The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Israel should take down the fence

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 8/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,079 times Debate No: 18012
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




As I have decided to take the Opposition case today I will await a model and case line from side proposition before making my constructive arguments. I will however, like to disclose that I'm new to In terms of a general definition of the resolution it means that Israel should take the fence it built between itself and Palestine in order to protect itself.


Since the con side is taken already I will support the issue. These are my very first debates as well. Hope that it will give me some valuable experience.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank the honorable opposition for taking part in this debate and would like to begin my constructive arguments in refutation of this resolution. It is usually proposition's job to introduce the resolution and model under which the debate will take place, however, today I will be introducing the debate.

I would like to now define the debate. The fence in consideration is the west bank barrier between Israel and Palestine that runs along the armistice line of 1949 (the green line). As the opposition I am here to prove that this barrier has in fact been beneficial to all parties and therefore must not be taken down. In order to prove this I would like to bring forward three main contentions. In this first round I would like to express one main contention, that being, the protection Israel has been able to provide itself since the construction of the barrier in comparison to the chaos that would return if the barrier was taken down. As well, I would like to explain the reason the wall was put up in the first place.

Since early 2000 until the idea of a security wall was proposed over 850 Israeli civilians died in countless suicide bombings and attacks made by the Palestinians. In 2002 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel decided it was time to protect his state after deadly suicide bombings, and the way he chose to do this was by putting up a barrier.

Israel did not want to build a fence, and resisted doing so for more than 35 years. If anyone is to blame for the construction, it is Hamas, and the other Palestinian extremists. Now a large majority of Israelis support the construction of the security fence; in fact, both Jews and Arabs living along the Green Line favor the barrier to prevent penetration by thieves and vandals as well as terrorists. The fence has also caused a revolution in the daily life of some Israeli Arab towns because it has brought quiet, which has allowed a significant upsurge in economic activity.The Israeli people had become target practice for the Palestinians, where radical Palestinians would shoot people while they were driving on major highways and target large cities like Tel Aviv to gain the largest amount of casualties. Post the building of the wall however, merely eight people have been killed in terrorism related incidents, this is a visible difference of the benefits this fence has.

Side proposition will have you believe that this is a great burden on the innocent Palestinians but if you look at the grand scheme of things Israeli people were being killed something that is irreversible whereas the hardships the Palestinians are facing are reversible and they have been getting better. This house needs to realize that it was the fault of Palestine's leaders and extremists that this wall went up. This wall was not a revolutionary step, for Israel has borders with many other countries so any notion that this fence is more political than security is invalid.

I digress and await side propositions rebuttle before sharing my final points of construction.


Lets look at the history of Israel. The State of Israel appeared by the general assembly of UN in 1948. The territory of present Israel originally was a territory of Palestinian nation. The green line is an artificial border that's been set without taking the rights of Palestinians on this land. And their rights were proven not only by facts, but by aspect of the problem.
The territory that is on the other side of the fence named territory that's been occupied by Israel. UN's resolution #242 says that Israel has to move back from the occupied territory to the borders that were accepted in a year 1949. However Israel never done that.
Also Israel doesn't strictly hold the fence that they've created. As an example we can take the highway #1, which crosses the Green Line in the region of Latrune.
We also don't have to forget that Palestinians were never acting as aggressors. They were only responding to the actions that Israel made. Lets just remember the case when a sniper from Israel shot Palestinian boy who was walking to school. That case proves that Israel reasonably holds the conflict in order to keep the territory that's been stolen for Palestine.
Debate Round No. 2


kmangat forfeited this round.


RahatGreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rakovsky 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: The fence is, as Pro says, built deep into the Palestinian side of the green line, taking their land. Pro's source (a UN resolution) seems better than Con's (not sure if Con's mentioning Sharon's decision counts). Con writes much better and with more explanation. But despite his saying that Arabs favor the wall, it seeps through that actually the wall is something harmful for them, as Con mentions blame and fault for the wall. How could something everyone wants have "blame"? The debate leaves us with these facts: A. They disagree on whether its harmful to Arabs, but Con seems to be making up that they like it. B. Con proposes that having a wall is normal C. Pro says, without Pro arguing back, that the wall is taking Palestinian land. The conclusion from those 3 would be that the wall, if should exists like Con says, would have to be moved outside Palestinian land. To do so it would have to be taken down. So based on the facts made in this debate, Pro's argument wins. Close
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)