The Instigator
mori
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Israel should stop killing innocent people in Palestine

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 8 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,085 times Debate No: 37032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (73)
Votes (8)

 

mori

Pro

No matter what, killing is wrong.
Giving all the reasons like Religion, Politics... all wrong.
donald.keller

Con

I accept. Pro must bring forth his case.
Debate Round No. 1
mori

Pro

mori forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Then I shall bring forth mine.

-Killing Militants

I do not know if Pro is referring only to citizens, of if he believes Palestinian terrorists are innocent people. If will have to refute both.

The Israeli army has been listed among the most peaceful armies in the world. Despite Media portrayal, the Army takes extreme measures to prevent the harm of even Palestinian terrorists. The Israeli Defense Force goes as far as to drop warning notes a day before a bombing so no one is there to get harmed. They call off pursuits if a child ends up involved as to protect the children, regardless of if the child is Palestinian. They go to EXTREME lengths to keep Palestinian citizens safe.(1)

The average Civilian to Militant death ration in a Middle East civil war is around 4:1. The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30. That is astonishing. Why is it so low? Because Israel has so many rules in place JUST to protect Palestinian civilians.(2)

Civilians will die in war, but Israel is among leading nations (if not the top) in preserving civilian life.

[1] http://www.idfblog.com...
[2] http://www.haaretz.com...
[]

- Killing Terrorists.

Israel left Gaza in 2005. After an election, the terrorist group Hamas took power. Israel, the US, and the EU refused to acknowledge Hamas, as is their right to do so. All Israel and the US wanted before they would recognize Hamas was for them to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and make good on past agreements.

Hamas proved Israel right when they forcibly replaced Gaza's other elected officers (the Fatah) with their own.(3)

Israel only stopped sending the Palestinians aid through the Hamas Government. They continued sending the Palestinians aid, but through non-government groups. The Palestinians received Israeli aid regardless of Hamas, who would have likely used the money to attack Israel.(4)

Now that the history lesson is over... Gaza begun launching Missiles into Israel and planning terrorist assaults. Israel has a right to defend themselves. You can not decide who may defend themselves by who you like and hate most. Israel was attacked, and has since been hunting down terrorist militants in Palestine while Palestine continues their attacks as well.

[3] http://www.theguardian.com...
[5] http://www.nytimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
mori

Pro

http://www.theguardian.com...

A leading Israeli human rights group has accused Israeli soldiers of "malicious and cruel" treatment of Palestinians and the military leadership of indifference to widespread abuses.

The Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) issued its annual report yesterday with denunciations of violence by Palestinian groups and the army during the intifada, but the spotlight fell on the Israeli military.

"Most of the abuses occur not as a result of operational necessity on the part of the army, but from vindictiveness on the part of soldiers, who receive implicit approval to denigrate the dignity, life and liberty of innocent Palestinians," it says.

The report notes that in the year to June, the military's "targeted assassination" policy killed 80 alleged militants but 90 innocents also died in the process.

The ACRI is also strongly critical of the hundreds of Israeli army roadblocks. It states that they are intended as a collective punishment, rather than to prevent bombings as the army claims.

The report also lists numerous individual abuses by troops, including a case in which a soldier carved a Star of David on a Palestinian's arm. It concludes that the military's failure to prosecute encourages further abuses.

The army issued a written statement rejecting the charge. "The opposite is true," it said.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...
-----------------
Terrorists are terrorists , they cannot kill other innocent people because of some terrorrists.
Because there are terrorrists in Palestine, it doesn't mean all Palestinian is bad.
Because there are cruel israel soldiers, doesn't mean all Israelite are cruel.
donald.keller

Con

Rebuttal

Stop!
Pro's argument is plagerized straight off his source. He has copy/pasted the entire argument from off the site.

Continuing.

Pro's source also talks of Palestinians crimes. The only actual case against Israeli practices is the Targeted Assassination program, while the first of only 2 other listed examples seems to be nothing more than an convience. The issue being roadblocks. Such roadblocks are important to the effort. The article runs based off an unsupported claim/opinion of the Army's 'true' intentions, and doesn't actually back their accusation.

