my arguments are about the roadblocks, not the fences. Roadblocks restrict movement, fence don't. So my argument stands.

134 out of 200 is 67%, which is very high. Yes, in those cases violence is only suspected, but they are not the only source that points out that Israeli forces abuse the Palestinians. The Human Right Watch said "Israeli forces also suppressed nonviolent Palestinian protests and used excessive force against demonstrators". [1] B'Tselem said "small dose of ill-treatment such as a slap, a kick, an insult, a pointless delay at checkpoints, or degrading treatment" has became " an integral part of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories". [2]

Regarding the children having difficulties accessing to school, again, Con blamed other Muslim countries. Why? Israel is the one who is in charge of the area, so they should hold responsibility.

Con has dropped the arguments regarding electricity, water and medical care, so it's safe to assume that he conceded these points.


2/ Imprisonment of Palestinians

Con said detention without trial is not torture, but I disagree. The Palestinians are detained for months and years while "do not know why they are detained, when they will go free and what evidence exists against them". One can imagine the terror they have to go through and the psychological shock they can't forget for the rest of their lives. So I believe it counts as mental torture.

Con didn't refute the claim that "torture was used while transferring the prisoners", he said "it is hard to regulate". So basically he admitted it is true, and tried to use the excuse that "it is hard to regulate" to justify such actions. The link Con provided only said that the Red Cross "is not aware of any cancellation" of the "family visits to Gazans imprisoned in Israeli jails", it doesn't prove or disprove that whether torture is used in the jails.

I also would like to present a new evidence of torture of Palestinians by Israeli authorities: "The report contains testimonies of ten boys, aged fourteen to seventeen, who were arrested between October 2000 and January 2001 on suspicion of throwing stones. In most of the cases, the Police arrested them at their homes in the middle of the late night and took them to the Police station in Gush Etzion, where Police interrogators tortured them until morning." [4]


3/ The use of Palestinians as human shields by Israeli forces

I have shown that the practice was continued after the ban. And what did Con mean when he said "currently"? Does it mean "right now"? Does it mean that even if Israel tortured the Palestinians two weeks ago it still doesn't count? Because Con used the year of 1999 when torture was outlawed as a milestone, I believe that any actions Israel committed after that year can be used against them in this debate.


[1] http://www.hrw.org...
[2] http://www.btselem.org...
[3] http://www.btselem.org...
[4] http://www.btselem.org...
Debate Round No. 2
LaL36

Con

The treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

I was just making a sidenote that since you are claiming that they are "torturing" Palestinians, other Muslim countries should help.

The Roadblocks

They are basically the same thing. My arguments still applies. There was none prior to the intifada. Other countries still have them. My argument still applies. Listen torture is not their mindset because these roadblocks did not exist before the violence of the intifada. The roadblocks are not set up to humiliate, annoy, or TORTURE Palestinians, but to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens. Unfortunately, every time Israel has relaxed its policy and withdrawn checkpoints, Palestinian terrorists have taken advantage of the opportunity to launch new attacks on innocent Israelis. For example, once Israel withdrew from Gaza they got a ton of rockets. In return. And at this time, Israel was pressured from other nations to withdraw and that peace would come.

I just want to reiterate the point about 134 out of 200. The fact that Israel investigated all 200 cases and punished 66 of them means that torture is not there mindset. Why would a country whose goal is to torture Palestinians, waste time investigating and punishing people who do this?

"The Human Right Watch said "Israeli forces also suppressed nonviolent Palestinian protests and used excessive force against demonstrators". [1] B'Tselem said "small dose of ill-treatment such as a slap, a kick, an insult, a pointless delay at checkpoints, or degrading treatment" has became " an integral part of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories". [2]"

You said this in the previous round and stated the sources.

"Regarding the children having difficulties accessing to chool, again, Con blamed other Muslim countries"

No, I said that means that Muslim countries should help that's true. But I also said that maybe should be more sensitive to this and that different measures should be taken. This doesn't mean that Israel directly tortures Palestinians.

The points I forgot to address (sorry)

Medical care: Israel has saved many babies. There's a documentary about one. http://www.imdb.com...

Also, many times the Palestinans put bombs on the ambulance or even the person. http://www.liveleak.com...

Water:

Okay like I said before it doesn't mean Israel is doing a good job handling this. But don't you think if they wanted to torture them, they would take water away completely.

Electricity:

Same argument as above basically. And I don't think this is torture. So you think life before electricity is torture?

Imprisonment of Palestinians

Trial: Again you have to look at the bigger picture. The court could be doing a bad job but you have to remeber that they outlawed torture in the first place and this cannot be denied.

"he said "it is hard to regulate". So basically he admitted it is true, and tried to use the excuse that "it is hard to regulate" to justify such actions."

I'm not saying it is true I just can't completely deny it. But the Israeli government itself did not call for the torturing. That is what I meant "it is hard to regulate".

"The link... it doesn't prove or disprove that whether torture is used in the jails"

Uh if the Red Cross was making sure that Palestinian families were visiting the prisoners doesn't that mean they were at the prison? But fine if you want more proof, Uri Davis, an anti-zionist said that torture in Jails have ceased after 1999. Like already explained before that they used methods similar to the methods currently being used by the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I also would like to present a new evidence of torture of Palestinians by Israeli authorities: "The report contains testimonies of ten boys, aged fourteen to seventeen, who were arrested between October 2000 and January 2001 on suspicion of throwing stones. In most of the cases, the Police arrested them at their homes in the middle of the late night and took them to the Police station in Gush Etzion, where Police interrogators tortured them until morning."

