The Instigator
hauki20
Con (against)
Tied
31 Points
The Contender
feverish
Pro (for)
Tied
31 Points

Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

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
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,932 times Debate No: 7503
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

hauki20

Con

Rules:
1) Since I am Con, I do not have to prove that Israel will get nuked. I can if I want to, but the burden of proof is on Pro.
2) No spamming, trolling, flaming etc.
3) No off-topic.

Definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...):

Nuclear attack:
Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948. 5,534,672; 7984 sq. mi. (20,679 sq. km). Capital: Jerusalem.

Since I feel like it, I will present evidence to prove that Israel will experience a nuclear attack.

As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Now, the president whatever of Iran has said that: **"Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives."**, "Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added.
(http://www.ynetnews.com...)

Some people say that because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Iran cannot do anything. They are wrong because:
1) Russia is an ally of Iran. Should USA or Israel nuke/invade Iran, Russia would be there to protect them or to nuke back Israel/USA.
2) Barack Obama, the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel.

So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.
We have a country who wants to destroy Israel (and USA) and *will have nuclear weapons soon*. What is USA doing? Of course, every rational being would think that America would destroy the nuclear reactors in Iran. Nope. Today, President Barack Obama said (not exact words), "Why hate, let's be friends. We want to negotiate and establish a friendship."

Israel ain't doing anything, either. Especially not after the elections, when the president of Israel is a pacifist.

Let's summarize.

1. Iran (plus terrorists and other countries) want to annihilate Isreal from the surface of the Earth.
2. Iran will have fully functional nuclear missiles within a year or two.
3. Neither the USA nor Israel are doing anything.
C1: Iran wants to burn Israel to the ground and will soon have nuclear missiles, therefore being capable of achieving their goal. No-one is doing a thing to prevent this, instead, Russia is an ally of Iran.

I'd like to end with a quote from Mahmudjhin... the Iranian guy.
"Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."

This conquest is about to begin.
feverish

Pro

Hi, I'm new to this site but couldn't resist this one.

Quickly to respond to and hopefully clarify the rules that the esteemed instigator has proposed.

1) I am intrigued by the idea of a 'burden of proof' existing in a debate which deals with possible future events. As I assume that like myself my opponent lacks a crystal ball or a modified Delorean I fail to see how this topic can be proved at all. I trust that voters will assess the arguments on the factual base of the evidence provided.
2) I'm not sure what 'trolling' or 'flaming' are but my opponent can rest assured I will not be spamming and hopefully will not be doing any of these (presumably related) other activities either. I must apologise for my ignorance of internet jargon.
3) I will endeavour to make all my arguments relevant but as this is an incredibly complex topic with a multi-national relevance and with the added fact of taking into account all conceivable ramifications over the next 20 years, my arguments may be quite wide-ranging.

I trust that my adversary is satisfied with my interpretation and clarification of rules.

Okay.

Firstly, my opponent says: 'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.'

I would strongly dispute this central statement on which all of Cons subsequent arguments are based.
While we are all aware of the persistent allegations of this, there is no real evidence of the fact.

'Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction',source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.' source: http://www.cfr.org...

'The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.' source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes' source: http://www.cnn.com...

Secondly, in the next sentence I would like voters to note my opponents acknowledgement of his own willful ignorance of the details of the topic he has chosen to debate and the allegations he is making.
'president whatever'?...... whatever.

Thirdly, in the same paragraph my opponent miss-quotes the link that he himself has provided. (http://www.ynetnews.com......) The text in fact reads 'United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives', not 'the US and Israel will soon end lives.'
Whichever way you quote it this is clearly more wishful prophesising on the part of president 'whatever' than it is a threat or statement of intent and also specifically refers to the political regimes rather than the people of these nations. At the risk of veering off topic, I wouldn't mind seeing revolutions overthrow a few corrupt governments myself.

Fourthly, my opponent says: 'Russia is an ally of Iran.' Please provide evidence of Russia having links beyond the scope of general business dealings with Iran.