The other example being individual accounts. The actions of a few soldier isn't relevant to whether or not Israel is wrong for "killing innocent people in Palestine."

Pro cherry-picks who is bad. If we followed his example, than the UK shouldn't have gone to war in WWII, nor should the US... In fact, every army in the world and every nation ever would have to be punished. But I see Pro only think Irsael should be held accountable.

Pro's whole case is this.
"Because Israel is using roadblocks and some soldiers are mean to Palestians, they should stop killing people."
His whole first argument is irrelevant to the Resolution.


Terrorists are terrorists , they cannot kill other innocent people because of some terrorrists.
Pro never accounted for any of my argument and ignored the facts reguarding it.
I shall repeat for him:
"The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30"
For every 30 terrorist militants killed, ONE civilian is killed. This hardly backs up Pro's logic. By his logic, the Police should be disbanded as well.

Pro does not understand Terrorism.
Dropping "warning notes a day before a bombing so no one is there to get harmed..." and calling "off pursuits if a child ends up involved as to protect the children, regardless of if the child is Palestinian..." is not Terrorism.

"Because there are cruel israel soldiers, doesn't mean all Israelite are cruel."
Pro has literally refuted his own first argument...

===========================================================
Pro never answered my arguments: Dropping them all.
Pro never made a relevant case.

Pro Plagerized his whole first argument.
Debate Round No. 3
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
wrichcirw wrote:
: Awarding someone else 7 points because two quotation marks are missing is far too severe a punishment, IMHO.

Let me note that I wouldn't have caught it on my own. If Con hadn't mentioned that it was plagiarism, I would have credited Pro with the plagiarized material, the only substantive argument she made in the whole debate.

My own opinion is that our people and our site will be better off if we are unambiguously intolerant of plagiarism. Seven points may sound like a lot, but one debate isn't so much. And all you have to do to not lose a second debate for plagiarism is quit plagiarizing. It's mild enough.

But your comment is fair, and I assure you that you're not alone in holding that opinion.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
DK: Look at your last three posts here. Find a way to make it clear what is quoted material and what is not.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
: There have been a lot of insults and accusations thrown at me on this.

Why do you suppose that is?

Who do you suppose started it?

: Lots of people voting the other way.

Sure enough.

: That's not reason enough for you do accuse me of votebombing, though.

It's an obvious votebomb. People voting the other way has nothing to do with that.

: I have never admitted this is a votebomb.

And black is white.

: : Wiploc: "Also, if we're going to assume that Pro's plagiarism was accidental, let's make the same assumption about Con's pronoun confusion. Fair is fair."
:
: Yes it is fair. And that's why I pointed out his mistake at the end of round 1. I really thought he would want to know, lol. Since then he has used masculine pronouns to refer to both me and Mori at least six times. He really does know what he's doing and he's doing it on purpose now to make some kind of point.
:
: So...yeah. I think I'm justified in thinking it was intentional.

As someone who makes that mistake way too much, I'm sympathetic to the person whom you are accusing of doing it deliberately. And even if he did do it six times since then, you voted before that.

: DK: I've said it at least three times. Yes, I disliked your conduct. Since then, I have grown to dislike you as a whole person.

But don't take it personally. :)
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
I'm NOT saying that because it wasn't a votebomb. It was a protest vote. By that I mean, I voted because I didn't like your conduct (when otherwise I wouldn't have bothered) but that my RFD is sound. Yes, clearly I'm the only person in the universe who believes that right now, but I do believe it. And that's why I'm saying it.

Your RFD conflicts with what you admitted in the forums. S&G.... Conduct (which everyone acknowledge was bullshh!t) and especially your CA, conflict with what you said your reasons were. Truth is not void because you claim everyone else's consistent opinion of your vote is wrong.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
rross wrote:
: wiploc. We disagree on this vote. I can't help but think that it's because I used the word "sexist"

No. See, here's what I object to: You voted persuasion to the person who was not-at-all persuasive. You voted conduct to the person with patently worse conduct. You voted S&G to the person with obviously worse S&G. It was an obvious votebomb, and you admitted that it was a votebomb. And you're countenancing plagiarism.

: that you're so upset about it.

I'm not upset.