You are arguing something that happened 12 years ago. That is like arguing that America tortures people because of the policemen who tortured Rodney king a long time ago. To argue that a country tortures people, it should be recent, and on a constant basis like in Syria.

"I have shown that the practice was continued after the ban. And what did Con mean when he said "currently"? Does it mean "right now"? Does it mean that even if Israel tortured the Palestinians two weeks ago it still doesn't count? Because Con used the year of 1999 when torture was outlawed as a milestone, I believe that any actions Israel committed after that year can be used against them in this debate."

Yes by currently I meant right now. What did you think I meant? You have proved that someone advocated for it and it was denied and now they don't use it. I mean human shields are not allowed. For the last few years this is how it has been. Israel doesn't currently torture Palestinians. I don't literally mean at this moment. I mean it hasn't happened for a while.
4saken

Pro

1/ The treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

Con said: "I was just making a sidenote that since you are claiming that they are "torturing" Palestinians, other Muslim countries should help". Does this have anything to do with our debate?

The roadblocks and the security fences are not the same. Here is the fence:



The roadblock is something set up to control or block traffic along a road. How can you say they are the same?

Con said "torture is not their mindset". How could you know what their mindset is? We can't know what they think, we only know what they do. The fact is, according to many reports, the soldiers "often fail to open the checkpoints and gates in the separation barrier that they are manning, or subject Palestinians to arbitrary and humiliating treatment". The Israeli NGO Bimkom stated that the barrier "almost totally ignores the daily needs of the Palestinian population" and is "focused almost exclusively on the desire to maintain the fabric of life of Israeli settlers". The result of the movement restriction is "60 percent decline in per capita GDP from 1999 to 2008", which makes difficult for the Palestinian economy to recover and grow. (http://www.hrw.org...)

Con continued to ignore the fact that the majority of the violence cases ended with no punishment for the soldier involved. Many human right groups are watching them, of course they can't ignore them all. Just because some cases are solved, doesn't mean everything is fine.

Con had no answer for my point that the ill-treatment is "an integral part of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories".

Regarding school and electricity, I have shown an example that there is school and electricity only 350m away but the Palestinians are not allowed to access. It's not insensitive, it's discriminatory treatment. Con also said that it's OK to have no electricity because we used to have no electricity in the past. I disagree. The standard of life increases over time. What is OK in the past is not OK now. Electricity now is essential to our daily life.

Regarding medical care, Con showed that an Israeli doctor saved a Palestinian baby. But the action of one individual does not reflect the policy of a government. Con also said that there was a case in which bombs were implanted in the ambulance, but does it justify the denial of medical care of seriously ill people, who have died as the results of their restriction.

Regarding water, Con said "if they wanted to torture them, they would take water away completely". Sorry, if they take the water completely, it's not torture, it's murder. Should the Palestinians be thankful because they haven't got killed yet?


2/ Imprisonment of Palestinians

*) Trial: Again you have to look at the bigger picture. The court could be doing a bad job but you have to remeber that they outlawed torture in the first place and this cannot be denied.

What is the bigger picture? Israel outlawed torture, yes, but then they continued it anyway. What is your point?

Con didn't refute my point that "detention without trial is torture" so it means that he's accepted this point. I have shown in Round 1 that there are hundreds of Palestinians, children included, being held without charge or trial. The excuse that the courts doing a bad job couldn't justify this fact.

*) I'm not saying it is true I just can't completely deny it. But the Israeli government itself did not call for the torturing. That is what I meant "it is hard to regulate".

If you can't refute it, it means that you concede.

Con continued to use the excuse "it is hard to regulate". But if government officials committed a crime, the government should hold responsibility.

*) Uh if the Red Cross was making sure that Palestinian families were visiting the prisoners doesn't that mean they were at the prison?

Yes, they were at the prison. What is your point? Of course there was no torturing when they were there. But the Red Cross can't be present at any prison at any time, right? So this doesn't prove anything.

*) But fine if you want more proof, Uri Davis, an anti-zionist said that torture in Jails have ceased after 1999.

I've shown a case of torture after 1999, so this is obviously incorrect.

*) You are arguing something that happened 12 years ago. That is like arguing that America tortures people because of the policemen who tortured Rodney king a long time ago. To argue that a country tortures people, it should be recent, and on a constant basis like in Syria.

Where does that definition come from? There is no such definition in Round 1. You can't suddenly make a new definition Round 3. In Round 1 you said torture was banned in 1999, so anything happened after that year can be used in this debate.


3/ The use of Palestinians as human shields by Israeli forces

I repeat that I have shown that the practice was continued after the ban. Also, what do you mean by "hasn't happened for a while". You need a fixed year to decide what counts and what doesn't count. The only fixed year mentioned in Round 1 is 1999, so that year will be used.
Debate Round No. 3
LaL36

Con

The treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

"Con said: "I was just making a sidenote that since you are claiming that they are "torturing" Palestinians, other Muslim countries should help". Does this have anything to do with our debate?"

Okay for some reason Pro decided to ignore the part where he quoted me when I said "I was just making a sidenote".

The Roadblocks

I meant the idea behind them are the same and my arguments still stand. True that Israel is tight with its roadblocks but did the Palestinian Authority, who govern the area, make an effort to control its radicals and suicide bombing? No rather they let indoctrination continue which is why the roadblocks were set up like this in the first place. Did Palestinian radicals instigate conflict with Israel several years before these measures were taken? Yes. With all this evidence it can be concluded that this is proper use of power and not torture.