Fifthly, my opponent says: 'Barack Obama...does not give a poop about Israel'. Like all US presidents since Israel was created the Obama will be under extreme pressure from the Jewish-American corporate and political lobbyists to maintain good relations with Israel. Israel is probably the foreign country that America is most concerned about in the whole world. While Obama may be less staunchly and obviously pro-Zionist than his immediate predecessor he definately can't afford to 'not give a poot.'

My opponent says 'So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Israel and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.' Evidence please.

It is clear to me (and I consider myself a rational being) that the best way of ensuring peace is diplomacy rather than aggression, the best way to provoke an attack from Iran would be to engage in any kind of 'pre-emptive' strike.
My opponents observations that the current leaders of Israel and the US are pursuing friendlier more peacefull relationships with Iran surely makes a nuclear strike from anyone less likely rather than more so.

The final quote from 'the Iranian guy' can also only be perceived as a threat of aggression from someone with a paranoid mindstate, predicting your religion will spread has nothing to do with nuking someone.

It would be suicidal for Iran to attack Israel even if they had nuclear weapons capabilities (remember there is no proof) they would never catch up with the military strength of Israel let alone the US. These are two of the best equipped armies in the world, while most of the real aggressors in Iran have nothing more than a few sticks of dynamite in their shirt pockets. Martyrdom doesn't apply to entire nations at a time and there is no way Russia would take any risks sticking up for Iran if things did get nasty.

I urge voters to recognise that my opponent has no evidence to back up his statements and to vote Pro.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate :)

[quote]1) I am intrigued by the idea of a 'burden of proof' existing in a debate which deals with possible future events. As I assume that like myself my opponent lacks a crystal ball...[/quote]

Exactly. You don't have to prove to us with 101 percent certainty that Israel will not get nuked. In a court the objective of the defendant is not to prove with 100% certainty that he's innocent, he just has to prove that he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

[quote]I trust that my adversary is satisfied with my interpretation and clarification of rules.[/quote]

I am.

[quote]Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction...[/quote]

...Yet. According to some experts, Iran will have fully functional nuclear weapons in a year or two.

[quote="Wikipedia"]On 22 October 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei repeated that, even assuming Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb, they would require "between another three and eight years to succeed", an assessment shared by "all the intelligence services".
A 2005 assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded "if Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems.[/quote]

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

[quote]'The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.'[/quote]

Yes, indeed. However, this happened 30 years back. World changes.

[quote]'Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes'[/quote]

Of course they say that. If I was building a nuclear weapon, would I publicly tell every living soul, "I am building a nuclear arsenal! Watch out!!" or would I say, "Oh, you have it all wrong. I'm just making nuclear energy."

[quote]'Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.'[/quote]

Russia has made an alliance with Iran, therefore possibly giving instructions and know-how on how to build nuclear weapons.

[quote]Secondly, in the next sentence I would like voters to note my opponents acknowledgement of his own willful ignorance of the details of the topic he has chosen to debate and the allegations he is making.
'president whatever'?...... whatever.[/quote]

I would like the voters and spectators to notice that the president of Iran has a very long and complicated name. The only reason I said "president whatever" was because I could not remember his name.

[quote]The text in fact reads 'United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives', not 'the US and Israel will soon end lives.'[/quote]

1) The two sentences are two different ways of saying the same thing.
2) I copied the sentence from the gray subtitle, since I did not wish to paste the whole text to my post.

[quote]Fourthly, my opponent says: 'Russia is an ally of Iran.' Please provide evidence of Russia having links beyond the scope of general business dealings with Iran.[/quote]

I think the video I posted says everything ;)

[quote]Fifthly, my opponent says: 'Barack Obama...does not give a poop about Israel'. Like all US presidents since Israel was created the Obama will be under extreme pressure from the Jewish-American corporate and political lobbyists to maintain good relations with Israel.[/quote]

Barack Obama has not said a SINGLE time he supports Israel. Not during his campaign nor his term.

Let's take a scenario, just for fun.

It is the year 2013. Iran has acquired nuclear weapons and fires them on Israel.

