The Instigator
twsurber
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Modified Extemporaneous; Can there be true lasting peace in Israel?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 9736
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

twsurber

Con

Rules:

Opponent will place 1 random alphanumeric character in the first round. Judges will completely disregard the 1st round, only the second round will be scored.

There is no rebuttal period.
Debate Round No. 1
twsurber

Con

**** I would like to thank Danielle for agreeing to this debate. Good luck, it should be interesting and I look forward to your presentation.

CON/NEG:

RESOLUTION: Can there be true lasting peace in Israel?

INTRODUCTION: The practical answer is no, at least not in the time preceding Armageddon. There has been and continues to be conflict in Israel. Where did it start? Jealousy erupted from Sarah toward Hagar due largely to Sarah's own imprudence, and to a lesser extent that of Abraham. Ishmael was conceived by Hagar, Isaac by Sarah. This appears to be the grass roots of conflict within what is presently known as the nation of Israel.

DEFINITIONS: (source: http://dictionary.reference.com... )
true
  Spelled Pronunciation [troo] adjective, tru⋅er, tru⋅est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru⋅ing or true⋅ing.
–adjective
1.being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
2.real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.
3.sincere; not deceitful: a true interest in someone's welfare.
4.firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast: a true friend.
5.being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something: the true meaning of his statement.

last⋅ing
  Spelled Pronunciation [las-ting, lah-sting] Show IPA
–adjective
1.continuing or enduring a long time; permanent; durable: a lasting friendship.

peace
  Spelled Pronunciation [pees] Show IPA noun, interjection, verb, peaced, peac⋅ing.
–noun
1.the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
2.(often initial capital letter ) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism: the Peace of Ryswick.
3.a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, esp. in personal relations: Try to live in peace with your neighbors.
4.the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security: He was arrested for being drunk and disturbing the peace.
5.cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.
6.freedom of the mind from annoyance, distraction, anxiety, an obsession, etc.; tranquillity; serenity.
7.a state of tranquillity or serenity: May he rest in peace.
8.a state or condition conducive to, proceeding from, or characterized by tranquillity: the peace of a mountain resort.

POINT ONE: Overview.
The two primary religious entities occupying Israel are the Jews and the Muslims. Due to differences in their respective doctrine, there is virtually no hope for true lasting peace.
A. The land.
1. Israel claims that the land they presently occupy is the "promised land" and was given to them by God. Due to disobedience to God the Jews were displaced a number of times. Through the efforts of Theodore Herzl, the Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations, the land was eventually restored, in part, to the Jews of Israel. May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion declared that the nation of Israel was re-established. After a military victory in 1967, the borders increased to include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.
2. The Muslims, descendants of Ishmael, were there first. Why should they have to give away their property? The God of the Bible and Allah are not one and the same. Therefore they are under no obligation to respect the authority of the God of the Bible's decision to give the land to the descendants of Jacob, aka the children of Israel.

B. Religious differences
1. Jews follow the teachings of the Bible. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Revelation 22: 18-19 clearly state that the Bible is complete. There should be nothing to add, nor anything to take away from.

2. Muslims primarily follow the teachings of the Qur'an. There are two divisions of the Qur'an; the revelations given in Mecca, and those given in Medina. Islam teaches that the Bible is incomplete, and further revelations from Allah were necessary.

POINT TWO: Biblical perspectives.
Throughout several books of the Old Testament (The Torah in particular) we find references to what is known as the Abrahamic Covenant. This is, for all intents and purposes, the promise from God to Abraham that his descendants would be innumerable and receive the promised land. God also informed the children of Israel that if they remained obedient, they would prosper. If they were disobedient, they would have consequences. One particular passage of scripture found in the book of Numbers 33:55 shares that if the children of Israel did not drive out the inhabitants, that they would become a prick in their eyes and a thorn in their sides, and would be a vex to them.

POINT THREE: Qur'anic perspectives.
The Qur'an is a collection of revelations of Allah to his prophet Muhammad. As stated earlier, it is broken down into the earlier revelations received in Mecca, and the later revelations received in Medina. The Meccan revelations are the kindler, gentler, of the two. To an extent, even the revelations received during Mohammad's first year in Medina are less extreme than the remaining ones. Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to lasting peace come from the teachings of Islam.