"Con said "torture is not their mindset". How could you know what their mindset is."

Once again pro is taking my argument to literal. You think I literally meant I read the government's mind? If you continue to read what I said I was explaining that the roadblock is not meant to torture Palestinians because it wasn't instituted prior to violence of the second intifada. Israel doesn't like enforcing a blockade with roadblocks, it doesn't get joy from cutting off all projects for Palestinians, it doesn't profit from any of these actions! Israel does what it has to do to prevent loss of Israeli life. while the people remain complacent under a radical group of people telling them to blow themselves up, how can Israel be expected to restrain itself in self defense?

"The fact is, according to many reports, the soldiers "often fail to open the checkpoints and gates in the separation barrier that they are manning, or subject Palestinians to arbitrary and humiliating treatment"."

What humiliating treatment?

"The Israeli NGO Bimkom stated that the barrier "almost totally ignores the daily needs of the Palestinian population" and is "focused almost exclusively on the desire to maintain the fabric of life of Israeli settlers"."

Well since the page is huge I can't find what it says after which is pretty important because in the past you quoted me and didn't include the important things I said afterwards. But I will still address it. In reality, the blockade and the roadblocks was not set up for the Palestinians. It was set up to protect the Israelis.

"Con continued to ignore the fact that the majority of the violence cases ended with no punishment for the soldier involved. Many human right groups are watching them, of course they can't ignore them all. Just because some cases are solved, doesn't mean everything is fine."

What you are saying is very misleading. You are assuming that all the cases that they SUSPECTED violence and that went unpunished. It could be the human rights group saw the torture but the government didn't. If I see you murder someone but I have a no evidence you do not get punished. But you know what does happen? An investigation. The same process happens, your own source concedes to this. The fact that some cases are solved, doesn't mean everything is fine I never said that. What it does mean is that Israel doesn't want torture to take place therefore they investigate and punish those who they can.

"Con had no answer for my point that the ill-treatment is "an integral part of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories"."

I'm sorry I don't understand. Doesn't this strengthen my argument?

"Regarding school and electricity, I have shown an example that there is school and electricity only 350m away but the Palestinians are not allowed to access. It's not insensitive, it's discriminatory treatment"

They can't go to that school because they would have to go through the same annoying security check and roadblock you keep ranting about. So it is not discrimnatory treatment.

"Con also said that it's OK to have no electricity because we used to have no electricity in the past."

I find it terrible conduct for my opponent to keep misinterpreting my arguments and misquoting me. I said it is not torture. I didn't say its okay. I think its not okay to steal that doesn't mean I think it is torture.

"Regarding medical care, Con showed that an Israeli doctor saved a Palestinian baby. But the action of one individual does not reflect the policy of a government".

Now isn't that a very hippocritical statement coming from a man who round earlier used the actions of two soldiers twelve years ago to reflect that the policy of the Israeli government is torture. Here is proof of medical care. http://www.mfa.gov.il...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Regarding water, Con said "if they wanted to torture them, they would take water away completely". Sorry, if they take the water completely, it's not torture, it's murder"

My point was if Israel really wanted to torture them, they would completely annex them. Israel is not perfect, but it is not torturous. If they were like I said before they would completely annex them but they do not. They pulled out of Gaza for peace, they allow medical treatment, and send aid to gaza and allow
other countries to send aid. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"What is the bigger picture? Israel outlawed torture, yes, but then they continued it anyway. What is your point?"

in regard to me saying "Trial: Again you have to look at the bigger picture. The court could be doing a bad job but you have to remeber that they outlawed torture in the first place and this cannot be denied."

Okay once again pro misinterprets my arguments. You said that Palestinians weren't given fair trials. I am saying that the court could be making a mistake. Jeez, mistakes are torture? I am saying the court does not intend for torture because they outlawed torture in the first place.

"Con didn't refute my point that "detention without trial is torture" so it means that he's accepted this point"

100 percent false. The part where you quoted me addressed it and I addressed it above.

"If you can't refute it, it means that you concede."

Okay I'll try to be really clear this time: If officers take the prisoners in private they might torture them but it doesn't mean the Israeli government called for the torturing and that they torture them. The governemnt can't really regulate it.

"Yes, they were at the prison. What is your point? Of course there was no torturing when they were there. But the Red Cross can't be present at any prison at any time, right? So this doesn't prove anything."

You are basically using the logic guilty until proven innocent.

"I've shown a case of torture after 1999, so this is obviously incorrect."

Not in the Jails. You just proved that people suspected torture.

"Where does that definition come from? There is no such definition in Round 1. You can't suddenly make a new definition Round 3. In Round 1 you said torture was banned in 1999, so anything happened after that year can be used in this debate."

How does something twelve years ago prove that Israel currently tortures Palestinians? 1999 is not current this is a fact.

The Use of Palestinians as Human Shields

Again it hasn't happened for years so it is not current just because I didn't give a fixed date, the fact remains that Israel currently does not allow the use of Human Shields and therefore is not an argument for Israel currently torturing Palestinians.
4saken

Pro

I see that Con tried to direct our debate from "Does Israel torture Palestinians?" to "Does Israel want to torture Palestinians?". His questions such as "Why would a country whose goal is to torture Palestinians, waste time investigating and punishing people who do this?" is very misleading. I never said Israel's goal is to torture Palestinians and it is not the point. The point here is whether Israel's policies cause suffering to the Palestinians. Therefore, I would like Con to address my point properly and refrain from talking about what is unrelated to our debate.