The president of the US has two choices. Either:

A) Nuke Iran, and at the same time start the thrid world war, possibly a nuclear war.
B) Not do anything and prevent mass casualties globally.
C) Attack Iran withour using nuclear warfare, only to find the US Army overpowered by the Iranians and possibly Russia. This, too, could go out of hand and end up as something much larger.

Since Barack Obama does not really care about Israel, he could easily just leave Israel for dead.

[quote]It is clear to me (and I consider myself a rational being) that the best way of ensuring peace is diplomacy rather than aggression...[/quote]

Tell that to the Iranian president. A radical dictator who wants to erradicate a country from the face of the earth and a nuclear arsenal are not a good combination.

Well, have a nice day or night, whatever the time is in your location. I have to sleep, so see you all tomorrow.
feverish

Pro

I thank my opponent for his prompt response in this debate but fail to see how he has provided any further evidence to back up his unfounded assertions or to effectively counter any of my arguments.

My opponent seems to enjoy misquoting sources that deal with hypothetical situations as if they were fact, for example: "IF Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it MIGHT be able to produce enough HEU for a SINGLE nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems.[/quote] is summarised by Con as: 'According to some experts, Iran WILL have fully functional nuclear weaponS in a year or two.' This is clearly an invalid interpretation. If by some chance my opponent was referring to some other 'expert' opinion then please provide this evidence.

My opponent says: 'Russia has made an alliance with Iran' yet as far as I can see this is purely a buisness deal involving Russia being contracted to build Iran's first nuclear power station, it is in no way a millitary alliance as my adversary implies.

My opponent says: '1) The two sentences are two different ways of saying the same thing.' while I agree that there is not a HUGE difference, I refer to my original point that the inclusion of the word 'regime' transforms this statement from a threat of force to a political prediction.

My opponent says: 'I think the video I posted says everything ;)' to avoid being overly pedantic I will not make a big issue out of the fact that no video (particularly not one which lasts less than 3 minutes) could ever explain everything. However the video does little to back up Con's claims, it merely confirms that Russias relationship is a peaceful buisiness arrangement and also brings up the interesting fact of America's aggression to Iran being connected with oil.
Even the biased and right-wing CNN are careful not to make unsubstantiated claims of the kind made by my opponent, preferring to just make sinister implications.

My opponent also says :'Since Barack Obama does not really care about Israel, he could easily just leave Israel for dead.' Not if he held any hope of a second term. While I am willing to believe that the current US president is a more highly principled man than the last few who have held his job, like all politicians his primary motivation will be to keep himself in power.

Before raising a couple of fresh arguments of my own I will briefly turn to my opponent's fancifull 2013 scenario. This ignores the fact that Israel has a highly developed nuclear arsenal and armed forces of it's own and would not need any help from America or anyone else. Con also suggests that the US army would be overpowered in a conventional conflict with Iran which is of course nonsense, US being far better equipped. I also repeat that there is now way Russia would jeopardise it's own future by supporting Iran in a military capacity.

Two other points in support of the Pro position:

1) All the allegations of Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons come from US sources looking for any excuse to target Iran. I haven't found a single independant source for these allegations that does not have a pro-US / Israeli bias.
Here are some examples of US aggression towards Iran:

'The Bush administration last week clearly marked out Iran as a prime target for US aggression. While stopping short of formally declaring "regime change" in Teheran to be official policy, Washington ratcheted up the pressure over Iran's nuclear program, repeating its unsubstantiated claims that the country was secretly building nuclear weapons.' source: http://www.wsws.org...

'The last thing the U.S. needs now is more instability, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen said Wednesday. And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?' source: http://blogs.jta.org...

'Khamenei enumerated a long list of Iranian grievances against the United States over the past 30 years and said the United States was still interfering in Iranian affairs.
He mentioned U.S. sanctions against Iran, U.S. support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during his 1980-88 war against Iran and the downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988. ' source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

'the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U.S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U.S.-occupied Iraq;' source: http://www.counterpunch.org...

