The Instigator
DanT
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Macroscope
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Isreal has a Right to Exist.

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: 10/2/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,454 times Debate No: 18576
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

DanT

Pro

Con must try to prove Israel does not have a Legal Right to exist
Pro must try to prove Israel does have a Legal Right to exist

Rules;

1) No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using

2) No race baiting

3) No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings.

4) Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement.

5) If you claim something is "irrelevant" you must explain why it is so, instead of simply dismissing your opponent's argument.




Definitions;

Aggression (as defined by the Convention for the Definition of Aggression)


  1. Declaration of war upon another State.
  2. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
  3. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
  4. Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
  5. Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.



Crimes Against Peace (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)


  1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
  2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


War Crime (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)

  • Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to;
    • Ill-treatment of people in a occupied territory
    • Deportation of slave labor from a occupied territory
    • Murder of people in a occupied territory
    • Murder of prisoners of war
    • Ill-treatment of prisoners of war
    • Murder of persons on the Seas
    • Ill-treatment of persons on the Seas
    • Killing of hostages
    • Plunder of public property
    • Plunder of private property
    • Wanton destruction of cities
    • Wanton destruction of towns
    • Wanton destruction of villages
    • Devastation not justified by military necessity.



Crimes Against Humanity (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)

  • Acts that are done or are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Such acts include;
    • Murdering civilians
    • Extermination of any civilian population
    • Deportation of civilians.
    • Inhumane acts done against any civilian population.
    • Political persecutions.
    • Racial persecutions.
    • Religious persecutions.



Law of Self-Determination (As Defined by the UN's ICCPR)

  • All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
  • The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.



Murder (As Defined by Princeton)

  1. unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
  2. kill intentionally and with premeditation


Plunder (As Defined by Princeton)

  1. loot
  2. sack
  3. steal goods
  4. destroy and strip of its possession


Wanton (As Defined by Princeton)

  1. occurring without motivation or provocation
  2. behave extremely cruelly and brutally
  3. indulge in a carefree or voluptuous way of life
  4. spend one's time idly or inefficiently
  5. casual and unrestrained in sexual behavior
  6. become extravagant


Trust Territory (As Defined by Princeton)

  1. a dependent country; administered by another country under the supervision of the United Nations







Dates;

1933

      • The Convention for the Definition of Aggression

1946

      • Transjordan was granted full independence

1947

      • United Nations pass Resolution 181
      • start of the Civil War in the British Mandate

1948

  • March
      • UN Security Council rejected Resolution 181
      • British Cabinet makes plans for a Jewish State
  • May
    • 14
      • Israel declares Independence,
      • Israel is recognized by the UN
      • The end of the Civil War in the British Mandate
    • 15
      • The British Mandate Expires
      • The start of the war Arab–Israeli War


1949

      • Armistice Agreements


1950

      • The Nuremberg Tribunal


1956

      • Suez War


1966

      • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


1967

      • Six Day War
      • War of Attrition


1970

      • End of the War of Attrition


1973

      • Yom Kippur War


1979

      • Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed


1988

      • Palestine Declares Independence


1993

      • Oslo Accords


1994

  • May
      • Palestinian National Authority is Established
  • October
      • Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace signed



Macroscope

Con

1) "No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using"
Which would you prefer instead? Biased, Religious extremists or Stupid?
2) "No race baiting"
…what could you possibly mean by this?
3) "No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings."
Oh, lost the moral high ground already have we? What use is the law without it?
4) "Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement."
My argument is against the law.
5) "If you claim something is "irrelevant" you must explain why it is so, instead of simply dismissing your opponent's argument."
… fair point.

Look hoss, how about you leave the counter argument to me?
I cant very well win if I'm already going to say something you understand, can I? Im a scientist first and foremost, and I'll be discussing the argument from that point of view. If you want, you can think of those as my terms and conditions. My definitions will be coming from a different book than yours.
"Definitions"
My opponents attempts to bias the argument by control of the definition of words is actually an appeal to authority fallacy.
"An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true." [1]
This fallacy is very common in law, being an authoritarian organisation. If they cannot disprove an argument, they change the meaning of the words until it matches what they want. It actually boarders on a psychological illness as they are at once delusional and cognitive dissonance [2] which detracts form verisimilitude[3], which is an essential part of deciding which course of action is best. For my own amusement I will now list the flaws in the definitions listed.
[1]
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk...
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Definitions;