1/ The treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories

*) What humiliating treatment?

I stated in Round 2 "a slap, a kick, an insult, a pointless delay at checkpoints, or degrading treatment", but you ignored it.

*) In reality, the blockade and the roadblocks was not set up for the Palestinians. It was set up to protect the Israelis.

It doesn't matter. The fact is it is degrading the lives of the Palestinians.

*) What you are saying is very misleading. You are assuming that all the cases that they SUSPECTED violence and that went unpunished. It could be the human rights group saw the torture but the government didn't. If I see you murder someone but I have a no evidence you do not get punished.

I will address this later.

*) What it does mean is that Israel doesn't want torture to take place therefore they investigate and punish those who they can

The debate is not about what Israel wants.

*) I'm sorry I don't understand. Doesn't this strengthen my argument?

I said that Israeli soldiers mistreating Palestinian people is something commonly happens. How does that strengthen your point?

*) They can't go to that school because they would have to go through the same annoying security check and roadblock you keep ranting about.

So you admitted it's Israel's fault?

*) I find it terrible conduct for my opponent to keep misinterpreting my arguments and misquoting me. I said it is not torture. I didn't say its okay. I think its not okay to steal that doesn't mean I think it is torture.

I said "What is OK in the past is not OK now", I didn't say anything about you.
Anyway, degrading living conditions is torturing. Maybe electricity alone doesn't count much, but my argument is water, electricity, medical care, education, ... combined.

*) Now isn't that a very hippocritical statement coming from a man who round earlier used the actions of two soldiers twelve years ago to reflect that the policy of the Israeli government is torture.

Did I say anything about the policy? I only presented the cases where government officials committed torture.
Regarding your example, one citizen's action doesn't present his country's policy.

*) Here is proof of medical care.

Sorry, what proof? We use sources to support our argument, not to replace it.
You can't drop a link and ask me to find the proof that proves you are right. It's your job, not mine.

*) My point was if Israel really wanted to torture them, they would completely annex them.

It doesn't matter what Israel wants. The fact is they are causing the suffering of the Palestinians.
Just because they haven't doing something worse, doesn't mean what is happening now is OK.


2/ Imprisonment of Palestinians

*) in regard to me saying "Trial: Again you have to look at the bigger picture. The court could be doing a bad job but you have to remeber that they outlawed torture in the first place and this cannot be denied."

I ask again: What is the bigger picture? If you want to say that "it proves that torture is not their mindset" then the answer is: This debate is not about their mindset.

*) Okay once again pro misinterprets my arguments. You said that Palestinians weren't given fair trials. I am saying that the court could be making a mistake. Jeez, mistakes are torture? I am saying the court does not intend for torture because they outlawed torture in the first place.

Mistakes can cause suffering to others. This debate is not about "does the court intend to torture".

*) 100 percent false. The part where you quoted me addressed it and I addressed it above.

You didn't. I mentions the effect of "detention without trial" and concluded that it is mentally torture.
You ignored this and kept talking about "the court made a mistake".
In short, you didn't say "it is not torture", but "it happens due to a mistake".

*) Okay I'll try to be really clear this time: If officers take the prisoners in private they might torture them but it doesn't mean the Israeli government called for the torturing and that they torture them. The governemnt can't really regulate it.

The fact remains that Israel government officials committed torture.

Regarding "The governemnt can't regulate it", here you are:

Israeli military judges rarely ordered investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment made by Palestinian defendants during their trials before military courts, and no GSS officers were known to have been prosecuted for torturing Palestinians. In October, two Israeli human rights groups filed a court petition requiring the Justice Ministry to disclose information about its handling of complaints of torture and other ill-treatment made by Palestinian detainees against the GSS.

Impunity remained the norm for Israeli soldiers and members of other security forces and for Israeli settlers who committed serious human rights abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, physical assaults and attacks on their property. Few investigations were carried out into such abuses and most were closed for “lack of evidence”. Prosecutions were rare and usually limited to cases publicized by human rights organizations and the media; in such cases, soldiers accused of killing Palestinians unlawfully were charged with manslaughter, not murder, and soldiers and settlers who were convicted of abuses against Palestinians generally received relatively lenient sentences. [1]

They can't regulate or they don't want to regulate?

*) What you are saying is very misleading ... you do not get punished.

I said above that I will address it later, and I will address it now.

If I am accused of murder I will have a fair trial by a independent third-party.
In these cases the authorities investigated their own soldiers and according to my source above they are not really fair.

*) You are basically using the logic guilty until proven innocent.

I am not. I said many times that your source doesn't prove or disprove that whether torture is used in the jails.
This is your claim: "torture does not occur inside the actual prisons because the Red Cross has even visited it".
I simply refuted it.

*) Not in the Jails. You just proved that people suspected torture.

So only torture in jail counts?
Anyway, you made up Uri Davis's words. He said "torture has, in most cases, ceased". [2]
It means that it still continues.

*) How does something twelve years ago prove that Israel currently tortures Palestinians? 1999 is not current this is a fact.

Our debate is not "Does Israel torture Palestinians currently?".
I'm proving that Israel has been torturing the Palestinians for years.