There are many other examples as well of course. It is clear that the idea of a nuclear threat by Iran would give the US some kind of excuse for it's aggression beyond greed and oil, this is why the hugely powerfull US propaganda machine wants everyone to think Iran is building nuclear bombs. It is very similair to the subsequently disproved allegations of WMD in Iraq, which were the fraudulent basis for that conflict.

2) Iran would never nuke Israel as long as it (Iran) remains an Islamic state because the state of Israel contains many sites holy to Muslims such as Hebron, the Dome of The Rock and of course Jerusalem ,which is counted along with Mecca and Medina as one of Islam's three holiest cities. At the risk of hyperbole, suggesting that a muslim state of Iran would nuke Jerusalem is similair to suggesting that the catholic Republic of Ireland would nuke Vatican City!
When Muslims and others talk of 'eradicating' Israel or 'wiping it off the map' they are of course referring to the title of Israel being applied to this land and the fact that it is controlled by a Zionist regime. There is no way they would risk contaminating Jerusalem, a site of holy pilgrimmage for Muslims, with nuclear radiation.

The above argument may well be the strongest one I have made so far for the Pro position.

I am still waiting for my opponent to provide satisfactory evidence of the following:

1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons.
2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel.
3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia.
4. That Iran has publically stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel.
5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel.
6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.

I urge a Pro vote.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
hauki20

Con

Hi there, I'm back. Thanks for the fast response.

Before I respond to your arguments, I will show you another possibility of what is possible. A terrorist attack.

There have been about 200 documented cases of a person buying material for a nuclear weapon from the black market. Now, just think of how many purchases have REALLY happened.

How much material do you need for a nuclear blast the size of Hiroshima? Either a coconut filled with plutonium or 6 Coca-Cola cans filled with uranium. So, it would be very easy to smuggle the material to Israel. Who would suspect a six-pack of Coke as a weapon of mass destruction? Now, all they need is the know-how of making a real bomb. They can find the instructions anywhere. (http://www.amazon.com...)
Or they can just Google. Of course, it goes without saying that the book is better, since it is written by a nuclear scientist with 20 years of experience.

When done, they detonate it and... Touch´┐Ż.

[quote]If by some chance my opponent was referring to some other 'expert' opinion then please provide this evidence.[/quote]

Okay. Here you go. "The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route."
"A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

[quote]However the video does little to back up Con's claims, it merely confirms that Russia's relationship is a peaceful business arrangement and also brings up the interesting fact of America's aggression to Iran being connected with oil.
Even the biased and right-wing CNN are careful not to make unsubstantiated claims of the kind made by my opponent, preferring to just make sinister implications.[/quote]

If a country who has the know-how of making a nuclear weapon makes a close alliance with a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons... I'm sure the outcome will be delighting.

[quote]I refer to my original point that the inclusion of the word 'regime' transforms this statement from a threat of force to a political prediction.[/quote]

Israel is a peaceful country, as long as you leave it alone. Why did Israel attack Gaza? Because missiles were fired upon them.

[quote]Not if he held any hope of a second term. While I am willing to believe that the current US president is a more highly principled man than the last few who have held his job, like all politicians his primary motivation will be to keep himself in power.[/quote]

He does not want to start a new world war or a nuclear war.

[quote]1) All the allegations of Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons come from US sources looking for any excuse to target Iran.[/quote]

...And IAEA.

[quote]'The Bush administration last week clearly marked out Iran as a prime target for US aggression.[/quote]

Yes, but as we can see, US has a new president.

[quote]And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?[/quote]

As I pointed out, Bush has been voted out of office.

[quote]the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U.S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U.S.-occupied Iraq[/quote]

This matters no longer, since America has a deeply vowed pacifist as their president.

[quote]2) Iran would never nuke Israel as long as it (Iran) remains an Islamic state because the state of Israel contains many sites holy to Muslims such as Hebron, the Dome of The Rock and of course Jerusalem ,which is counted along with Mecca and Medina as one of Islam's three holiest cities.[/quote]

You know, they can just leave those sites untouched and attack the major cities and army bases. Also, since Muslims do their pilgrimage once a year, it means they have 364 days not to kill any one who is taking the pilgrimage.

