The Instigator
tower
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
paigeteevee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Israel has no choice

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,605 times Debate No: 18411
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

tower

Pro

The full text of the resolution is "Although Israel's position in the West Bank is mutually undesirable for Israel and Palestinians, Israel has no choice in the matter, because there are no reasonable alternatives." Cons job will be to suggest an alternative solution that does not increase the risk of harm to Israel, Israeli citizens, or the Jewish People. This debates definition of unreasonable includes, but is not limited to, anything that results in that.

My opening points assume three options for Israel:
1) Assimilate the West Bank. This would mean annexation, and full Israeli citizenship for all occupants. It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians would agree to this, and the average Palestinian would probably reject citizenship. Even if this were not so, it would be highly unsafe to assimilate an openly aggressive population into the country. Even if this were not so, Israel would likely risk losing its Jewish majority, and be subject to an the whims of a historically unfriendly regional Arab majority.
2) Two state solution. This proposes an Palestinian state in the West Bank. The trouble with this is that Israel could not safely defend itself from its 1967 borders, and no one who could make a lasting commitment to Israeli security from a potential state will make one. Israel could withdraw to newly drawn, defensible borders, but such a move would mean annexing certain parts of the West Bank, an illegal move that would likely provoke war with neighboring Arab states without impossible-to-get Palestinian approval.
3) Population shifts. This remains illegal and immoral.

Most other suggestions are subject to some of the above objections; Con will have find one that isn't refuted by them, not just unlisted.

I look forward to your response.
paigeteevee

Con

screw iseral they have done nothing good for us and there is always a choice it may suck butt but there is always a choice
Debate Round No. 1
tower

Pro

I thank my opponent for her arguments.

I will concede the point that iseral has done nothing good for neither me nor my opponent, and therefore understand her viseral condemnation of it. However, I don't follow why it is my obligation to screw it, as she suggests. Nonetheless, iseral's crimes do not reflect, in my opinion, on Israel's political situation and certainly do not address the grievances of the Palestinian people.

Additionally, I disagree with my opponent's assertion that sucking butt is a valid alternative to Israel's occupation. Certainly, if Israel were to suck butt, it would still face existential threats, and I doubt that the Palestinian people would be able to satisfy their desire for nationhood with such a action.

I will agree, however, that there is always a choice. For example, Israel could engage in self-genocide. However, this would result in harm to the Jewish people. I have not been convinced of a reasonable (and recall my definition for reasonable in my first arguement) alternative.

If anyone else wants to discuss this, if think I'll repost this debate in a few days. Look out for it after the weekend.

I eagerly await my opponent's counter-arguments.
paigeteevee

Con

ok i was not inplying that they go suck butt as an alternative i said the choice may suck butt please do not try to re-word my answer to your debate and second self-genoside are you insane cant anyone ever just be happy so ur poor do that mean you get to a school bus?? no and your sick well that is the way to cookie crumbles they need to tell israel "you can cathc more flies with honey that a freaking bomb"!!!!
and lastly your jewish aren't you
Debate Round No. 2
tower

Pro

I thank my opponent for her timely response.
Before I continue, I have to say it has been an honor to debate the author of "My Immortal"[1].

My opponent mistakenly accuses me of stating she implied that Israel suck butt as an alternative. Of course, I would never say such an heinous deviation from the truth. It should be obvious to all I claimed she stated it explicitly.

Additionally, she claimed I re-worded her answer to my debate. (As a side point, it is our debate, not just mine, although I appreciate the deferentiality.) This is untrue. Her inexplicable spelling , grammar, and punctuation conveniently accomplished that particular misconception.

My opponent then questions my sanity, presumably because of the suggestion of self-genocide. Certainly I am not advocating that course of action; after all, I immediately rejected it for not meeting the debate criterion for a reasonable solution. In fact, I was using it to illustrate the mere existence of a choice does not mean it is reasonable or even satiable.

My opponent then laments, in a thoroughly esoteric manner, society's inability to refrain from emotional self-sabotage. I confess that I was unable to glean any meaning from the statement "so ur poor do that mean you get to a school bus?? no and your sick well that is the way to cookie crumbles", although I'm sure it is profound. If my opponent would consent to explain herself more thoroughly, I would be delighted to give my thoughts on the subject.

My opponent concludes her first thought with what I assume is a reference to phrase "You can catch more flies with a drop of honey than a barrel of vinegar." I assume she is arguing that opening a line of friendly dialogue would create a Palestinian majority that is friendly to Israel, thus allowing Israel to relinquish control of the West Bank to a Palestinian state that would protect Israel's security interests. Unfortunately, I doubt that any amount of dialogue would create sympathy in the West Bank without actual liberating actions that would establish a security risk to Israel, seeing as the people whom Israel is trying to befriend are naturally those hostile to it. It is a catch-22.