Anyway, if you want something "recently", here is it:

A soldier who shot a Palestinian demonstrator in the foot while the latter was blindfolded, handcuffed and held by the soldier’s commander in July was charged with the minor offence of “improper conduct”. (this is in 2012) [1]


3/ The use of Palestinians as human shields by Israeli forces

*) Again it hasn't happened for years so it is not current just because I didn't give a fixed date, the fact remains that Israel currently does not allow the use of Human Shields and therefore is not an argument for Israel currently torturing Palestinians.

Again, our debate is not "Does Israel torture Palestinians currently?".
You also ignored the fact that the practice continues after the ban.


[1] http://www.amnesty.org...
[2] "Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within", 2003, Uri Davis.
Debate Round No. 4
LaL36

Con

My opponent has not addressed my first two paragraphs of the previous round.

"you ignored it."

Calm down I asked. No need to accuse me of deliberately ignoring your arguments.

"I said that Israeli soldiers mistreating Palestinian people is something commonly happens. How does that strengthen your point?"

When I asked how it strengthens my argument it was in regard to when you said "the ill-treatment is an integral part of Palestinian life in the Occupied Territories"
Isn't saying that Palestinians recieve ill-treatment the opposite of torture.

"So you admitted it's Israel's fault?"

Not at all. Actually, let me quote the first part of my argument which you did not address.

"True that Israel is tight with its roadblocks but did the Palestinian Authority, who govern the area, make an effort to control its radicals and suicide bombing? No rather they let indoctrination continue and suicide bombings continue which is WHY the roadblocks were set up like this in the first place. Did Palestinian radicals instigate conflict with Israel several years before these measures were taken? Yes. With all this evidence it can be concluded that this is proper use of power and not torture."

To summarize, Israel didn't just randomly get strict with security checks and set up roadblocks like this and enforce a blockade. They did it due to Palestinan violence so to answer your question, NO! It is no where near what I was saying.

I said "What is OK in the past is not OK now",

Okay that is not where I said you misquoted me. You claimed that I said it is okay not to have electricty and that is complete fabrication.

"I didn't say anything about you."

Well you misquoted me so you did say something about me.

"Did I say anything about the policy?"

Yes you said that because you used an example of two soldiers to prove that the entire governemnt tortures Palestinians.

"Sorry, what proof? We use sources to support our argument, not to replace it.
You can't drop a link and ask me to find the proof that proves you are right. It's your job, not mine."

I appologize I guess you are right but in my defense, you've examined every source I provided anyway so it's not like I'm putting more work on you. And before I already proved that Israel sends aid, allows medical treatment, and allows other countries to send aid. "No Palestinian is denied medical care in Israel. However, if the Hamas regime does not grant permits for medical care, the Israeli government can do nothing to help the patient". This completely refutes your claim that Palestinians are denied medical treatment. So how is this torture? http://www.mfa.gov.il...

If you want someone who doesn't care about the Palestinians' medical treatment it is the Palestinian Authority. Because "In January 2009, during the Gaza War, the Palestinian Authority temporarily canceled financial coverage for all medical care for Palestinians in Israeli hospitals, including coverage for the chronically ill and those in need of complex care not available in the Palestinian territories".
And also, when Pro said other Muslim countries shouldn't be blamed the Palestinians themselves wanted medical care from other Muslim countries. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Just because they haven't doing something worse, doesn't mean what is happening now is OK."

Wow really pro? We are going down this road again. Did I suggest it is okay? Or did I suggest that it wasn't torture maybe? Fabrication has occured consistently throughout this debate.

"Mistakes can cause suffering to others. This debate is not about "does the court intend to torture".

Okay your own source does not say how the trial was unfair so I can't really address this.

"You didn't. I mentions the effect of "detention without trial" and concluded that it is mentally torture."

What you said was extremely misleading. You said I didn't address it at all and that I accepted it. You are saying that I ignored it? Maybe I didn't address it well but this is yet another example of complete fabrication.

"The fact remains that Israel government officials committed torture."

BUT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CALL FOR THE TORTURE. I am using the same logic you use. How can the action of one individual represent what an entire group does?

Your argument for the government can't regulate it:

Your source that the Israeli government closed some of these investigations due to lack of evidence. Which clearly there was because your source does not give evidence.

"In these cases the authorities investigated their own soldiers and according to my source above they are not really fair."

Okay your source does not say how.

I claimed: "You basically using the logic guilty until proven innocent"

my opponent: I am not. I said many times that your source doesn't prove or disprove that whether torture is used in the jails.
This is your claim: "torture does not occur inside the actual prisons because the Red Cross has even visited it".
I simply refuted it.

You are basically saying because I haven't proved that torture doesn't occur you are assuming that it does occur.

"So only torture in jail counts?"

Oh my G-d I can't believe how many times my opponent misquotes me and twists my arguments. When did I say torture in jail counts. Uri Davis was reffering to the jails and you were referring to a case that not in the jails so I said that you have not proved that torture occurs in the Jails.

"It means that it still continues."

Like I said the government is doing its best but it is hard to regulate what every single soldier and police officer does.

"Our debate is not "Does Israel torture Palestinians currently?"."

The word torture is in the present tense meaning currently. You have not provided any proof throughout the debate of recent torture except for the one below which I will address.

"Anyway if you want something "recently" here is it:"

A soldier who shot a Palestinian demonstrator in the foot while the latter was blindfolded, handcuffed and held by the soldier"s commander in July was charged with the minor offence of "improper conduct". (this is in 2012) [1]

Okay if he was punished BY THE GOVERNMENT how is it torture? Maybe the punishment should have been more but the government punished him. The government does not support this and does not call for the torturing.