[quote]1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons.
2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel.
3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia.
4. That Iran has publically stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel.
5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel.
6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.[/quote]

1. IAEA, USA, EU, UN...
2. Why wouldn't they? They hate, I mean HATE Jews and want to get Israel off the face of the earth.
3. Look at the video I posted the last round.
4. Well, okay. "Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives." A direct threat.
5. He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever.
6. CNN and other sources claim 3, 1 is kind of obvious ;) 2 is claimed by the Iranian president, 4 is claimed by the Iranian president, 5 is claimed by Barack Obama, 6 is claimed by the sources I just mentioned.
feverish

Pro

I am concerned that what began as an interesting and intelligent debate is running the risk of becoming boring and repetitive as my opponent seems to be arguing in circles. Additionally as some of the rounds have been quite lengthy I hope that voters will take the time to read them in entirety and vote accordingly rather than basing their votes on previously held opinion.

My opponent persists in misquoting and misrepresenting the quotes he cites, in an effort to back up his claim that:

'According to some experts, Iran WILL have fully functional nuclear weaponS in a year or two.' he has now cited the following evidence: "The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route."
and:
"A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."

Like his previous examples this does not back up his claim, note: 'could', 'if' 'would', 'one' and the timelines quoted in his sources which do not support his assertions. In fact none of the sources and especially not the posted video offer any evidence to back up allegations that my opponent continues to represent as facts.

'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.'
'Russia would be there to protect them'
'the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel.'
'Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.'
'a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons'

All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact.

My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters. As I was using the actions of previous US administrations to demonstrate a recent historical basis for aggressive persecution of Iran, my point stands. Does my opponent really believe that the president himself makes all the decisions on US foreign policy? Also I would like to point out that if indeed America's attitude is changing under Obama this surely makes an attack by Iran less likely rather than more so, therefore supporting a Pro vote.

In response to my assertion that a Muslim state would not attack holy Islamic sites, my opponent says: 'they can just leave those sites untouched and attack the major cities and army bases. Also, since Muslims do their pilgrimage once a year, it means they have 364 days not to kill any one who is taking the pilgrimage.'

I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year) not that they would be concerned about Muslim pilgrims being present at the time of such an attack.

Lastly to return to the specific points I raised which I am still waiting for some kind of concrete evidence for. To quote again in full with my opponent's responses:

[quote]1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons.
2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel.
3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia.
4. That Iran has publicly stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel.
5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel.
6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.[/quote]

1. IAEA, USA, EU, UN...
2. Why wouldn't they? They hate, I mean HATE Jews and want to get Israel off the face of the earth.
3. Look at the video I posted the last round.
4. Well, okay. "Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives." A direct threat.
5. He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever.
6. CNN and other sources claim 3, 1 is kind of obvious ;) 2 is claimed by the Iranian president, 4 is claimed by the Iranian president, 5 is claimed by Barack Obama, 6 is claimed by the sources I just mentioned.

1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims.
2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants.
3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance.
4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.
5. some evidence of my own to the contrary:

'Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America.' source: http://www.nysun.com...

'"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.' source: http://www.haaretz.com...

6. (1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence. (2) Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again]. (3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased. (4) See 4. above, misquote, no evidence. (5) I have just proved that Obama has stated that he supports Israel, see above. (6) Does not make sense.

Thanks to all voters, please vote Pro if you have any respect for logic and proper research.

Thanks to my opponent, please take all the time you need to post your final round.
Debate Round No. 3
hauki20

Con

[quote]All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact.[/quote]

I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing.

[quote]"If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."[/quote]

This is a different source.

[quote]My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters.[/quote]

It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)

[quote]I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year)[/quote]

In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything. And still, radiation does not affect buildings.

Also, there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem ;)

[quote]'"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.'[/quote]

Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the corner and shut his mouth. ***Actions speak louder than words.*** Also, the writer of this article is clearly biased

[quote]2. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims.
2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants.
3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance.
4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.
5. some evidence of my own to the contrary:[/quote]

1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months.
(http://blog.wired.com...)
EU: http://www.upi.com...
USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. (http://www.time.com...)
2. And I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e.
3. "...The Iranian president gained a powerful *ALLY*."