Aggression (as defined by the Convention for the Definition of Aggression)
1.Declaration of war upon another State.
Of course this implies that the state has to exist, so one may argue that Palestine never existed, especially since it was not recognised by the UN (appeal to authority fallacy) ultimately though, Israel can be cut by the same sword as it was not a state when it invaded and would have to be considered a civil war, in spite of the fact that a large portion of the ‘settlers' were from another country.
2.Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
‘its' what does that mean? whos armed forces? Specifically, using foreign made arms should and does amount to using foreign mercenaries. It actually fits the definition of proxy war aswell as invasion.
3.Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
I notice they don't want to use the word army, or militia. Perhaps to steer away from an invasion/aggression definition which involves revolution or does not involve a government.
4.Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
Same problem as 3, only this one obfuscates the possibility of a protest naval blockade, instead choosing to generalise them all as a form of aggression. How convenient it is to assume aggression as the motivation for halting another nations growth, or even, mercenary, proxy-war purchases, especially if it's a civil war.
5.Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
They've introduced a new word here; Armed bands. Not armed forces. Obviously because in the opposite case of a naval blockade, those being armed may infact be a militia engaged in a civil war or an invading army of another nation. Its interesting to note how they are basically saying that blocking a state is aggression, but so is arming its warbands. This is because arming its army would probably count towards strengthening a nation and its government, however this is again, an appeal to authority because it implies that even a nation run by a dictator that is supported, is not aggression, its more like a proxy war, and I'm sure you'll agree that any kind of war is aggressive.

Crimes Against Peace (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)
1.Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Once again, they appeal to authority in order to establish and substantiate a definition of peace. This is an appeal to popularity and history aswell and is of course, unscientific. A more accurate description might be; having a negative impact on the social order or makeup of another state so that they feel it necessary to take action against you to bring it to a stop.
2.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
‘i'? Well I'm sure this definition is meant to characterise civil war, uprisings, protests and naval blockade protests as a conspiracy to destroy peace, as opposed to, say, natural process of social change, politics and reform. As opposed to defining proxy-wars and false flag attacks, grey on grey etc as a real conspiracy as it seeks to benefit or destroy another state. Probably because Nuremburg treaties and other things would classify as this and also, you guessed it, an appeal to authority of a nations government over its people, protests by whom, counting as a small consensus.

War Crime (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)
•Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to;
oIll-treatment of people in a occupied territory
Introduced a new word; occupation as opposed to invasion. This is most likely because they wish to support the concept of occupation for other reasons than invasion. But this is obfuscation.
oDeportation of slave labor from a occupied territory
oMurder of people in a occupied territory
Attempting to make a distinction of people from military personnel without actually saying civilian. This is actually because the definition of a person is a corporation.
oMurder of prisoners of war
oIll-treatment of prisoners of war
oMurder of persons on the Seas
oIll-treatment of persons on the Seas
oKilling of hostages
oPlunder of public property
An army counts as public property and plunder counts as captured equipment. Thus if they were being completely honest, invasion of a country results in occupation and plunder. If they were trying to be honest they'd say that invasion and occupation are both wrong.
oPlunder of private property
oWanton destruction of cities
oWanton destruction of towns
oWanton destruction of villages
oDevastation not justified by military necessity.

Wow. Nowhere in there does it say terror tactics, or those now referred to as terror-ism count as war crimes. So, essentially, terrorism's legalised as a military necessity if you have a recognised uniform on. It also doesn't mention inhumane acts such as rape.

Crimes Against Humanity (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI) is the next section, I will save the analysis of this for a later post.
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Pro

To Reiterate and Clarify the rules for my opponent;
Rules;
1) No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using

Because the word "Zionism" has be abused, and distorted, as you so blatantly made clear, with your statement.

2) No race baiting
The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.

3) No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings.

This debate is about Legality
Morality is a opinion, and varies from person to person. Moral arguments are meaningless, unless supported by law.

4) Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement.

You have to name what law they broke. For example If I said "the UK broke international law during the war of 1812" my opponent would have to guess at which law is being referring to, and could not directly respond to the allegations.