"Again, our debate is not "Does Israel torture Palestinians currently?".

Yes it is. Torture once again is in the present tense meaning currently and I don't mean at this moment right now I mean something recently. And by default my opponent has lost this because he cannot present a new argument in the last round so he has failed to provide a recent example of the Israeli government torturing Palestinians. If my opponent provides new evidence it is not aloud and should not be counted.

Conclusion: Once again no matter how many times my opponent reiterates his points about occurences that happened years ago, it doesn't prove that Israel tortures Palestinians. He has not given one recent occurance to prove that Israel tortures Palestinians. And once again, if my opponent provides one recent time in the next round it should not be counted because no new arguments are allowed to be posted in the last round so at this point my opponent has failed to provide any proof of recent times. Torture is in the present tense and therefore my opponent needed to provide something far more recent than occurances that happened years ago. The resolution is negated.

I thank my opponent for a fun debate and the voter for reading this pretty long debate.
4saken

Pro

1/ My opponent has not addressed my first two paragraphs of the previous round.

Those paragraphs are mainly about Israel's "mindset", which is irrelevant to out debate as I've stated in Round 4.

2/ No need to accuse me of deliberately ignoring your arguments.

I only said you ignored them, no more no less.
Whether it is intentional or unintentional is irrelevant.
Dropping an argument means conceding it.

3/ Isn't saying that Palestinians recieve ill-treatment the opposite of torture.

Ill treatment is the opposite of torture?

4/ To summarize, Israel didn't just randomly get strict with security checks and set up roadblocks like this and enforce a blockade. They did it due to Palestinan violence so to answer your question, NO!

I never said Israle does it randomly, of course they have a purpose.
I've already pointed out that Israel's policy "almost totally ignores the daily needs of the Palestinian population" and is "focused almost exclusively on the desire to maintain the fabric of life of Israeli settlers". It is to promote the settlers' lives (and causes the suffering of the Palestinians in the process), not only to protect them.

5/ Okay that is not where I said you misquoted me. You claimed that I said it is okay not to have electricty and that is complete fabrication.

If my wording offended you then I apologize.
However, you didn't refute my point at all ("degrading living conditions is torturing"). Again, dropping an argument means conceding it.

6/ Yes you said that because you used an example of two soldiers to prove that the entire governemnt tortures Palestinians.

I never tried to prove that "the entire governemnt tortures Palestinians", which is obviously false and has nothing to do with our debate.

7/ And before I already proved that Israel sends aid, allows medical treatment, and allows other countries to send aid. "No Palestinian is denied medical care in Israel. However, if the Hamas regime does not grant permits for medical care, the Israeli government can do nothing to help the patient". This completely refutes your claim that Palestinians are denied medical treatment. So how is this torture?

Okay, the human right organizations say that the medical care is denied, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that it is not. I will let the voters decide who they should trust.

8/ If you want someone who doesn't care about the Palestinians' medical treatment it is the Palestinian Authority

This debate is not about the Palestinian Authority

9/ And also, when Pro said other Muslim countries shouldn't be blamed the Palestinians themselves wanted medical care from other Muslim countries.

I never said anything like that, and this is irrelevant anyway.

10/ Wow really pro? We are going down this road again. Did I suggest it is okay? Or did I suggest that it wasn't torture maybe? Fabrication has occured consistently throughout this debate.

So what you mean is "What is happening now is not OK, but Israel could do something worse"?
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I doubt that it helps your case.

11/ Okay your own source does not say how the trial was unfair so I can't really address this.

It is a report of Amnesty International, it doesn't have details of each case.

12/ What you said was extremely misleading. You said I didn't address it at all and that I accepted it. You are saying that I ignored it? Maybe I didn't address it well but this is yet another example of complete fabrication.

I never tried to accuse you of anything. See point 2.

13/ BUT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CALL FOR THE TORTURE. I am using the same logic you use. How can the action of one individual represent what an entire group does?

The fact is Israel doesn't try to stop it. They ignored most of the petitions and complaints, only the cases receiving public attention were investigated and even so the culprits had lenient sentences.

14/ Your source that the Israeli government closed some of these investigations due to lack of evidence. Which clearly there was because your source does not give evidence.

Again, it is a report of Amnesty International, it doesn't have details of each case.

You missed this "Israeli military judges rarely ordered investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment made by Palestinian defendants" and this "prosecutions were rare and usually limited to cases publicized by human rights organizations and the media" and this "soldiers accused of killing Palestinians unlawfully were charged with manslaughter, not murder, and soldiers and settlers who were convicted of abuses against Palestinians generally received relatively lenient sentences".

15/ Okay your source does not say how.

See point 14.

16/ You are basically saying because I haven't proved that torture doesn't occur you are assuming that it does occur.

I only said that your source doesn't prove or disprove that whether torture is used in the jails, no more no less.

17/ Like I said the government is doing its best but it is hard to regulate what every single soldier and police officer does.

See point 13 and 14.

18/ The word torture is in the present tense meaning currently.

Present tense = A verb tense that expresses action in the present time, habitual actions, or general truths.
(http://grammar.about.com...)
In Round 1 there is nothing specifying that this debate is about what is happening currently, so I use the "general truths" definition. If you want to use "currently" definition, you should have used the present continuous tense instead.