And finally, my opponent asked whether I am Jewish, in what was a distinctly antisemetic tone. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was a result of poor penmanship and not bigotry. Nonetheless, the implication was that my judgement is flawed, as I am not a disinterested party. Certainly, I'll be the first to admit that I am instinctively pro the Jewish state, because I am indeed a Jew. It is precisely this reason that causes me to post this debate; the desperate hope that I am wrong, and that a solution for the survival of my people won't have to rely on the subjugation of another. It is a situation that will not stand, that I do not want to stand, that no sane Jew or Arab wants to stand, but will stand nonetheless, lest Hitler's dreams finally come to fruition.

It's clear you do not have an answer. In fact, its clear you do even have the capability to suggest one. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Don't rant incomprehensibly. Don't preach anti-Israel rhetoric blindly. Don't type your answer so fast that it outstrips your thought process. Think. Analyze. Try to be intelligent.

And, please, prove me wrong.

As always, I anticipate your response.

[1] http://m.fanfiction.net...
paigeteevee

Con

you are a hypocrite you say i wont win anything but insulting you well same goes for you pal my spelling grammar and punctuation is due to the fact that i have a new keyboard and the keys are spaced differently. as for the debate i give up,lastly as for the commentators go suck a duck i have a first place ribbon is debating at my school so please find someone who is what you say.
Debate Round No. 3
tower

Pro

My humblest gratitude to my my esteemed opponent for her most punctual response.

I must confess, I am unaware of the precise location that I remarked insults would not win anything. I do not deny the validity of that statement, but its difficult to understand how I am a hypocrite, if I, in fact, never condemned the behavior my opponent accuses me of engaging in.

Additionally, I would like to clarify my statements regarding my opponent's spelling and grammar. I was not trying to insult her, merely pointing out that her arguments were rendered incomprehensible due it. This was relevant, because, as my opponent would know had she read the rules of this website, spelling and grammar count towards the final ranking on this debate.

I am also confused by her claim that a new keyboard caused the mistakes. This would account for errors in grammar, not a total lack of it. Regardless, I feel compelled to inform my opponent that we are not instant messaging or texting each other. There is a 72 hour time limit to respond in. She can review her response before posting in order to correct the errors. Given the length of her arguments, this surely would not take too long.

My opponent then forfeits the debate. I'll assume this was a mistake, since she does say why she is doing this. If she wishes to post a response, I will ignore the forfeiture and continue to debate. However, I must request she actually address the topic of the debate.

Which brings me to final point; My opponent defends her status as a debater by citing a first place ribbon for debating she won. If my opponent is, as she claims, a champion debater, I must ask a simple question: Why has she not yet addressed the debate topic? The challenge was relatively simple. All she had to do was choose an alternative course of action for the Israeli government, and defend why it was reasonable. She did neither. I don't mean she did it incompetently, or illogically, or was in a way that was refuted or rejected. I mean she never even addressed the debate topic other than asserting I was wrong.

This is not the action of a master debater. This is not even the action of someone who as ever seen, let alone engaged in, a formal debate!

So, if you really want to prove to us you are a debater, then respond to me, and in your response, address the topic of the debate. I assure you, that impress everyone far more than a ribbon.

I eagerly await, and encourage, your response.
paigeteevee

Con

paigeteevee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
paigeteevee

Con

paigeteevee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
In that case, I get first dibs on tutoring her :D
Posted by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
PartamRuhem
Maybe we should make her our prodigy or something. Train her! haha I mean it's not like she can get worse...
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
She's a bad debater, but she hasn't trolled anyone or done anything that constitutes banishment.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
If she continues so, then most likely...
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
I've been looking over the debate paigeteevee has accepted and I am starting to wonder if she should be banned.
Posted by airmax1227 6 years ago
airmax1227
haha wow. Con would have been better off making her round 2 even less coherent.
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
Well, that was fun. If anyone else wants this, I'll repost on Sunday or Monday.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
I would like the idea of team debates actually. Pro, if you want an opponent that has learnt to type capital letters (and in my humble opinion can make a much better argument), send me a challenge.
Posted by Macroscope 6 years ago
Macroscope
I offer to take it,

I think the matter as to who take it should be academic, i bring to the table critical thinking, allthough i do not understand the issue as well as any israeli might.

It depends on weather you think you can do the argument justice.

It'd be interesting if we could do a debating team just like real debates...
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
If nobody takes this in a day then I will. (:
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
towerpaigeteeveeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: aD HOM
Vote Placed by rakovsky 3 years ago
rakovsky
towerpaigeteeveeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: On substance, Con wins, because Con is right that it has "a" choice, even if it may not look like the best one. Even taking small, safe steps to statehood is "a" choice. The arguments though were both pretty bad, calling eachother names and foreiting one or two rounds at the end. I get that Con's writing was bad in style and not well thought out. And I doubt she was very serious as a debater. On the other hand, " Think. Analyze. Try to be intelligent" sounds very patronizing in tone, even if factually correct and a reaction she opened herself up to. I am hesitant to award points because it just fell apart in more ways than one, but Pro definitely has better grammar, so he gets points for that.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 6 years ago
airmax1227
towerpaigeteeveeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should try this resolution again.. Its a good topic that Con made no attempt to reply to coherently.