: Have you never had a different opinion about a debate from someone else before?

Sure.

: Did you read the bit I quoted from Purdue about setting an extract off from the rest of the text in a block? That the method for setting it off depends on the particular style guide in question (of which this site has none)? That I believe Pro did set it off by drawing a line?

When you quote someone, you need to make that clear. If you don't make it clear, you are plagiarizing. Pro needs to know this, so she can do better next time, but you are muddying the water.

: You disagree. OK. But don't take it so personally that I have a different view on this.

I do disagree. I don't take it personally.

: I've spent most of my life working with people in different countries, often in a language that I'm not very familiar with, so, yes, maybe I have more sympathy for people unfamiliar with English than you do.

Then where's your sympathy for someone who accidentally used a masculine pronoun where a feminine pronoun would have been more appropriate?

: I don't have to defend this perspective.

You spend a lot of time doing so.

: People who vote come with different experiences and perspectives. I only have to defend my decision. And I think this decision about it not being plagiarism is reasonable.

No. And don't take that personally.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
DK: I've said it at least three times. Yes, I disliked your conduct. Since then, I have grown to dislike you as a whole person. Yes, I was defending a new female member on this site. Yes, that's what motivated me to vote.

And now you have been denying that to be the reason. You say it's because of this reason and that reason, and wasn't votebomb. Your whole reason was because you didn't approve of me not going easy. You can't claim that, and then pretend your RFD is the true reason. And I don't care about how sexist women feel about me.

However, my reasons for voting are sound. If I wanted to votebomb, I would have said: I'm voting against DK because he's a rude @sshole. Why wouldn't I do that?

Because it'd be deleted immediately. You said X was your RFD, then acknowledged Y was why you did it. You acknowledged in the Forums that you did in fact vote against me because you thought I was a rude a$$hole.
"it was a protest vote against your rude, sexist, and aggressive manner"

You're suggesting that my reasons are changing now I'm "cornered". How am I cornered? Because people disagree with me? Your argument about my motives make no sense. If I wanted to votebomb, why would I be so consistently saying otherwise? Why wouldn't I just say - yes, fvck you, it's a votebomb.

Because the only person who agrees with you is you, outside of Wrichcirw's accepting your CA vote. Your vote was reported at least 3 times, and you have lost a lot of respect from others. You'd pretend it wasn't a votebomb because it'd be removed than. Don't act like your words have more merit than logic does, or that your words successfully countered you acknowledging it was a vote bomb in the forums (note: Protest vote is to Votebomb as Animosity is to Hate.,)
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
DK: I've said it at least three times. Yes, I disliked your conduct. Since then, I have grown to dislike you as a whole person. Yes, I was defending a new female member on this site. Yes, that's what motivated me to vote.

However, my reasons for voting are sound. If I wanted to votebomb, I would have said: I'm voting against DK because he's a rude @sshole. Why wouldn't I do that?

You're suggesting that my reasons are changing now I'm "cornered". How am I cornered? Because people disagree with me? Your argument about my motives make no sense. If I wanted to votebomb, why would I be so consistently saying otherwise? Why wouldn't I just say - yes, fvck you, it's a votebomb.

I'm NOT saying that because it wasn't a votebomb. It was a protest vote. By that I mean, I voted because I didn't like your conduct (when otherwise I wouldn't have bothered) but that my RFD is sound. Yes, clearly I'm the only person in the universe who believes that right now, but I do believe it. And that's why I'm saying it.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@wiploc:

"1. It's bad policy to reward plagiarism.

2. She never even said that she agreed with the source. She didn't try to relate it to her case. She just posted it as if it were her own words."

I will agree that PRO was ambiguous. Regardless, the source was there, she didn't take credit for it. This is not an instance of someone trying to pass off someone else's argument for their own. It was an honest mistake.

Awarding someone else 7 points because two quotation marks are missing is far too severe a punishment, IMHO.

---

@DK: " I guess it depends on if you think "Killing is Wrong" is a claim or an argument."