[quote](1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence.[/quote]

Look at the three links I provided.

(http://blog.wired.com...)
(http://www.upi.com...)
(http://www.time.com...)

[quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again][/quote]

If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."

[quote](3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased.[/quote]

FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal, actually. And still, they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran.

[quote]We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.[/quote]

It's kind of the same as:

Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God."
Quoted: "We will nuke country X."

It's the SAME meaning. Okay, fine. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."

[quote]Does not make sense.[/quote]

Okay.

Number 1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased).
Number 2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased).
Number 3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president.
Number 4 is claimed by the Iranian president.
Number 5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions.
Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled.

So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.***

when Iran gets done with its nukes, they can simply give one of them to a terrorist group and have them detonate it in the middle of a large town. How? They could rent a truck and position the nuclear weapon inside it. It can never be traced back to Iran. Why? Well, if an object has been detonated to a trillion pieces, I imagine it may be a little tricky to find out who made it.

Vote for either one of us, although I wish I could get your vote ;)
feverish

Pro

I have greatly enjoyed this, my first debate. I thank my opponent for his civility and his heart-felt arguments. He
clearly believes in his arguments very strongly, unfortunately this belief seems to run so deep that he will not let
details such as evidence or logic get in their way. At the risk of going off topic, voters may well be interested to look up
some of his other debates 'Islam is an evil religion' etc.

'I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing.'

Unfortunately for my opponent's argument, he has indeed cited a number of sources, however on closer inspection none of them seem to actually back up what he is saying. I refer readers to previous rounds for my detailed analysis of how his 'evidence' fails to back up the statements he places immediately before or after them.

'This is a different source.'

I'm not quite sure what my opponent means by this. The quote he aparently refers to was copied from his arguments, so I don't think he means I am misrepresenting him.

Perhaps he means that this quote does not support his statement that 'Iran will have fully functional weapons in a year or two' which it doesn't, or perhaps he means it is a different source as I requested, however as I was asking for a source that did back up his presenting of possibilities as facts, my point stands. I'm a little confused. Oh well, maybe I'm missing something.

'It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush.'

As I said before, surely this glimmer of hope for diplomacy makes an attack by Iran less likely, not more.

'In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small
traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything.'

My opponent offers no source for this data so I can only assume he has plucked the figures from thin air or is himself a radiation fallout specialist. I did some research of my own:

'The residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion is in the form of radioactive fallout and neutron-induced activity.
These are intermediate weight isotopes which are formed when a heavy uranium or plutonium nucleus is split in a fission reaction. There are over 300 different fission products that may result from a fission reaction. Many of these are radioactive with widely differing half-lives. Some are very short, i.e., fractions of a second, while a few are long enough that the materials can be a hazard for months or years.' source: http://www.fas.org...

'there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem'

Of course there are, but my point was that if Iran were to attack 'the major cities' as my opponent was previously suggesting this would surely include the capital. (Definately a city, not a town)

'Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the
corner and shut his mouth.'

I offered my quote to prove that Obama had expressed support for Israel, contrary to my opponents assertion: 'He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever.' As far as the despicable assault and seige of Gaza goes, Obama clearly made a calculated decision that he would lose more respect from liberals and moderates than he would gain support from Zionists by supporting it. He (unlike many world leaders) did not condemn it either but as you point out avoided commenting on it.

'the writer of this article is clearly biased'

The Obama quote is from a Pro-US, Israeli newspaper, if it is biased in favour of anyone it is clearly not Iran.

'1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months.
(http://blog.wired.com......)
EU: http://www.upi.com......
USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.'

My opponent is once again [yawn] apparently misreading his own quotes. When I ask for evidence other than
unsubstantiated claims he just comes with more of the same, (please note 'could' and 'believe' in the above quotes.)

'I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e.' [sic]

?