POINT FOUR: The hurdles to peace.
The hurdles to peace come from an intolerance of both sides to reconcile. Neither will be dissuaded from their beliefs. The beliefs of both are much more than religion, they are their lifestyles. There are two major roadblocks to true lasting peace. The first is the interpretation of Surah 9:5. Anyone who is not a Muslim, nor willing to convert to Islam is considered an Infidel, and must be killed. Jews are clearly not Muslims, nor are they willing to convert to Islam. The second hurdle is the property itself. The Jews see it as a gift from God. The Muslims see it as property of Islam. Both see it as trespassing by the other. Perhaps one of the greatest insults in history occurred when the Muslims built mosques on the Temple Mount, which is the Jews most sacred place. This is a constant source of tension between the two, and virtually irreconcilable. Terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah continue to attack the Jews of Israel. Israel always responds to these attacks with military force. To be fair to the Muslims, Israel has been known to make pre-emptive military strikes when they felt adequate intelligence warranted such action. Muslims are following the teachings of their most holy book. Jews are holding their ground as promised by their most holy book.

POINT FIVE: The future.
The Bibles speaks of a future event affectionately known as the rapture. After the rapture, there will be a seven year period of tribulation. The antichrist will actually broker a peace treaty with Israel. The Bible says that unfortunately, that treaty, like all of the others before it, will fail. Events will come to pass that lead up to Armageddon. There will not be true lasting peace in Israel until after the return of Jesus.

CONCLUSION: Many people throughout history have made valiant but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to achieve true lasting peace. There have been temporary ceasefires, but no real peace. A two state solution has ultimately failed. Israel was intended to be for the Jews. Jordan was intended to be for the Islamic Palestinians. Again, we revisit that the land is claimed by Islam. Attempts have been made for a one state solution. Let both live peaceably, side by side. That has not worked, nor will it work. Muslims are intolerant of Jews due to their doctrine. Given the above it is simply impossible to achieve true lasting peace in Israel. Thank you.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con.

I'll begin by accepting Con's proposed definitions, but disputing the origins of the conflict in the land known as Israel. Rather than agree to a scriptural explanation with no factual basis, I'd like to look at the HISTORY and FACTS. In the late 1800s, Zionists - a group dedicated to the establishment of a Jewish state - decided to settle down in what was once Palestine. The notion that they chose this location because of its holy land is not necessarily accurate; parts of both Africa and the Americas were originally taken into consideration as a location for this endeavor. As more Jews continued to flock to Palestine (and threatened to take over the land to create a Jewish state), fighting inevitably ensued to the point where the UN felt that an intervention was necessary.

Rather than adhere to the concept of Self-Determination (i.e. the people of a given territory to determine their own political status or independence from their current state), the UN decided to divvy up Palestine and give over 50% of the land to the Jews (Israel), despite the fact that they made up only 30% of the Palestinian population. This was a mistake on the part of the UN. Self-Determination states that it is the right of the people of a certain nation to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other country or body of government. Given the fact that the majority of Palestinians were not Jewish, AND the fact that the Jews who immigrated there did so with the sole intention of usurping the land of others, the UN made a mistake in allowing themselves to be bullied under Zionist pressure.

Still, this ruling proved to be not enough for the Zionists, who then in turn invaded what was left of Palestine and committed over 30 massacres of the Palestinian people. After continuous attacks from terrorist extremists, the Jews eventually took over nearly 80% of Palestine and obliterated the Palestinian population and culture, as well as pillaged their homes, made them refugees, etc. Then in the 1960s, Israel eventually conquered what was left of Palestine.

The problem here is that international law prohibits acquiring territories by law, thus making said land NOT belong to Israel. In that case, the land still belongs to Palestine (technically) and yet it is merely occupied by the Jews. Because the Gaza strip is unlawfully being occupied by Israel, and Palestinian people there are being tortured, abused and terrorized on a daily basis, the only way to rectify the conflict is to make the Israelis leave what is left of Palestine. The UN made a mistake in usurping that land and giving it to the Jews in the first place (in violation of Self-Determinist principles); the very least they could do is demand that what remains of Palestine actually belongs to the Palestinians. In other words, there should still be a Palestinian state. However, what nation ISN'T guilty of usurping indigenous lands? The reality is that they can't just kick the Jews out of Israel. So, now these countries must learn to live in peace. For now, let's examine Pro's contentions.

1. Overview

Pro writes, "Due to differences in their respective doctrine, there is virtually no hope for true lasting peace." He continues to say that the God of the Bible and Allah are not the same, and thus neither group in Israel has an obligation to respect the authority of the God in the Bible. First of all, I'd like to point out that the Israel follows the TORAH - not the Bible. And second, the God *is* the same monotheistic God. "All three religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, though known by different names" says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1].

So what does this mean? Considering that both of these extreme groups are very religious, and all love and ultimately worship and value the same God, they may choose to end the bloody conflict and live side by side in peace as a way to respect their own scripture and the scripture of others. Both of these religions are based on peace and love for your fellow man. I fail to see why they won't learn to co-exist as a means to end the perpetual violence, and I will dismantle all of Pro's points in which he claims they won't/can't.