The Definitions, is to make clear the international Laws. It is in no way "bias", or "authority fallacy"; the definitions come directly from the international law, hence it is not a perceived authority, it is an actual authority. I also listed every definition for the words not pertaining to law, even the ones that do not apply to the situation in order to avoid fallacy.

I will not dispute this further since your accepting of the debate was an acceptance of the set rules, and guidelines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opening argument

After the First World War the Ottoman Empire was divided up among the allies. Ottoman territory known as Ottoman Syria became the Mandate for Palestine. The British and the League of Nations created the Mandate for Palestine in 1920, in order to establish “a Jewish National Home”. The League of Nations officially gave control of the Mandate to the British in 1923.

On April 24 1920, the Mandate for Palestine was was 120,466 sq. km

The Mandate for Palestine was the 1st borders of the Jewish Nation

While the Mandate was still under the control of the League of Nations; the British government proposed the Transjordan memorandum, which split the Mandate for Palestine between the Jewish Palestine, and the Arab Palestine. Transjordan was to be semi independent, with the goal of eventually obtaining complete independence.

This was an attempt by the British to allow for Self determination, and in 1923 it passed the League of Nations.

Trans-Jordan consisted of 92,300 sq. km of the British Mandate, while Jewish Palestine consisted of 18,166 sq. km. Trans-Jordan made up 77% of the British Mandate.

Jewish Palestine was the 2nd borders Jewish Nation.

On May 25, 1946, the British Granted independent to Trans-Jordan, making Jewish Palestine the only Palestine in the Mandate for Palestine.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed resolution 181, which the Arab community rejected and was never implemented. Resolution 181 was intended to split Palestine in 2 trust territories, 1 with an Arab state, and 1 with a Jewish state. The Arab community was outraged, and the plan was never implemented.

On November 30, 1947 several militant Arab Palestinian groups attacked Jewish busses, killing the passengers. These outbreaks of violence lead to the Civil War of the British Mandate.

On May 14, 1948 Israel declared independence from the British Mandate, and within hours the British Government and the United Nations acknowledged their independence.

In the Declaration of Independence of Israel, Israel stated that it only wanted the land promised to them in Resolution 181.

This was the unofficial border of the Jewish State.

12 am on May 15, 1948, the British Mandate expired, and the Jewish State was established.

Later on May 15, 1948, the Arab League informed the UN that they rejected resolution 181, just hours later the Arab League invaded Palestine, with the intent to conquer Israel; this parked the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, known by some as the Israeli War for Independence.

In January 1949 the War was over and an Armistice Agreement was signed.

The 1949 Armistice agreements did Not create official borders, but rather ceasefire lines. With these ceasefire lines, Trans-Jordan controlled the west bank through military occupation, and Egypt controlled the Gaza strip through Military Occupation.

During the Military Occupation of the West Bank by Trans-Jordan, the West Bank and East Jurusaluem was annexed by the Jordanian Government in the year 1950.

This was the 1st ceasefire lines of the Jewish State.

After the Armistice agreements Egypt blockaded Israel’s ports twice. The 1st blockade led to the Suez War of 1956, while the second blockade led to the Six Day war in 1967. Prior to the second blockade the Arab league began massing troops along the ceasefire lines, and when Egypt blockaded their ports, Israel launched a preemptive strike, which was justified according to the Nuremburg Principles.

Israel captured the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan heights as a result of the 6-day war.

This was the 2nd ceasefire lines of the Jewish State.

Again this was occupied, but was never considered borders by Israel.

In 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty, in which they established borders for Israel and Egypt.

In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Army declared Palestine independent from Israel, but was never recognized.

The Palestinian Declaration of Independence declared control of all of the former British Mandate for Palestine, including the sovereign state of Israel.

In 1993 Israel and the PLO negotiated in the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian National Authority, within the State of Israel, in order for better relations, and future negotiation of borders.

This is the Jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority



The following year in 1994 Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty, which made the Jordan River the official border of Israel and Jordan.


This is the official borders of Israel as Stated by the Jordanian and Egyptian peace treaties.






The Palestinian National Authority operates within the borders of Israel. The Israeli borders are defined by the treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

There is no disputing the facts that Israel has a legal right to exist.
Macroscope

Con

Rules;
1) No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using

Would you care to agree with me on a definition for "Zionism" considering you say it has been "distorted".