Cities? sites? cited? leave them alone, nuke them?
Once again, I am confused.

'Look at the three links I provided.
(http://blog.wired.com......)
(http://www.upi.com......)
(http://www.time.com......)'

1.Iran could have nukes (note could)
2.Iran close to nuclear capability (thats nuclear power by the way, not nuclear bombs)
3.Iran's nuclear threat (thats a percieved threat, rather than any kind of direct threat that anyone has made)

Yet again more unsubstantiated claims.

'[quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote
again][/quote]
If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon
come to the end of their lives."

Yes this is the same quote (although quoted correctly for once) and in no way a direct threat or a statement of intent.

'FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal'

Was not aware of this , thanks for enlightening me, I thought they were both as bad as each other. Perhaps I will give
CNN more credibility in future.

'they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran.'

I never said they did, but neither do they refer to it as anything other than a peaceful business arrangement.

'It's kind of the same as:
Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God."
Quoted: "We will nuke country X."
It's the SAME meaning.'

Actually its more like:
Actual Quote: America sucked under the Bush administration.
Quoted: America sucks.
It completely transforms the statement from refering to a specific regime to refering to a nation as a whole. And
either way it is not a threat and has nothing to do with nukes.

'1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased).'

The US is clearly completely biased in this issue, as for the other two it is debatable how biased towards US they are.

'2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased).'
When does he ever specifically talk about nuking Israel?

'3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president.'
No, a military pact is not claimed.

'4 is claimed by the Iranian president.'
No, he has expressed a desire that they be destroyed but never that he wants to actually do it.

'5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions.'
Well at least my opponent now accepts that it is not claimed by Obama's words. But he has not really been in office long enough to take much action. And what action should he be taking? Nuking Iran perhaps? Imposing sanctions?

'Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled.'
Hardly.

'So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.***'

This is one of the more convincing arguments my opponent makes. Perhaps if he had begun this debate talking about this kind of terrorist nuclear attack, rather than the kind of politically sanctioned nuclear airstrike we have been discussing up till now then this debate might have been harder for me.

I think that my opponent and myself were both somewhat negligent in not defining what was meant by 'nuclear attack' in the initial rounds. Observant readers will have noticed that my opponent made an aborted attempt to define the term in round one. However I thought from the start that we were discussing the politically sanctioned variety rather than the terrorist kind, and it seemed as if my opponent was too.

Some sources that deal with nuclear attack as seperate from terrorism:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3572655.stm
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/03/terrorism-nuclear-biological-obama-white-house

Oops, I'm running out of space, thanks to readers, voters and my oppo
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
I have family in Iran; Iran has enough Uranium to make a U-Bomb.

That my friends is a fact.
Posted by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
C: Con. Pro raised some irrelevant issues, such as hauki20's past debates ("Islam is evil"), which served little purpose other than to perhaps discredit hauki20 by associating him with extremist positions.

S & G: Pro.

CA: Pro. Pro found many holes in Con's position, such as the lack of an immediate Iranian arsenal, the lack of an explicit threat, lack of a military alliance etc..

S: Pro.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
That was an excellent debate, on both sides.

I would like to point out that Israel is already a nuclear power, though not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has already vowed to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if they ever developed the capability to produce a nuclear weapon that could threaten Israel.
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
Feverish, thank you for an excellent debate.

Good luck to both of us ;)
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Don't know why it cut off my conclusion it said I had about 80 charachters left.
What I meant to say was:

Thanks to readers, voters and my opponent.
Please vote Pro as Con has argued inconsistently and failed to back up his claims with any kind of concrete evidence.
Thanks again.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
hauki20feverishTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by AntibacterialSpray 7 years ago
AntibacterialSpray
hauki20feverishTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 7 years ago
DavidSSabb94
hauki20feverishTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
hauki20feverishTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
hauki20feverishTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 8 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
hauki20feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 8 years ago
youngpolitic
hauki20feverishTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
hauki20feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Vote Placed by debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
hauki20feverishTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
hauki20feverishTied
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:16