2. Biblical Perspectives

It's completely irrelevant for Pro to continue sourcing the Bible, when neither the Jews nor Palestinians adhere to it.

3. Qu'ran Perspectives

This is kind of an irrelevant point. Pro merely writes, "Two of the biggest stumbling blocks to lasting peace come from the teachings of Islam." However, Pro won't detail what those road blocks are until he gets to his 4th point.

4. Hurdles to Peace

Road Block 1 -- Anyone who is not a Muslim, nor willing to convert to Islam is considered an Infidel, and must be killed.

Let's see if this is an accurate claim or interpretation of the sacred test. First, investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels." For example, India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire up to and including very high-ranking state officials were Hindu. Another example is contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. So, clearly we can't say that the people of Islam always followed this ideal.

Second, this is taken from 60:8-9 in the Qu'ran -- "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion... you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice... you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. [2] This supports my view - not Pro's.

Road Block 2 -- The land itself. I've already dispute this in my introduction regarding the land.

5. The Future

Again, Pro keeps on citing the Bible but Jews don't follow the Bible! Nevertheless, I wouldn't accept predictions from the Bible any more than I would a book of Nostradamus or other mythology. This isn't a religious debate, and Pro has given us no incentive to value the Bible or any other scripture as a fortune telling device. So, the idea that there can't be peace because the Bible says so absolutely does not fly.

-- Conclusion --

You cannot say that just because peace has not been established that peace CAN not be established. That's called the appeal to tradition fallacy. Plus, the only evidence that Pro has provided (coming from the wrong source of scripture lol according to the religions in question) support my theory that these people can live in peace. For instance, people have no control over what God does according to scripture, i.e. Armageddon. However, people CAN control how they act (i.e. living peacefully). So, people can choose that option, or even be forced to choose that option. This is just as much about politics as it is religion.

Sources:
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.muslimaccess.com...
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Hi mongeese, I gave myself 7 because I'm getting creamed and I shouldn't be. Good point on questioning why it's all or none. Especially if people read my comments below. Ya gotta respect Danielle's enthusiasm though, she's a fighter.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I don't see why every vote in this debate is a 7-pointer.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Dani, Good point and thanks for the tip. I see that I should have explained it better and not assumed. See, you guys are teaching me something every day! and that's why I'm here. :o)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I think that, in order to really fault Pro for the rules issue, Con would have needed to actually explained what Extemporaneous was :)

Like, I'm guessing that it is an event specific to certain states, like public or parliamentary (not public forum, but straight up public, which is like parli's illegitimate child here in Oregon). We have extemporaneous in Oregon, and the NFL includes extemporaneous speaking as an individual event, but it isn't a debate event on the national circuit.

So, even if you assume that every DDO member also has experience with competitive HS debate (which they don't), not everyone with competitive experience will know what you mean by "extemporaneous."
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
Again, a big thank you to Danielle for competing.

Unfortunately for her, Extemp is not like LD or Forum. Unfortunately for me, people who do not know this are likely to cast their votes for the PRO. In EXTEMP, there is neither a place nor a format for dismantling another person's arguments. You must only state YOUR OWN argument.

After the fact analysis will show that my opponent spent no less than half of her time trying to discredit my positions. For this she would receive no credit whatsoever.

Several times in her argument she referred to me as the PRO, when I was clearly the NEG.

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. The Jews routinely use the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, for their worship. I know this from first hand experience :o)

If Islam is such a religion of peace, why are there so many terrorist attacks that Muslims take credit for in the name of Allah?

The God of the Bible cannot possibly be the same god of Islam. God has a Son called Jesus. Allah does not have a son. They cannot possibly be one in the same. Further, while Allah is montheistic, the God of the Bible is God in 3 persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Finally, as I stated earlier, the passage from Surah 60 is one of the kindler, gentler passages during the Mohammad's first year in Medina. After (embarrassingly) failing to convert Jews, he began "receiving" other revelations that were not so friendly. Take a REAL look around Israel. Who's zooming who? The only thing the REAL Pro produced was jibberish about an unsubstantiated fairy tale from the late 1800s and a wing & a prayer wish that everyone could find a way to get along. VOTE CON

The real PRO stated that I gave no incentive to value the Bible. As if it were necessary. 2 Timothy 3: 16 states that the Bible is given by inspiration of God. It is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"There is no rebuttal period"
I wasn't sure if this meant that rebuttals aren't allowed. In which case PRO broke the rules.

I voted PRO for pretty much every reason listed in the case.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by hnwebber100 7 years ago
hnwebber100
twsurberDanielleTied
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 twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
twsurberDanielleTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
twsurberDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
twsurberDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
twsurberDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07