19/ Okay if he was punished BY THE GOVERNMENT how is it torture? Maybe the punishment should have been more but the government punished him. The government does not support this and does not call for the torturing.

A soldier shot a blindfolded and handcuffed man and that is "improper conduct"?
See point 13 and 14.

20/ Yes it is. Torture once again is in the present tense meaning currently and I don't mean at this moment right now I mean something recently.

See point 18.



Summary of the debate

I've presented these points:
- The negative effects of the roadblock to the Palestinians
- The Palestinians lack water, electricity, education, medical care
- Israeli soldiers mistreating Palestinian people is something commonly happens
- Israeli soldiers using violence against Palestinians are rarely investigated and punished
- T
here are a lot ot "detention without trial" cases and "detention without trial" is torture
- Torture still happens when the prisoners are being transferred or in jails
- Israeli forces use Palestinians as human shields, which was banned in 2005 but still continues after that

I believe that Con didn't effectively refute my points. Some points were dropped completely (degrading living conditions is torturing, Israeli soldiers mistreating Palestinian people, detention without trial is torture). Some points were countered with "it is hard to regulate", which I have proven false. Therefore, even if he could refute my other points (I believe that he didn't), that is enough for me to win this debate.

As the last words,
I would like to thank Con for this thoughtful debate and I wish to meet him again in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@bladerunner: Nice RFD. :) I agree (or at least do not contend) with most of it, except for one point that jumped out at me.

"Bullying and harassment are not torture. They are bullying and harassment. Which doesn't justify them, but neither does it make them torture."

I would wholly disagree with you on this point. Hazing is a form of harassment, and many cases of hazing are not voluntary, and sometimes it can lead to death. This is easily a form of torture.

Where do you draw the line? I think this falls into whatever it is you considered "extreme". I just left it up to my subjective judgment...agree the subject matter should have been more clearly defined.

---

I have no contention with the rest of your RFD, and will note that I totally agree that this debate was really hard to score, cheers.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
***Multiple posts. Attempting to post backwards so that it reads easier***

This is the beginning of the RFD post.

A very interesting and hard to score debate!

The biggest problem I have with this debate, and the reason I'm giving arguments to Con, is that "Torture" wasn't defined, and Pro's definition was lacking.

By his definition, as posted, my Ottoman has "tortured" me, because I stubbed my toe on it once.

Similarly, the things he posts as "torture" would not be regarded as torture by most. Even unlawful killing is not inherently "torture". When we speak of torture we're speaking of a very specific kind of wanton, willful, unnecessary physical harm inflicted to an extreme degree.

Waterboarding is torture.

Sitting on an uncomfortable chair is not.

Bullying and harassment are not torture. They are bullying and harassment. Which doesn't justify them, but neither does it make them torture.

And a government is not responsible for the actions that it makes illegal and, as Con pointed out, does punish (perhaps not as much as it could...)

Pro complained about Con shifting the goal posts towards intent, then in the very next clause proceeded to shift the goal posts away from torture and to "... whether Israel's policies cause suffering to the Palestinians."

Not all suffering is torture.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Pro also misunderstands tenses, as Con points out..."Does" <em>is</em> the present tense of "do". So yes, this debate <em>was</em> about whether Israel currently tortures Palestinians.

Overall, it seems to me that Pro played a semantical game, playing with the definition of "torture" and purposefully ignoring the tenses of words to argue he should be able to argue something that wasn't in the resolution.

I also feel it was inappropriate of Pro to ignore the "mindset" argument (though it was an argument which could have been made better). Torture without intent isn't commonly considered torture.

Pro's final summation of his case failed to show actual torture, though he asserted that detention without trial is torture; I think he might have been able to make that case, but as it stands I found it uncompelling.

I mostly agree with wrichcirw's assessment, but respectfully disagree with wrichcirw's assessment of the evidence for torture; the tribunals clearly don't turn a completely blind eye, nor was it established well enough that what was potentially ignored was truly "torture". Doesn't make it right, either, and I think Pro made a very solid case for systemic mistreatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government...I just don't think it was established that the government as an entity engages in torture; Con's initial point about the courts ruling it illegal was a tough barrier to surmount.

Overall, I gave Arguments to Con, but it was fairly narrow, and rested almost entirely on my issues with the semantics involved. I hesitate to give more points, as they both used sources, and they both typed a LOT; I don't like giving S&G in cases this long unless there's a <em>very</em> clear difference, but that's my preference. Conduct was about equal, IMHO.

This is the end of the RFD post.

***Multiple posts. Attempting to post backwards so that it reads easier***
Posted by LaL36 3 years ago
LaL36
@TheSaint I didn't intend for you to votebomb it. I just wanted you to vote.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
6) PRO: "What is the bigger picture? Israel outlawed torture, yes, but then they continued it anyway. What is your point?"

This is why I am still not convinced of PRO's well-argued case. In the US, we outlaw hate crimes, but they continue anyway. Does the US condone hate crimes? It's nebulous...you'd have to really show that the FBI/CIA were actively funding hate groups in America. Similarly, I just do not see the Israeli government funding torture cells. There's no systemic violation.

7) PRO: "They can't regulate or they don't want to regulate?" Extremely convincing source prior to this. Clear systemic preference for torture.

8) I skimmed over the rest of the debate. CON does not address #7, and it is damning to his case.

