Is Hamas Evil? You decide!
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Swearing is allowed.
2. Do NOT attack the other debater's race, religion, sex, creed, disability, or anything else like that. Same goes for everyone else that may be mentioned in this debate.
4. There are no other rules. Go crazy.
I will hereby lay out my argument on why Hamas is evil and therefore is not the true face of the Palestinian movement at all.
Let me start out with Hamas's terrible human rights record. It is well known that Hamas is imposing its own messed up form of Islam upon the population of Gaza. They are the reason why the Christian population of Gaza has been cut in half. Meanwhile, they closed down a water park in the area for allowing mixed bathing. Later, terrorists set fire to the park. Though Hamas said they would investigate it, I have every reason to suspect they were the ones behind it. Also, they have banned a collection of Pakestinian folk tales called Speak Bird Speak Again. And this is supposed to be a group that advocates Palestinian nationalism. What hypocrites.
They have a secret police that deals with this called The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. They impose their own screwed up form of sharia law and they dedicate themselves to "fight those who are being corrupted by Satan, and do not observe sharia law." I am not making this up. I swear to god. I am not! Hamas has taken this to very stupid extremes already, but this is too much.
To end this portion of my argument, they, along with every other terrorist group in the Middle East, claim that Music is immoral along with Dance. For example, they broke up a hip-hop concert in Gaza, saying it was "immoral." Then, they banned women from riding behind men on motorcycles and forbade them from dancing. They have also enforced a dress code for women. Now you see, I for one oppose the bans on headscarves by France. But I also oppose efforts by countries to force women to wear them, regardless of their wishes. I believe anyone should have the right to wear what they want, as long as its within reasonable bounds. Hamas, however, decided "screw that" and imposed this stupid law.
Oh but it gets worse! The Swords of Truth, a terrorist group, threatened to BEHEAD female TV broadcasters if they didn't wear proper dress. Hamas has done absolutely nothing in response like the cowards they are. And worse, the female broadcasters now fear for their lives.
And that ends my argument for Round 1.
Hi. I'm Justin. In this debate, I will be assuming the role of the Negative team. (Con) I will be negating the resolution, and arguing that HAMAS isn't evil.
I will start by summarizing my opponent's arguments as I understand them. (Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken)
1. Hamas has a terrible HR record. (several examples cited)
2. Hamas is imposing sharia law on the inhabitants of Palestine, even equipping a secret police force to do so.
3. Hamas didn't defend the people from a terrorist group who threatened to kill Palestinians TV broadcasters who did not align with sharia law.
In response, I will not be arguing over whether or not Hamas is "justified" in their actions. But, more specifically, if they are inherently EVIL. (As the resolution states) If I can prove that HAMAS isn't "evil", then I believe that the negative team has warranted your vote at the end of this debate round.
I will first begin by defining evil, since the affirmative team has not done so.
Evil (according to thefreedictionary.com) - "Morally bad or wrong; wicked"
According to HAMAS' views, unless I'm mistaken, sharia law is divinely inspired and it is, therefore, moral to enforce it. If this is the case, then HAMAS isn't acting immorally, but instead actually acting according to what they believe is right! I am not saying that HAMAS' actions are justified, but by the definition of evil (as is stated in the resolution) HAMAS can't be considered evil. They are trying to do what their beliefs say is "right".
Secondly, not to doubt your evidence standard, but... Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reputable source. Anyone may edit wikipedia articles, making it a website people typically avoid when looking for reliable information.
However, I do have a an article (even though I've already proven HAMAS isn't "evil" by definition) which shows that HAMAS is doing some "good" things, too.
This article points out that some things in Gaza are actually doing better under HAMAS' direction. Things such as decreased traffic congestion, organized markets, lower gang activity, technological advancements, and even more equality among civilians.
So, in conclusion, is HAMAS good or bad? That's for you to decide. There are certainly things that could suggest either answer. However, by definition, by it's TRUE definition, is HAMAS evil?
It is for these reasons that I would strongly urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Hamas has quoted a known fake of a book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and have used it as justification for Anti-Semitic actions. As said in Artcle 32 of the Hamas charter:
"...Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme ... Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates... Their scheme has been laid out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there."
What is shown is how to destroy a political group's credibility in 1 second. This forgery is itself was used as justification for the actions of the most evil group in history, The Nazis, who used it to justify their attacks on Jews. As a result, anyone who uses this farce as a justification is probably up to no good.
Next, there is an inevitable part in this debate where the Arab-Israeli Conflict is mentioned. That time is now. Where do I begin?
Ah yes, let's begin with Hamas's use of HUMAN SHIELDS. Often, it has been reported that IAF pilots were forced to call off airstrikes at rocket launch sites due to non-combatants being in the area. Why are there civilians in those areas? Because Hamas fighters are cowards. This quote, taken from the Jerusalem Post website, explains:
"Such tactics are not new for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In recent years, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya declared that "the Palestinians are a nation of jihad and martyrdom," while Hamas MP Fathi Hamed, addressing Israel, said, "We desire death more than you desire life.""
Yes, that's right. They say the Palestinians are a people of killing themselves for their politicians. Then again, they secretly want that, because more dead civilians=More sympathy for their messed-up cause. A group is definitely evil when they begin doing this.