2) No race baiting

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

3) No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings.

"This debate is about Legality"

This debate is about whatever I SAY its about. If I can prove you wrong using something not enshrined in law, then that does not render it forfeit. Logic outclasses law in the logic field. This is why all arguments are conducted by logic.

"Morality is a opinion, and varies from person to person."

The definition of morality is quite clear. It pertains to an ethical behaviour. Working out who is right is simply done by working out who is the most ethical comparatively. This is the method by which all arguments are won, it is called verisimilitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Moral arguments are meaningless, unless supported by law."

Appeal to authority fallacy. See video, lol.
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk...

4) Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement.

"You have to name what law they broke. For example If I said "the UK broke international law during the war of 1812" my opponent would have to guess at which law is being referring to, and could not directly respond to the allegations."

Appeal to authority. The law was broken, only by those who perceived it as law.

"The Definitions, is to make clear the international Laws."

Something which you failed to do btw, If you read my analysis of the laws.

"It is in no way "bias", or "authority fallacy"; the definitions come directly from the international law, hence it is not a perceived authority, it is an actual authority."

"no it isnt" is not a valid argument, because I just say, yes it is times infinity, and you can check the source.

All your saying there is that you perceive international law to be an actual authority.

For me to be legally bound under international law to recognise its authority, you would need to find a law which states this. Considering no such law exists yet, I think we can forgo your fallacious actual authority argument.

But not so fast. The word authority allegedly comes from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.
So please tell me, precisely which part of your ‘advice' is ‘actual advice'.

We're not done yet.
•the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a common-law jurisdiction, and,
•equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,
•a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society which has been given the force of law, and,
•a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal,
So, even if it was a mandatory law, I could simply withhold consent, and under common law, I could not be forced. This is why we don't have slavery and we do have democracy. The US is a common law jurisdiction btw.

"I also listed every definition for the words not pertaining to law, even the ones that do not apply to the situation in order to avoid fallacy."

I notice you didn't give any sources for those.

"I will not dispute this further since your accepting of the debate was an acceptance of the set rules, and guidelines."

This argument seems to have become about your unwillingness to accept that appeal to authority really is a fallacy because it is the basis for most of your evidence and your argument. I should win this argument mainly because I haven't yet committed any fallacies as far as I am aware. Indeed, im pretty confident that I don't even need to say much more. As it is abundantly clear that your premise is fallacious.

Here is my continued analysis of the definitions.
Crimes Against Humanity (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI)
•Acts that are done or are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Such acts include;
Basing definitions on other definitions which inevitable appeal to authority.
oMurdering civilians
So… murdering people is a war crime… murdering civilians is a crime against humanity? I'd really like to see what their definition of people is. Most likely they say this because if you are waging war, you are most likely a government or army, and therefore those you wage war against are people or persons under your jurisdiction. Where does this leave corporal punishment? War crime or crime against humanity?
oExtermination of any civilian population
See above. How is murder different from extermination different from war?
oDeportation of civilians.
oInhumane acts done against any civilian population.
This is a circular argument, crimes against humanity is supposed to detail inhumane acts.
oPolitical persecutions.
Wow. So killing saddam and binladen were crimes against humanity?
oRacial persecutions.
Tick.
oReligious persecutions.
Tick.

Surly the best distinction between weather or not something is a war crime or a crime against wider humanity is weather it is done under the auspices of war, or powers granted under a war act. Otherwise its quite simple to describe destruction.

Law of Self-Determination (As Defined by the UN's ICCPR)
•All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Wouldn't it be lovely if we actually could do that. For example, if my political status was racist, my economic status vagrant or tax resistor and my cultural development; violent, then I would soon be discriminated against by authority and so called intelligent people, also, basically anyone who appeals to popularity.
•The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
What do they think administration means? In the context of non self governing, how can someone be self determining?!?!?!?

Murder (As Defined by Princeton)
I don't know who pincceton is, but I'd guess he was a lawyer.
1.unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
Oh I see now, so its ok to kill a person, not a human being, unless its lawful in that area at that time, but its not ok to kill a civilian because that means you're a soldier?!? Its an a appeal to authority fallacy.
Well, instead why don't we just admit that someday, someone has to die. From a biological standpoint its most likely that man or woman is being predated by another group, or that they have been killed in self defence because they are predators. Other than that, they have either died naturally or had their death hastened by predators.
2.kill intentionally and with premeditation
So, what constitutes a lawful, accidental, unintentional killing?

