The Instigator
angryduck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Is being right possible in a conflict where both parties have equal reasons to kill eachother?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 444 times Debate No: 60263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

angryduck

Pro

I believe the state of Israel should use any means to make their citizens safe.
Theunkown

Con

Pro provided no format so I shall go straight into my arguments (with some defenitions).


Defenitions

[1]Right: morally or socially correct or acceptable

[2]Equal:the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality


My job in negating the resolution is to prove that it is impossible for either party of a conflict to be right when both sides have equal reasons to kill each other.

Killing is not right. It never is. However, sometimes, when given a choice between killing and something else, killing can be a lesser evil but that does not necessarily make killing 'right' so to speak.


Pro's only argument is that: the state of Israel should use any means to make their citizens safe.

Israel's citizens are living in heaven compared to Gaza.
Hamas uses home made rockets while Israel's military is funded by what is considered a superpower, the United States. Israel uses technology that Hamas cannot hope to match.

Israel is safe. In recent stages of the conflict only 50 Israelis (almost exclusively soldiers) were killed.

Israel has its so called Iron dome defence system, which shoot out the few Gazan rockets that 'threaten' Israel, thus keeping the civilians safe. It should also be noted that Hamas's rockets are extremely inaccurate, hence the so few casualties on the Israeli side.



This is all I can provide for now and it is frankly far better than Pro's round 1 but I assume he is saving arguments for the later rounds.
I hand the debate back to Pro.



Sources:
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
angryduck

Pro

That the scale of the massacre of Palestinians is of International concern rather than its cause is my concern. This changing moral compass about the effects of war is a mistake.
Theunkown

Con

That the scale of the massacre of Palestinians is of International concern rather than its cause is my concern

The sentence is very hard to comprehend but from what I understand, Pro is saying that the cause of the massacre (of Gazans) should be more concerning to the international community than the massacre itself.

This changing moral compass about the effects of war is a mistake.

Why is it a mistake? The resolution combined with Pro's arguments thus far implies that both parties in this conflict (Hamas/Gaza and Israel) have equal reasons to kill each other.

When both Israel and Hamas have equal reasons to kill each other, but Israel commits more atrocities then obviously Israel has the lower moral ground. But this does not mean that Hamas is a peace loving group. Both sides are on a very low moral ground and should stop fighitng.



Pro has not even argued for the resolution - Is being right possible in a conflict where both parties have equal reasons to kill eachother?
Debate Round No. 2
angryduck

Pro

My point is that being right may be not needed in a military conflict. Citizens put on hold their human rights in self defence. Its unlikely they are going to think of their enemies human rights or the legality of their actions when their own survival is at stake. We are what we are and its delusionary to Imagine we will be any different.
Both sides of the war in Gazza have equal but opposing views. They are both right. I expect when they tire of the killing they might have a bit of a ceasefire. Its all you can hope for , a lull in the slaughter.
Theunkown

Con

My point is that being right may be not needed in a military conflict.

But we are arguing is being right is possible. Whether it is needed or not we are talking about its possiblity as stated in the resolution. Perhaps my opponent wants to change the resolution? Its a bit late dont you think?

So let us not waste anymore time. Pro, please state exactly and clearly what you are arguing for in Round 4 and provide an argument for it. I really have lost touch with what is being debated.
Debate Round No. 3
angryduck

Pro

OK , Ive been unclear about what my argument is. I will try again.

Good Guys v Bad Guys only exist in John Wayne Cow Boy films . Taking a moral ground in a conflict implies that there is one and it is the same as yesterdays. Both dubious assumptions. "It is in our national Interests to Intervene" is an unusual statement in its honesty by the USA spokespeople.
The carnage caused by IS will horrify us but probably wont make much difference to how we respond. Being right is not top of the agenda.
Theunkown

Con

Thanks to Pro for clarifying his arguments. When he said being right in the resolution, he means whether one party can have the moral high ground.

Since my opponent is Pro, he should argue that yes, a party can have the high ground despite the fact that both parties have equal justifications for the war.

But Pro is arguing for the Con side saying that Taking a [high] moral ground in a conflict implies that there is one and it is the same as yesterdays his arguments seem like Being right is not top of the agenda and that one side is not on a moral high ground.
This is what I am supposed to be arguing for as Con. I am supposed to say both sides are on an equal moral ground due to the fact that they have equal reasons to kill each other, as dictated by the resolution.

Note to Pro - For next time, clarify exactly what you are arguing for and take the right stance (Pro or Con) for the resolution. It would be pointless debating this further, since we argue for the same side.
Debate Round No. 4
angryduck

Pro

angryduck forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

Due to forfeit (if nothing else) vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
What makes reasons equal? And how would you know with such a lopsided brain of yours?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
angryduckTheunkownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I almost didn't award arguments because Pro was nearly impossible to understand, but that was his fault for lacking a coherent argument, so the points go to con. Conduct of course for the forfeit. Spelling for such gems as "Cow Boy."