Agree this is the matter at hand. IMHO the claim is the resolution. "Killing is wrong" is an argument justifying the claim. Tabula rasa, "killing is wrong" is "true" because PRO said so. In fact, whatever PRO states is "true" unless countered by CON. Similarly, anything CON states is "true" unless countered by PRO. If PRO says "The resolution is true" and CON says nothing, then PRO meets BoP. If CON instead says "no the resolution is not true" then PRO will not have met BoP and would have to say why to satisfy BoP. Then CON will have to counter that "why", etc...
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Of course that's not why you voted that way. You acknowledged voting that way because you didn't like me not going easy on a new female member. Now that you had been cornered about it, you act like your dislike of my style wasn't why.

"You're right - it was a protest vote against your rude, sexist, and aggressive manner towards a new member on this site. As far as I know, there are about three real women here apart from me. I'd like there to be more. So yes, it would be nice when a woman starts, if we could avoid bullying her at least for her first debate.

I disliked your behavior in several ways:
1. You referred to her as "he" and when I pointed it out you continued to do so.

2. You aggressively accused her of plagiarism even though she provided a source and her actually did not in any way try to pretend those words were hers.

3. You said her entire argument was plagiarized and this was simply untrue.

4. It was her first debate, she was unsure of the method. You could have won on merit without these aggressive, underhanded tricks. So why didn't you?"

It had nothing to do with the excuses you are using now. You simply don't want to look bad in front of everyone, but you already told everyone why you voted that way, and me not (by your perspective) refuting Pro's argument was not among the reasons.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Wiploc: "Also, if we're going to assume that Pro's plagiarism was accidental, let's make the same assumption about Con's pronoun confusion. Fair is fair."

Yes it is fair. And that's why I pointed out his mistake at the end of round 1. I really thought he would want to know, lol. Since then he has used masculine pronouns to refer to both me and Mori at least six times. He really does know what he's doing and he's doing it on purpose now to make some kind of point.

So...yeah. I think I'm justified in thinking it was intentional.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
moridonald.kellerTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the plagiarism thing was more of a lack of knowing it was plagiarism rather than bearing the intent to plagiarize. It is still plagiarism at heart but more of a mistake, than intentionally falsifying evidence. Other than that, this was a thrashing to say the least. Cons entire argument was the Civilian to Militant death ratio, and Pro chose not refute it. This was a strong point and remained uncontested. Pro almost offered not arguments or contentions at all and Con had way more reliable sources. Also I reported the votebomb below me because I feel it was not justified with a proper RFD. The votebomb for pro that is
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
moridonald.kellerTied
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 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 don't think the charge of plagiarism is exactly correct here, since PRO does cite the correct source, but merely forgot to put relevant sections in quotations. Regardless, it is technically plagiarism, albeit a harmless sort, as she is not taking credit for the content. What I do conclude though is that PRO has almost no argumentation in her rounds, which when added with the forfeited round, essentially mean that PRO did not engage in debate. Arguments, conduct, and S&G to CON.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
moridonald.kellerTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
moridonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Pro forfeited a round and plagiarized almost an entire argument. SOURCES: Con had four, pro had one. ARGUMENTS: Con made a great case on how few innocents are killed - it is mostly the non-innocents. Collateral damage is sometimes necessary.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
moridonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: I am biased on the issues of war, having actually been to war. I have nothing against the deaths of human shields. (think of this vote as a comment to help the debaters improve) CONDUCT: Missed round, plus the (hopefully accidental) sourcing mistake. S&G: (giving this to pro more easily, due to my bias against them) con made a few small errors (normally I'd only give this point for enough errors to distract from argument, otherwise known as Jar Jar speak). ARGUMENT: Pro forfeited one round, and effectively had another discounted for copy/pasting (next time use better notation of where your quotes begin and end). Con on the other hand made a good case about how few civilian deaths there are for every militant killed; yet I instantly inserted what I know of HAMAS firing missiles at schools, so my bias is forcing me to not score in pro's favor on this point. SOURCES: Leans a little toward con, but not by enough to claim the point.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
moridonald.kellerTied
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 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: Plagiarism.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
moridonald.kellerTied
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 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: plagirazed, and ff. WRONG simple.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
moridonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro FF in Round 2, Arguments to Con due to the 1:30 statistic and his details as to the measures taken to avoid civilian killings.