Plunder (As Defined by Princeton)
1.loot
2.sack
What? Ransack?
3.steal goods
4.destroy and strip of its possession

I can't tell if we are starting a debate or if your testing if I'm stupid enough to accept these definitions. Having not been a signatory of the convention for the Definition of Aggression, and having the forethought not to recognise any authority or representatives, such as the UN, when I was just a twinkle in my fathers eye, I have the benefit of being unbiased as to the mistakes of previous generations.

If i get around do it, i'll post the "Wanton (As Defined by Princeton)" section, when theres space.
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Pro

Well, it seems my opponent as wasted round 2 of the Debate attacking the Guidelines of the Debate that he has agreed to by accepting the challenge is the 1st place.


Since my opponent has dropped my entire opening case, we must assume that it is true.

My opening case being 100% true, means that Israel has the Legal Right to the borders mentioned above


And the PNA has no borders, until Israel comes to an agreement with them.

Because Israel has Legal borders, Israel has a Legal right to exist.



Macroscope

Con

No part of accepting a debate entails accepting the opponents definitions or interpretation of definitions.

"My opening case being 100% true"
Considering the number of fallacies you have committed, even if your argument was true you would not have represented it well here today.

You are attempting to find a loophole which allows you to conduct a debate solely on historical evidence in your favour by claiming that the opponent must agree with your evidence and its source in order to conduct a debate with you.

In practice all this means is that you never find out how wrong you are.

Debates don't have any preconceptions for this very reason.

Also, even if israel had a legal right to exist, this does not imply that the law is what is logical. It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising palestine, its independence untill a seperate state had been set up within its boarders.
Debate Round No. 3
DanT

Pro

My opponent claims, "No part of accepting a debate entails accepting the opponents definitions or interpretation of definitions."

Yet the DDO tutorial states;

"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions."
http://www.debate.org...


Round 2 was where my Case started

"Case - The opening arguhttp://www.debate.org... for a position."
http://www.debate.org...


My opponent dropped my entire case

"Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round."
http://www.debate.org...


My opponent claims, "It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders."

But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized.

The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank.

Israel has a right to exist, and the State of Palestine can only come into being if the PNA can agree on borders with Israel.




Macroscope

Con

I said:
"No part of accepting a debate entails accepting the opponents definitions or interpretation of definitions."

The DDO tutorial states;
"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions."

No where there does it say i have to accept anything. Indeed you are confusing my responsibilities with your own. You may "give context", but this doesnt make me honour bound to accept your deliberately manufactured context.

I claimed, "It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders."

My opponent said "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized."

That is actually incorrect. Your own timeline shows this.

"the British government proposed the Transjordan memorandum, which split the Mandate for Palestine between the Jewish Palestine, and the Arab Palestine. Transjordan was to be semi independent, with the goal of eventually obtaining complete independence."

So they granted independence to a country by forcibly splitting it up into two peaces. This strongly implies that Palestine was not allowed to self govern previously, perhaps it was a British vassal.

"On May 25, 1946, the British Granted independent to Trans-Jordan, making Jewish Palestine the only Palestine in the Mandate for Palestine."

"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed resolution 181, which the Arab community rejected and was never implemented. Resolution 181 was intended to split Palestine in 2 trust territories, 1 with an Arab state, and 1 with a Jewish state. The Arab community was outraged, and the plan was never implemented."
Outrage is such a weak word for mandatory secession enforced by an external country or group of countries. No wonder it didn't work.

In response my opponent states: "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized."

And I remind my opponent, that delaying recognition of a country in the UN does not change the fact that this country exists.

He then says "The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank."

But I remind him that as Israel was made from Palestinian territory but never formally recognised by Palestine it doesn't have the legitimacy to do any of those things. Believing this is an appeal to the authority of Israel. If you did not make this appeal to authority, then you could not believe Israel exists and most likely renders the whole affair as a civil war or partied given ascension by the UN, US, Britain or any other country that was involved in this attempt to defraud Palestine.

