The Instigator
ThomasTownend
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Eitan_Zohar
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Eitan_Zohar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 41539
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

ThomasTownend

Pro

Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)
Eitan_Zohar

Con

Greetings. I, first, will concede all of Pro's political claims.

My argument will be divided in two; first, an explanation on what makes an inference valid, and second, a application of this to my opponent's argument.

Premises are statements of something we take as self-evident or simply assume. An inference can be made when all the premises follow through properly. An example:

Premise 1: All men are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

A statement is valid not only when the logic is correct, but when the premises are themselves truthful. When making ethical statements, the validity of such a statement is dependent upon some fundamental value. Hence, the justifications are hierarchical; the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ad infinitum. Such statements as "killing is wrong" require the support of broader ethical assumptions, such as "human life has value."


What Pro has not done here is proved the validity of a self-evident imperative from which a proper ethical framework could be derived. If we go down the chain of justifications, we have to reach an axiom eventually, but we don't really have any reason to accept that axiom as true or non-subjective. Therefore, it seems my erstwhile opponent must demonstrate his particular frameowork to be valid before he can prove that Palestine deserves autonomy.

I await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
ThomasTownend

Pro

Firstly I'd like to thank the honourable gentleman for accepting my challenge.

As much as I'm impressed with my opponents's knowledge in the field of Syllogism: I wish not for a mistake in the wording of this question, divert a debate firmly rooted in political sediment to a philosophical discussion on axioms, inferences and premises. He accepted this debate on Palestine; Taking the debate off like this on a tangent is misleading and counter-productive to my initial intentions. If my opponent wishes to have a discourse on philosophy I will happily oblige, but only on another debate clearly outlining such in its title. However I will present the 'framework' he wishes, which to be fair to him is a valid gripe: for if this topic is to be of any intellectual coherence it must have an Archimedean point for it to be analysed from; For me this is that "Exceeding state oppression on a group of peoples' must be assuaged, in the name of liberty and social emancipation" (This relates to their lives inherent value both collectively and individualistically); In this case I see the granting of deserved sovereignty the way to achieve such. I hope this ethical criterion satisfies my opponent. In my view the Palestinian people have both a philanthropic, cultural and historic right to be independent of the regime of Botha... oh wait no Benjamin Nenanthyu (Freudian slip). I avidly await my opponent's response, and implore him to not lead this debate down a road of jargon which will be in dissonance with the overt political tone of this piece.

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."- Albert Cammus
Eitan_Zohar

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent's rebuttal can be summed up as follows: he started this debate with a political tone in mind, so I should simply go ahead and make the moral assumptions he wants to have a meaningful political debate instead arguing with him over the fundamental question of why anything should happen at all.

Regardless, I think that my argument is still untouched. Pro again makes an unsubstantiated moral assertion: that I should change my argumentation to reflect his intentions. He provided reasons as to why I should do so (that it would be "counter-productive and misleading" to continue to argue from a metaethical standpoint), but this seems to beg the question. My opponent's argument assumes that there is good reason to not derail the debate with semantic quibbling, but no real moral imperative is argued for; hence, I see no reason not go right ahead and continue.

I have still shown that my Pro's arguments do not meet the resolution. None of my opponent's reasons show that Palestine should, in any real sense, receive autonomy (which is itself giving him the benefit of the doubt, as the title was worded as a question and no definition of "Palestine" is given) and therefore the resolution is effectively negated.

As of now, it sadly appears that my Pro has deactivated his account. I hope that he will be back as I have enjoyed the debate thus far.

Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
ThomasTownend

Pro

ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
Eitan_Zohar

Con

Sadly, my opponent has forfeited the last round. My arguments extend.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
ThomasTownend

Pro

ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
Eitan_Zohar

Con

Who are you to start a debate on this website, vomit out a bunch of claims (written in the grammar and spelling of a typical third-grader) with no arguments whatsoever, giving us 2,000 characters to answer them, all the while dripping with your own self-assurance? "Knowledge of syllogism?" Do you think this site is for people like you to masturbate to yourselves? Go back to posting your rants on Youtube comment sections, and don't clutter up DDO with your nonsense. The same goes for people like jat93 and every other user who comes on here thinking that the site revolves around them, when in reality they're so deeply entrenched in what Julian Sanchez referred to as epistemic closure that they can't grasp the magnitude of their own stupidity.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tom.t 2 years ago
Tom.t
Thomas from the debate here. The other day I decided to take a look back at this site and see if any of the few debates I participated were still up. I had only joined this site as a fun side activity to do while in my exam period. Much to my surprise I looked back on this debate to find a rather unnecessarily vicious comment by Eitan, who knew at that point that I wouldn't be responding as I had deactivated my account. The level of vehement in the comment shocked me as hitherto that response our debate had been pretty civil. Granted my arguments were pretty poor and underdeveloped as he rightly pointed out; looking back I can discern they lack rationale. My poor spelling and grammar are primarily due to the lack of time (hence why I only made it a 2000 word limit) .That isn't what bothers me though, what bothers me is Eitan's talk of me being stupid and masturbating to myself. I'd just like to ask Eitan why he felt the need to be so harsh to me? From my vista it felt pretty unprovoked and I am curious to know the reason why.

Cheers
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
I do believe I said "a statement is valid."
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Say that these premises are true -

1. The table is blue.
2. The ball is round.

Your statement implies that because these premises are true, the logic is thereby valid. It's not. The logic can be valid only if the premises follow - as you explained - and sound if the premises are both valid and true.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
It's perfectly clear what I meant, lol.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
It's important to differentiate between valid and sound. Just FYI.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
See? Mirza does semantic quibbling, too!
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
"A statement is valid not only when the logic is correct, but when the premises are themselves truthful."

No. It's valid when the logic follows, and sound when the premises are true.
Posted by ThomasTownend 3 years ago
ThomasTownend
Thank you for the spot sir on reflection the syntax of the proposition isn't as concise as I'd hoped. I will change it later on. It was purely meant to serve as juicy bait for cyber zionists to try and bite on ;)

Thanks for the feedback
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
Don't preach to the damned.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
Reword your resolution to "Palestine Deserves Autonomy". And then choose "Pro".

As you currently have it written, you are in support of a question (which doesn't make any sense). Your opponent could argue, "there should be no question about it! Of course Palestine deserves autonomy" and win on a technicality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
ThomasTownendEitan_ZoharTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F. And although no sources were presented, I feel two or more forfeited rounds warrants votes all across the board automatically, from the standpoint of debate policy.