Then there's the issue of the rockets themselves. Hamas launches them indiscriminately at any target they can find. The result is the needless slaughter of Israelis, provoking IAF airstrikes, which result in needless Palestinian deaths. It's a vicious cycle, and Hamas is the motor behind it.
I thank my opponent for his response. I will now refute his arguments once again.
It seems my opponent, while certainly accurate in his portrayal of Hamas' activities, has missed the point of my main and crucial argument. Hamas is cruel. Hamas is unfair. Hamas is unethical. Hamas is violent. Hamas is repulsive and revolting.
Hamas is NOT, by definition, evil.
My definition of the word "evil" has gone unscathed through round 2. I will assume this means my opponent has accepted it. I believe the best course of action is this:
I agree that Hamas has done awful things. However, in a debate, we argue and discuss the resolution. The resolution is this: Hamas is evil.
I provided a definition of evil. This definition was:
"Morally bad or wrong; wicked"
Sharia law, as believed by Hamas, is morality itself. Therefore, hamas is NOT "morally bad or wrong; wicked." In fact, they believe they are just the opposite!
If my opponent can refute this in the third and final round, I encourage him to do so.
If all my opponent can do is provide more evidence of Hamas' admittedly CRUEL and INHUMANE (but not, by definition, evil) actions, then I believe he will have lost the debate.
Back to you, my (extremely well learned) opponent.
a : causing harm : pernicious
Also, there are more reasons why as well.
All evil groups and people, whether in fiction or in real life, believed their actions were justified and right, even if they were the exact opposite.
Also, Sharia Law is a very fluid concept. What could be considered part of it in 1 place could be considered too extreme in another. Saudi Arabia has radically different laws than other Arab countries in the Middle East, and that includes what Sharia Law is.
What Hamas believes is right is considered to be morally wrong to most, me included. Therefore, since only Hamas and its supporters believe their actions are morally right and no one else, their actions are not.
Before my opponent tries to refute that with other arguments, lets look at another debate, Democrats vs Republicans. Both sides disagree with each other, but they mostly agree that the policies they support wouldn't cross the line.
But, with Hamas, every sane person would agree their actions cross the line. Only those who are either in it or support it believe what they do is morally right. Since no one else believes so, they can be defined as Evil.
Finally, I will reiterate and rephrase a statement to end this debate: All of evil believes they are right even though they are not.
And that concludes my role in this debate.
I wish my opponent good luck.
My opponent tried, and I'm glad he did, to provide a definition of evil which would fit Hamas. His definition, despite missing a source, we will assume is legitimate. So we now must ask, which definition is MORE legitimate?
Since we don't have his source, we can't see where his definition is from, which would typically harm legitimacy in an argument. But I'm going to forgive this misstep because I think my opponent is fairly new to this site. (While he is quite skilled, his profile page shows this is his first debate) I think we can assume he came by the definition by a legitimate source.
So, I present this argument. His definition is less legitimate than mine, because it is TOO broad. While, yes, Hamas would fit under his definition, so would you or I. I can cause harm. I certainly don't like to do it! But I can. By my opponent's definition, the second I harm something, anything, I am evil. Because of this, the definition of "evil" provided is NOT an accurate one for this round. It gives the Con, myself, no room for argumentation.
So I appeal that you use my definition, which allows only people that are immoral to be truly evil.
My opponent also brought up two other arguments. The first being that, all beings are justified in their own eyes. This was a good point. However, few beings believe they are perfect. All beings, no matter what religion, accept that some things they do are not moral. If Hamas was committing immoral acts according to Sharia law, then they would be immoral.
If my opponent were to debate this in the future, perhaps he should try to argue for a harder definition of morality as well. But as it stands right now, he can not prove that Sharia law isn't, in fact, true morality. Which brings me to...
His second argument, which stated that most of the world believes sharia law to be immoral, and sharia law is fluid among its believers, does nothing to prove it's immoral or evil. Ad populum (or, to the people) is a common logical fallacy. This fallacy implies that anything believed by the majority of people is true. Obviously, this is not logical, because we can not know what true morality is this round, so we must accept the actions of each group or being based off his beliefs as it stands. As for Sharia law being fluid... well... again, it's personal beliefs. Does it mean the actions being performed aren't cruel or inhumane? No. But we can't prove they are immoral, so we can't prove they're evil. It doesn't matter if your beliefs change from group to group, so long as each group is acting in what it sees as the confines of its own morality.
So, while I'm certainly not a fan of Hamas myself, I have shown why we can not call Hamas "evil" (by definition). For this reason, please vote Con.
Thank you to my opponent for a great debate, especially for your first time! Once again, I personally believe in objective morality, and in Hamas actually being evil. I encourage you to remember how crucial defining terms are. They can be tricky. You did great, regardless. I look forward to seeing, and possibly refuting, your work in the future. ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con explained the argument very well with this: "His second argument, which stated that most of the world believes sharia law to be immoral, and sharia law is fluid among its believers, does nothing to prove it's immoral or evil. Ad populum (or, to the people) is a common logical fallacy. This fallacy implies that anything believed by the majority of people is true. Obviously, this is not logical, because we can not know what true morality is this round, so we must accept the actions of each group or being based off his beliefs as it stands. "
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.