---

CONCLUSION

I looked for two things - proof of torture, and proof of systemic preference of torture by the authorities. Much of what PRO argued did not involve any of this (discrimination is not torture). However, the case of tribunals turning a blind eye to things like unlawful killings and unlawful assaults was a clear instance of systemic preference for torture by the authorities, and combined with the sporadic evidence of ongoing torture, BoP was met here.

This was well-argued by PRO, although without this one case I would have scored arguments a tie - too much of his case did not deal with torture specifically, and CON was correct in asserting a proper time frame for substantiation. The moral argument was clearly in PRO's favor, but this debate did not deal specifically with morality. CON's S&G can use a lot of work in general. It was also difficult to follow who was saying what in his arguments.

I will give arguments/S&G to PRO, and conduct to CON for proffering a spirited defense.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Interesting debate. It could have been much better, but CON's opening was not pertinent to the resolution. PRO's case is well-argued, but some of his points are irrelevant.

1) Treatment of Palestinians in Occupied Territory was never equated to actual torture. Same with roadblocks. Dismissed.

2) One key aspect of this debate was if this torture is happening currently. I'm sure there is a slew of data showing torture, but the way I interpreted this resolution is whether or not such policies have been rescinded and replaced with new anti-torture policies that would also extend to a de facto abolition of torture, thus leading to its absence today. PRO had to show that this was not happening.

PRO had an excellent case that painted past Israeli actions in a very negative light, but was it enough to substantiate systemic, ongoing torture by the Israeli government? He certainly demonstrated a propensity for Israelis to prefer torturing Palestinians.

3) The bulk of CON's case highlights Israel's humanity in a propagandistic manner, however saying that "Israel has saved many babies" is not convincing in this regard. The case has to be well-substantiated to go against PRO's damning case regarding mal-treatment by Israelis of Palestinians.

4) CON: " But the Israeli government itself did not call for the torturing. " I don't see this as a debating issue. This is fact, or not fact. The real debate deals with Israel's propensity to torture, and whether or not its mindset is geared towards it, justifiable or not, rules or not.

5) PRO: "Because Con used the year of 1999 when torture was outlawed as a milestone, I believe that any actions Israel committed after that year can be used against them in this debate."

Good point, but I will allow CON leeway for phasing in such landmark legislation.

(cont)
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
When terms are not defined at the outset, the dictionary definition that best fits the context is selected. Pro went beyond the definition to craft a definition that is not within the scope of the meaning. So, Pro would have to agree that the US tortured the Japanese and German populations in WWII because the effects of war are unquestionably painful upon the civilian population. Torture implies acute measures, not general measures.

I think the unstated idea of the Pro side of the debate is to justify Palestinian terrorism by a false doctrine of moral equivalence. The notion is that if Palestinians murder a busload of school children, that's bad, but it's just like forcing Palestinians to go checkpoints, so we shouldn't count it against them. Pro needed to show a policy of systematic policy of real torture by Israelis, and he didn't do that.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
Sorry, think I got pro/con mixed up right at the end there in my RFD. Should be obvious though.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
OK debate, some room for improvement.

This debate was clearly set in the present. Precedent was useful for pro's case to establish some kind of credibility to their claims, but despite this pro was frequently pushing to expand the scope of the debate. Pro also tried to expand the scope of torture quite often which con was right to pick up on. Con, however, tried to narrow it too far, frequently talking about torture in relative terms and being dismissive of non-legislative torture when torture by its nature is executive. The most convincing thing in the entire debate was pro's R1 definition of torture, so that's what I went with.

Pro had BOP. First they had to prove that Israel was paining Palestine. I felt pro shot themselves in the foot a bit with their claims that Israel has good grounds to attack Palestine. This made the neg case that they are attacking Palestine more believable. Con's claims also relied on torture being regulated and direct, which was a really large limitation on the scope of pro's claims. Pro's arguments would have sounded much less compelling if con hadn't based their case on assumptions that seemed to vindicate pro's position. I was prepared to accept that some Palestinians have been physically or mentally pained by Israel, but it wasn't enough for pro to win the debate. I also wasn't convinced by con that "torture" and "proper use of power" were mutually exclusive, and might be prepared to accept that this torture isn't a bad thing.
Posted by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
Second, they had to prove the pain was severe. This came down to narratives. Pro had some really amazing ones of the struggles Palestinians go through. Reading about people getting shot etc inherently sounds really bad. Con needed to show that things weren't that bad, and although they made a good attempt at refuting some of con's evidence, what they needed to do was convince me that the narratives that go with the evidence are wrong too - give me something else to believe in! In addition, I didn't feel pro's empirical objections mostly held either, which tended to come down to minor differences in interpretation that didn't really refute the relevant facts of what happened, which is really what made the narratives stand out.

Good luck to both debaters, well done. Aff win 3:2.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. PRO was overall much more comprehensible and ultimately more convincing than CON.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is making an absurd extension of the definition of "torture" to include the effects of war upon civilian populations. So, under Pro's logic having checkpoints to keep out suicide bombers is "torture." The few cases of possible real torture that Pro cited were not well-supported by his evidence, and there was no convincing evidence of policies of torture. Pro did not come close to meeting the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 3 years ago
TheSaint
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con emailed me saying that he too was Jewish and wanted me to vote. That seems like vote pandering, so that seems like a loss of a conduct point.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con should have defined torture in the first round, but since he did not, Pro's definition was the definition I used. Pro effectively showed that Israel afflicted severe pain of body and mind to the Palestinians, and Con dropped many points that Pro made, so Pro won arguments.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
LaL364sakenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Check out the comments