Also, previously i left a video implying you were judge dread. Irrespective of the credibility of such a statement, it was an Ad hominem fallacy. But the fact that were unable to recognise that demonstrates that you have not learnt critical thinking. Which implies you are disputing something without actually understanding it.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
DanT

Pro

My opponent claims, "No where there does it say i have to accept anything. Indeed you are confusing my responsibilities with your own. You may "give context", but this doesnt make me honour bound to accept your deliberately manufactured context."

However the DDO tutorial states, "That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions."


My opponent claims, "So they granted independence to a country by forcibly splitting it up into two peaces. This strongly implies that Palestine was not allowed to self govern previously, perhaps it was a British vassal."

However the Mandate for Palestine as not a Country, it was a Mandate, much like the French Mandate for Syria.

A Mandate is a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following the First World War.

Before becoming the British Mandate, the Mandate for Palestine was Territory under the control of e Ottoman Empire, known as Ottoman Syria. Ottoman Syria was a Territory, not a Country!!! The Territory of Ottoman Syria lasted from 1516–1918; so it was a territory since the 16th century, not a Country.

My opponent claims, "And I remind my opponent, that delaying recognition of a country in the UN does not change the fact that this country exists."

But my opponent fails to acknowledge that fact that they claimed an established country as their own. That is like claiming that the North American Continent is now the state of Oz; it just doesn't fly.

My opponent claims, " Israel was made from Palestinian territory but never formally recognised by Palestine it doesn't have the legitimacy to do any of those things. "

But my opponent has failed to realize it was created from a British territory, not a Palestinian one; just because they call themselves Palestine does not mean they owned the British Mandate for Palestine.

This is a propaganda technique known as transfer, which was first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938.
Transfer is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind.
http://library.thinkquest.org...

By using the name Palestine, Palestinians can create the illusion that the British Mandate belonged to them, rather than the British.
When the Ottoman Empire lost the first world war they agreed to giving up the territory of Ottoman Syria to the League of Nations, who gave it to the British, who in turn gave it to Israel. In other words, the legal owner of the territory gave the region to Israel.


My opponent has stated at the end of round 4 that he "left a video implying you were judge dread. Irrespective of the credibility of such a statement, it was an Ad hominem fallacy. But the fact that were unable to recognise that demonstrates that you have not learnt critical thinking. Which implies you are disputing something without actually understanding it."

However I did recognize it, I watched it, and I chose not to respond to the attack, because I was hoping this debate would not degraded to name calling, and attacks on the debaters character.

I kindly ask my opponent to please look up the difference between a debate, and a fight.


Vote Pro.




Macroscope

Con

Macroscope forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
There was a counter argument, after the forfeit, and it was better than your argument that is why you got conduct, but he got the more convincing argument.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Srsly, that is the hight of stupidity.

This is because you are biased.

Dont worry, i'll return the favour. Your not gonna come out of this mudslinging clean.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Idiot, there wasnt even a counter argument. The guy forfitted! HOW can you vote against me if my opponent isnt there and we never FINISHED.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
>.< I didn't vote negatively on your debate because of you, I voted negatively on your debate because of your argument. In-fact I gave you more credit than you actually deserved when voting.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Really? Because when you get on my nerves you tend to expend allot more energy running around voting negativly on my debates.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
>.< thank god this so called "debate" is over because your getting on my nerves.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Haha, Ad Hominem.

When your good enough your old enough.

Maybe you shouldnt make so many fallacies if you want to insult someones age.

You seem to be under the strong impression that you can win any game, just as long as you find the evidence to allow you to bend the rules. But this is incorrect. It can happen in law, but debating is a more perfect system than the law is. You can only win if your right... or at least, more right than the other guy.
What this really means is that you have to abandon positions of weakness with the swiftness of someone in control of their ego. Afterall, a core tenet of military tactics is; never re-enforce a failure.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
I'm guessing your around 14, maybe 15 right? At least in that ball park.

You are certainly not 100;
your grammar, shows that you was born after 1970,
judging by this debate and your debate titled, "This is not a real argument format", you have a teenager mentality
And judging by the fact you are hiding your age it is probably low to mid teens.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
You and I both know that is a lie
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
100yo
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
DanTMacroscopeTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
DanTMacroscopeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. Great visual aid.