The Instigator
brodude12
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MouthWash
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Palestine should be a sovereign nation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
MouthWash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 24589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

brodude12

Pro

Palestine's land was taken with questionable legality, and so they have Palestine has a right to be a sovereign nation, as it once was. The fact that it is not is a travesty, as it is only the fear of Israel's nuclear power that prevents the international community from accepting Palestine's sovereignty. The Gaza strip conflict would be completely halted by a declaration of the creation of Palestine as a nation, as the inhabitants of the strip are only looking to regain rights lost sixty years ago. The Palestinian people have been forced away from their land by a mistaken UN resolution, and without support they cannot take it back nonviolently.
MouthWash

Con

"it is only the fear of Israel's nuclear power that prevents the international community from accepting Palestine's sovereignty."

Israel would not be able to use nuclear weapons without a clear purpose, or would otherwise be branded a genocidal rogue state and would face a united front.


"The Gaza strip conflict would be completely halted by a declaration of the creation of Palestine as a nation, as the inhabitants of the strip are only looking to regain rights lost sixty years ago."

The Gaza War was intended to stop missile attacks into Israel. Removing Israel would defeat that purpose. Your only argument as to why Israel should not exist is the "mistaken" U.N. resolution. He has not offered any evidence in favor of this, and giving the descendants of the Palestinians the land they used to live in whould be akin to all blacks returning to Africa, seeing as they have no unique cultural or nationalistic connection [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...].
Debate Round No. 1
brodude12

Pro

The support of the United States means that Israel can attack the Palestinians without any consequences. It is true that a nuclear assault would bring punishments upon the Israeli people, but blasting Palestinian innocents into bits has not brought any sanctions upon them.

The Gaza War, as you put it, was not intended to defend Israel from attacks, but began when the Israelis began bombing the Gaza Strip as a whole, because of the threat a few rogue Palestinians posed to them. As to why Israel should not exist, it is because the UN believed that the Palestinian land was theirs, and so they could give it to the Jews. Another reason is that it is completely unheard of to give land to a people without any regard as to the land's inhabitants. Not only this, but giving the Jews a nation whose capital is the most important religious city in the world is unfair to other religions, especially taking into account the fact that Judaism is much smaller than Islam or Christianity.
MouthWash

Con

Your previous argument was that the international community was threatened by Isreal's nuclear stockpile. You concede this point. Innocent casualties are unavoidable in war.

Hamas planned to use rocket attacks against the Ben-Gurion international airport and the Knesset (the equivalent of the senate). [1.http://www.timesofisrael.com...] Any country would go to war over attacks on it's capital or toward governmental figures. You even justified the "rogue Palestinian's" violence in the last round.

"giving the Jews a nation whose capital is the most important religious city in the world is unfair to other religions"

Aside from the fact that all three religions already have quarters in Jerusalem, this would suggest that minorities have less claims or rights. Didn't you just say that it was "completely unheard of to give land to a people without any regard as to the land's inhabitants?"
Debate Round No. 2
brodude12

Pro

Hamas is a group of fanatics, and I never justified them. I just said that their actions did not define the Palestinians. Also, the Israeli government attacked the civilian population of the Gaza strip, not even specifically targeting the members of Hamas.

What do you mean by the fact that all three religions have quarters in Jerusalem? Because as far as I know, Jerusalem is not the capital of a Muslim or Christian nation, but of a Jewish one. Minorities do not have less rights. But the fact that such a symbolic city is in the hands of one religion alone is unfair. In 1948, when Israel first declared itself a nation, the Arabs and the Jews had the same number of people in Palestine. Neither was a minority, and so, displacing half a nation's residents is unheard of.
MouthWash

Con

"I never justified [the Hamas]."

Here, I'll quote you: "without support [the Palestinians] cannot take it back nonviolently."
_________

The difference between civilian and insurgent is blurred when the population supports religiously motivated violence. You offer no examples supporting your claim, and it can be dismissed out of hand.
_________

I've been to Jerusalem. A quick Google search will confirm that each religion has it's own quarters.

If you are equating Israel with Judaism and saying that "the Jews" control Jerusalem, let me remind you that Istanbul is considered the heart of Christian Orthodoxy, yet Turkey is predominantly Muslim, and there is no one claiming to have lost any rights. All three religions have equal opportunities to worship in the holy city.
_________

The Arabs rejected the partition plan. Israel was forced to expell the more hostile Palestinians.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
RFD:
The Burden of proof is upon Pro to show that "Palestine" should be a sovereign nation. The only argument I see him making specifically towards the resolution was in the first round when he stated: "...Palestine has a right to be a sovereign nation, as it once was.". The accuracy of this statement is dubious, and the 'rights' of 'former nations' are not established, even though Con never specifically attacked this statement. The debate then continues onto issues not directly related to the resolution.

Whether or not "Palestine" is or is not a sovereign nation due to the ability of Israel to nuke it, has nothing to do with whether or not it 'should' be a sovereign state, and the entire argument has nothing to do with the resolution. The purpose of the Gaza war similarly has little to do with whether or not "Palestine" 'should' be a sovereign nation, and Pro never asserted it as such in the context it was presented. Should Pro be asserting that "Palestine" be a sovereign state specifically because Palestinians are at war with Israel, Con refuted this sufficiently.

The arguments of whether or not Israel should exist also has little to do with the resolution, and likewise caused the debate to lose focus on the intended resolution which Pro was unable to carry his BOP.

Other arguments by Pro regarding the status of Jerusalem were not sufficiently asserted, but peripheral to the resolution regardless. Should Pro's argument be that, Palestine should be a sovereign nation because Jerusalem should be under Arab control, he also failed to prove this assertion.

Ultimately, a debate on this topic needs far more than 3000 characters from each side to be done effectively. Pro never asserts an argument directly favoring the resolution that Con is unable to refute, Pro fails to carry his BOP, and therefore Argument Points go to Con.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Just looked again. 1,000 characters? LOL.
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Make the time to post arguments 72 hours and I'll accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
brodude12MouthWashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: YYW said it pretty well. Pro has so many unwarranted premises and never really shows how even that advances the Pros advocacy
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
brodude12MouthWashTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument began and ended with unsourced, warrantless claims which he had difficulty linking to the resolution. Con amusingly exploited the limits of pro's offered reasons. Sources to CON because he chose to avail himself to use them.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
brodude12MouthWashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments