The Instigator
Eitan_Zohar
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

The United States should break ties with Israel.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Eitan_Zohar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,753 times Debate No: 34507
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

Eitan_Zohar

Con

This is a response to Brian's opinion on "Should the US boycott Israel?":http://www.debate.org...

His opinion in full: "Israel continues to flout international law on a wholesale basis, and its illegal occupation of Palestine and its oppression of Arabs in Israel has been widely condemned by the United Nations and numerous human rights organisations. In addition, Israel is possesses nuclear weapons but refuses to sign up to the Treaty on Nuclear Non Proliferation or allow independent inspection of her nuclear facilities.

By politically, militarily and financially supporting the Israeli regime the US has made many enemies in the Arab world and has lost the respect of other developed nations in Europe and Asia. America must join the international community in condemning Israeli aggression and the persecution of Arabs, and boycott Israel just as the US boycotts other rogue nations."

Since the US (barring an official trade embargo) couldn't actually force every one of its citizens to boycott Israel, the resolution I will be arguing against would be that the US should break all federal military, diplomatic, and economic ties with Israel. If Brian disagrees with this definition, he is welcome to provide his own (or clarify that he thinks an actual trade embargo should be put in place against Israel).

Rules:

(1) Pro can either make an argument or simply accept for the first round. If he doesn't, then my first argument will respond to the claims made in his opinion.

(2) The debate should be structured in a readable, coherent fashion.

(3) No trolling or lawyering.

(4) The BOP is shared. Pro must show that there are compelling reasons
for the United States to break relations with Israel, and Con must show that there are stronger reasons why the United States should remain close with Israel.



I wish my opponent good luck and await his acceptance.
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Eitan_Zohar for proposing this debate and ask him to duly post his opening arguments in accordance with the terms of his challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Eitan_Zohar

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting and will deconstruct his statements.

"Israel continues to flout international law on a wholesale basis, and its illegal occupation of Palestine and its oppression of Arabs in Israel has been widely condemned by the United Nations and numerous human rights organisations."

1. Mere defiance of international law is no basis for isolating a country. Even assuming that international law is a valid standard of judging and limiting states (which I do not grant), only severe and inherent systems of oppression have historically merited extreme measures. An example would be South Africa's apartheid system of wage-slavery and political repression created in order to maintain the superiority and power of South Africa's white population.

2. Occupation in itself is not illegal under international law; belligerent occupation is recognized by the Hague Conventions: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I think that Pro here is referring to the illegal settlements, which are ostensibly not something worth breaking relations over.

3. I have never heard any serious argument that Arab citizens are actively oppressed by the state of Israel. Most Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country and recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state. Arabs have served in Parliament, on the supreme court, and one Arab muslim briefly served as President: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I invite Pro to provide evidence for his claim.

"Israel is possesses nuclear weapons but refuses to sign up to the Treaty on Nuclear Non Proliferation or allow independent inspection of her nuclear facilities."

India and Pakistan have not acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Does my opponent think that the US should break ties with them, too? The NNPT is voluntary and not legally required in international law: [http://www.iaea.org...]. Allowing inspectors into their nuclear sites would be an open admission of having nuclear capacity, which they have deliberately never confirmed as a matter of diplomatic policy, not a desire to use them aggressively.

"By politically, militarily and financially supporting the Israeli regime the US has made many enemies in the Arab world and has lost the respect of other developed nations in Europe and Asia. America must join the international community in condemning Israeli aggression and the persecution of Arabs, and boycott Israel just as the US boycotts other rogue nations."

It is not at all true that Israel is a pariah state. While France, Britain, and Spain have all low public support for Israel, they maintain their economic, military, and diplomatic ties. Israel also has excellent relations with Germany, Greece, India, China, and even Muslim countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Morocco, and the Gulf states. It is also not true that the United States loses support by aligning itself with Israel. The US, while recognizing Israel, did not become a real ally until the Six-Day War in 1967. During the failed Sinai invasion by Israel in 1956, the President Eisenhower pressured the Israelis into withdrawing, taking Egypt's side: [http://en.wikipedia.org...], yet the following year Egypt became a Soviet ally, despite an essentially anti-Israel position taken by the US government. In fact, it was the broad turn of the Arab world towards an anti-American position that caused the US-Israel alliance to form in the first place. Syria, Iraq, and other Arab countries were financed and supported by the Soviets through the Cold War: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. The claim that the Arab world is anti-American because of its support for Israel does not hold water- in reality, their attitudes shift according to the interests of the Arab regimes.

Israel is also an extremely useful ally to have in the Middle East. It actively resists Iran's quasi-empire (now extending to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories): [http://67.208.89.102/files/2008/02/19/20080227_IranianInfluenceReport.pdf], provides intelligence to and cooperates with the United States, and keeps Arab countries from developing nuclear weapons. In addition, it has working relations with Turkey, the strongest and stablest Muslim country, Azerbaijan, which is strategically located to block both Iran and Russia's sphere of influence while providing a platform for the US and Israel to operate out of, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia (despite the absence of formal ties) which cooperate with Israel against Iran. Pro must also show that these benefits are outwighed by the negative repercussions of support for Israel.

I am finished and await Pro's counterarguments.
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to respond to my opponent's arguments as follows:

!. Isolating a country for deliberately flouting international law is not just the morally right thing to do but it also helps shore up build international security which can be beneficial to a country's own self-interest. For example, Russia backs Iran, and China backs North Korea, both of which are widely recognised as rogue states and both of which pose nuclear threats to Western interests in their respective regions. However, the United States is in no position to pressure China and Russia while America gives political, military and financial succour to Israel because China and Russia can turn round and say that the US is in no position to lecture them on foreign policy while the US continues to back a country which violates international law and human rights on a wholesale basis.

2. The occupation of a foreign territory may not always be illegal but Israel's' occupation of Palestine certainly is. the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 reads as follows::

"November 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East;
Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security;

Emphasising further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter;

Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity,

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible." (1)

The building of Jewish settlements just a further international crime Israel is accuse of and which presents a serious impediment to peace in the region.

3. Arabs in Israel are not treated as the equals of Jews in Israel. For example, just like in apartheid South Africa, Arabs have to use separate buses (2) and some private facilities such as the Superland Amusement Park segregates Arabs and Jews. (3)

Thank you.

(1) http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...
(2) http://www.newstatesman.com...
(3) http://www.thenational.ae...
Debate Round No. 2
Eitan_Zohar

Con

I'm practically out of time, so I'll make it very quick.

"However, the United States is in no position to pressure China and Russia while America gives political, military and financial succour to Israel because China and Russia can turn round and say that the US is in no position to lecture them on foreign policy while the US continues to back a country which violates international law and human rights on a wholesale basis."

Israel, as I have established, is not a pariah state. Even Russia and China both have good relations with it. Furthermore, Russia's ties with Iran aren't going to be broken by mere diplomatic pressure, nor are China's ties with North Korea. Iran represents an easy way to pressure the US in the Middle East for Russia, and for China North Korea is an important buffer state beteen it and the Western allies in the region. Neither are going to abandon their support, barring severe sanctions. However, Russia has important economic ties to European and Central Asian countries, and as a critical energy producer they aren't likely to be boycotted. China is a massive producer of cheap goods and one of the biggest exporters in the world, so I doubt sanctions could be reasonably leveled at them, either.

"The building of Jewish settlements just a further international crime Israel is accuse of and which presents a serious impediment to peace in the region."

It matters very little if the UN declares the settlements to be illegal. If Israel's 280,000 settlers in the West Bank are to be condemned why not China's occupation of Tibet or the millions of Han Chinese settlers in it?: [http://www.webcitation.org...]

Merely because Israel violates the letter of the law is not grounds for breaking ties with it.


"Arabs in Israel are not treated as the equals of Jews in Israel. For example, just like in apartheid South Africa, Arabs have to use separate buses (2) and some private facilities such as the Superland Amusement Park segregates Arabs and Jews. (3)"

Note that these are buses for Palestinians in the West Bank, not for Arabs in Israel. The buses are for the safety of the Israelis, not some racist segregation policy, as Israeli Arab can ride them as well. The segregated buses in South Africa were the result of a purely racialist caste system and had nothing to do with safety. The link you give for 3 also claims that Arab and Jews attend segregated schools; this is untrue. Certain schools are designed for each religious group the same way Catholic or Jewish schools exist in the United States, and the Arabs are not discriminated against. I can refute the whole list of claims more thoroughly when I have more time.

Furthermore, the article declines to note whether the government actually carried out its threat and took action against the amusement park. Israel (as I have provided substantial evidence for and which Pro has ignored) has substantial support among its Arab population.

Finally, I'd like to note that Palestinian only buses and illegal discrimination at an amusement park is no grounds for breaking ties with Israel, unless my opponent believes that we should boycott every country in which ostensibly racist incidents occur.

I am out of time and must conclude my round. Note that every argument dropped by my opponent (which would be the vast majority of them) should be considered as concessions.

brian_eggleston

Pro

With thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate, I am also up against the clock and will, therefore, be equally brief.

Firstly, I am not suggesting sanctions should be imposed on either China or Russia. Certainly in the case of China, which ran a $273 billion trade surplus with the US in 2010, economic sanctions would do much more harm than good.

If trade between the two countries ceased, the cost of goods and services in the US, and therefore inflation, would spiral out of control. The US economy would likely collapse while China, which has a foreign exchange reserve large enough to "buy the whole of Italy, or all the sovereign debt of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain as of 2011, plus Google, Apple, IBM and Microsoft plus all the real estate in Manhattan and Washington DC, plus the world's fifty most valuable sports franchises" (1) could weather the storm and be in a stronger position than ever when the dust settled.

The point is, if the US really wants to be a force for good in the world, to defend human rights and to promote democratic principles around the world, she cannot do so with any credibility while still supporting Israel, a state that abuses human rights on a wholesale basis and denies the Palestinians their fundamental right to political self-determination.

Regarding race and segregation, Israel was the creation of the Zionist movement who dreamt of fulfilling their religious obligation to create a wholly Jewish State, completely free of Gentiles "non-Jews".

"The Mitzvah of Settling the Land: The mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel requires Am Yisrael to conquer Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: "And you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land, and dwell in it, for I have given you the Land to possess it (Bamidbar 33,53)". It also is written "For you shall pass over the Jordan River to go in and possess the Land which the Lord your G-d gives you, and you shall possess it, and dwell in it (Dvarim 11,31)."

"Pikuach Nefesh: The Talmud in the tractate of Eruvin (45,a) and the Shulchan Aruch (orach chaim 329,6) explain that giving away any part of the Land of Israel to the enemy, even a small concession, invites an even greater risk and danger to both Israel and the Jewish nation. "

"They Should not Dwell in Your Land: In addition to the mitzvah of settling the Land, the Torah further commands that "They shall not dwell in thy Land" (Shemot 23,33). The Rambam ruled (Hilchot Avoda Zara 10,6) that when the Land is under strong Jewish rule nobody should be allowed to dwell in Israel who is not a "Ger Toshav" (a non Jew that keeps the seven mitzvot of Noach)."

So we can see that Israel's goal is to go even further than that of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, which merely segregated races, and expel or exterminate all non-Jews in Israel and Palestine: which is an ironic policy given the history of the Jewish Diaspora in 20th Century Europe.

Thank you.

(1) Fenby, Tiger Head, Snake Tails, Chapter 1.
(2) http://www.yeshiva.org.il...
Debate Round No. 3
Eitan_Zohar

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has not even attempted to address my various refutations of his claims. He seems to have conceded on all accounts (and it will be a cheap tactic indeed if he merely waited until the final round to actively refute me). Aside from his bizarre monologue on China, my opponent's sole relevant argument in his previous round is as follows:

"The point is, if the US really wants to be a force for good in the world, to defend human rights and to promote democratic principles around the world, she cannot do so with any credibility while still supporting Israel, a state that abuses human rights on a wholesale basis and denies the Palestinians their fundamental right to political self-determination."

This is an utterly bare assertion. I pointed out that Israel had close diplomatic ties with most of the civilized world and wasn't a pariah state, and that the US's support for Israel by no means directly harmed relations with other countries. Pro has not even attempted to respond to this.

Pro then completely ignores my refutations of the apartheid claim, and begins quoting passages from (ancient and medieval) Jewish literature and theology in order to show what the "real goal" of the Zionists is.

"Israel was the creation of the Zionist movement who dreamt of fulfilling their religious obligation to create a wholly Jewish State, completely free of Gentiles "non-Jews."

This is completely false. The early Zionist movement was a overwhelmingly secular movement calling for the establishment of a state for the Jews in the region of Palestine, not a theocratic state free of goyim. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, explicitly called for a liberal, democratic, Jewish nation: [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...].

Other Zionists such as Einstein demanded full equality for Arabs and fought against the minority hard-right, rejecting any claims of Jewish supremacy. Israel was founded as a socialist country and, indeed, every one of its Prime Ministers before 1977 (including Ben-Gurion) belonged to the Israeli Labor Party: [http://en.wikipedia.org...].


In its Basic Laws (similar to a constitution), Israel defines itself not only as a Jewish state, but as a democratic one: [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

42% of modern Israelis consider themselves secular rather than religious: [http://www.haaretz.com...]. 58% of Israelis (keeping in mind that Israel is the most religious that it has ever been) support a two-state settlement despite the suicide bombings and attacks by the Palestinians: [http://www.jpost.com...].

Merely because certain religious factions espouse a religious state free of Arabs does not mean that every single Jew wants to, unless of course we subscribe to Pro's logic, in which believing in a certain ideology or religion also requires that you take that idea to absurd extremes. It's like suggesting that all Mongolians want to conquer the world because the founder of their nation (Genghis Khan) wanted to.


I invite Pro to provide even one poll or study showing that the majority of Jews want to cleanse the Holy Land of goyim.

I now conclude my arguments for the debate.
brian_eggleston

Pro

My opponent is at pains to paint a picture of Israel as a modern, liberal and progressive nation, and for most Jews and some Arabs, daily life in Israel might not be any more oppressive than it is for the citizens of civilised nations in the West. However, that is not true of those poor, unfortunate residents of the Occupied Territories.

Under international law "all peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" (1) yet these rights are not extended to non-Jews living in Gaza and the West Bank.

The Palestinians do not control their own land borders, ports, maritime area, or air space (in any case, the Israelis destroyed their only airport). Indeed, Israel even blocks humanitarian aid to Palestine

Palestinians pay income and corporation tax, but not to the Palestinian Authority, it goes direct Israel (and they often keep this money as a 'collective punishment' for attacks on the Israel military launched by Palestinian militants). The International Labour Organisation annual report of the situation called for the lifting of restrictions on movement, employment and economic activity, in order to increase opportunities for decent work. (2)

Palestinians are not permitted to travel outside Palestine without the express permission of Israel and they do not even have the freedom of movement within Palestine. Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2102 report (3) stated that "Israel maintained onerous restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank, especially in Area C, which is under exclusive Israeli control. It maintained more than 520 checkpoints and other closure obstacles as of July."

Palestinians continue to be the victim of Israeli land grabs with the ongoing construction of the Apartheid Wall: 85% of the barrier"s barrier's route falls within the West Bank, placing many Palestinian settlements on the 'Israeli' side of the wall. The barrier has also led separated many Palestinian farmers from their land. In addition, illegal Jewish settlements continue to be expanded on Palestinian land in the West Bank. Furthermore, as of November 2012, Israeli authorities had demolished 467 Palestinian homes. Settlers also continued to take over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, based in part on laws that recognize Jewish ownership claims there from before 1948 but bar Palestinian ownership claims from that period in West Jerusalem.

The HRW 2102 report also stated that "Israeli forces regularly shot at Gaza residents up to 1.5 kilometers from the armistice line between Gaza and Israel, creating a no-go zone that comprises 35 percent of Gaza's agricultural land, according to the UN."

Palestinians do not have the same protection of the law that Jews have. The HRW report further observed "The Israeli government generally took no action against Israeli settlers who destroyed or damaged mosques, homes, olive trees, cars, and other Palestinian property, or physically assaulted Palestinians. In January a settler shot and killed a 15-year-old boy near the Palestinian village of Safa; in September a settler killed an 8-year-old Palestinian boy in a hit-and-run incident near Hebron. As of October 31 the UN reported 377 attacks by settlers that damaged Palestinian property, including almost 10,000 olive trees, and injured 167 Palestinians."

These abuses bear all the hallmarks of a pariah state.

So even though Jews in Israel and in the illegal settlements in the West Bank are treated with decency and respect, the inhumane subjugation of Palestinians means that Israel must be deemed to be a rogue state and treated as such by the United States of America.

Thank you

(1) http://www.unpo.org...
(2) http://www.ilo.org...
(3) http://www.hrw.org...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Sorry Brian, for some reason I'm just getting your response now :/ Reason I asked was because I hadn't actually read the debate lol so I wasn't sure if it was a vote bomb or not.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
Hi Tulle.

That's kind of you, I will leave it to you to decide though.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Brian, should I counter Wrich(sp)'s vote as per Eitan's request?
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
9: Pro"s final argument is not a continuation of earlier points, thus it serves as a conduct violation. Introducing wholly new arguments in the last round is not acceptable. Regardless, Pro simply puts additional paint on his portrait of Israel " that it violates international law, and should therefore be isolated. Con already responded.

Final verdict " Both debaters made some interesting points, but Pro did not meet his burden. Instead of simply DESCRIBING what parts of the international law Israel has violated, he should have explained why they make it useful to cut ties with Israel. He failed to respond adequately to Con"s point that Israel benefits the US " and Pro shot himself in the foot when he argued against sanctions on China and Russia on the grounds that they benefit the US/World economy.

Con should have gone in-depth and given a cost-benefit analysis of US relations with Israel. If he did this even without responding to most of what Pro said, that would suffice. Since there was no framework to keep the arguments within, Con would have won the pragmatism argument.

I haven"t gone through all sources, but the one"s I"ve been through have been sufficient on both sides. Spelling and grammar were decent on both sides. Con wins the debate by properly explaining why there are good reasons for the US to have strong ties to Israel. Good debate overall, and good to see Con having improved a lot over the time.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
7: Pro says that sanctions should not be imposed on China or Russia because the US would be harmed by that. However, Con already touched upon this by explaining how important Israel is for the US diplomatically and for military/intelligence operations, as well as keeping hostile states like Iran under check. Pro backfires at himself by suggesting that countries which benefit the US should not be sanctioned " that"s exactly what Israel is.

8: Pro says that the purpose of Israel IS to separate people, because the land is for the Jews " he cites various sources for this. Con says the early Zionist movement was secular. Nonetheless, if something has an immoral origin, that does not make its existence morally wrong. Con further challenges Pro to provide evidence that Israel should be cleansed of non-Jews. Pro doesn"t respond.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
-- with Israel, and thus does not see merit in US/Israel relations being shattered.

From what I read, Con makes the point that even if we have a justified reason to sanction Russia and China because we isolate Israel, it doesn"t mean any sanctions will be beneficial due to certain regions being economically dependent on one another. Con successfully refutes Pro on this point.

5: Pro says Israel is accused of breach of international law by building settlements in the West Bank. Con responds by asking why we shouldn"t condemn China"s occupation of Tibet too. This is entirely IRRELEVANT because not taking action against every country that violates international law does NOT mean we shouldn"t therefore take action against any other one, in this case Israel. Con doesn"t make a sufficient response, but leads nonetheless due to his earlier refutation of the point that Israel should be isolated for violating IL.

6: Pro makes an important point " Arabs are not treated as equals, and argues that this is proven by the introduction of separate bus lines for Jews and Arabs, or some other services. Con says this is for safety purposes, and applies for the West Bank only. Even then, other Israeli Arabs can make use of Israeli buses in the WB. Further, Con says the state itself doesn"t necessarily endorse some separate private facilities. Lastly, Con holds on to his point that some discrimination does not mean the state should be isolated.
Posted by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Detailed RFD --

1: Pro argues that Israel"s violations of international law and occupation of Palestine justifies political isolation of the state. Con puts this argument to the ground by explaining that violation of international law alone is NOT a sufficient reason for isolating a country. Con goes on to argue that occupation is not illegal under international law " but that simply leads us to questioning whether or not the occupation is justified from a moral point of view. Nonetheless, Pro hasn"t argued from a moral standpoint.

2: Pro says Israel refuses inspection of its nuclear facilities, and possesses the weapons " Personally I find this argument to be annoying, because Israel had every good reason to get nuclear weapons when being surrounded by numerous hostile countries, AND being near the Soviet Union. Regardless " Con responds to this by saying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is voluntary and NOT a legal requirement under IL.

3: Pro claims the US support of Israel worsens its reputation and diplomatic relations with European and Arab states. Con responds by citing some historical shifts in the US-Israel/Arab relations " however, this is not a sufficient response for the situation of today. Con could"ve argued that the Muslim world have plenty of other, stronger reasons for cutting ties with the US, such as due to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. None of the debaters made sufficient arguments here.

4: Pro says isolating a state for violating international law is morally right and helps build up international security (e.g., by making China break ties with North Korea). He doesn"t back up his claim. Why would China back off their support for North Korea just because the US breaks ties with Israel, a state that has POSITIVE relations with China? China keeps NK as a rogue state to deter further American influence in the region, and to keep SK/Japan in check. Con mentions this, and makes use of the argument that China has good relations with Isr
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@Eitan: "I challenged your RFD because it was absurd and unbelievably offensive."

LOL, I am curious as to how you think I was "offensive" in my RFD. If your point is about me "ignoring" your arguments, I can put your mind at ease that I did not ignore them. I cannot mention every word you type in a debate, I can only mention what struck me as important. If you're "unbelievably offended" that I found most of what you wrote to not be noteworthy, well, you're free to feel that way, although I will mention that most of what I quoted in this debate was your arguments. Regardless, whether or not you were offended won't change my opinion as to how this debate went - I would only be convinced if you could materially bring out lines from the debate that disprove my observations in my RFD. I strongly suggest you do this in an objective manner...citing Brian's argument or my RFD as "tl;dr" shows that the only one ignoring arguments is YOU, not me.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
You asked me, very clearly, to show you what was wrong with your vote. I can take a screenshot of the PM.

I challenged your RFD because it was absurd and unbelievably offensive. I am done with this conversation. Any response from you will not be rewarded with a reaction.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Hmmm...and DanT's arguments vote is a vote-bomb as he does not elaborate how or why PRO met BOP. Since DanT sought to CVB what in my mind is a completely legitimate point, I will also CVB his arguments vote.

LOL, this is why I consider scoring to be absurd.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Fanboy 3 years ago
Fanboy
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB @ wrichcirw arguments vote because DanT explains the reason for his argument vote.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not adequately respond to con's arguments. For example, Pro needed to explain why International Law has the moral authority to require the US to allow all the Jews in Israel to be killed, which is the objective taught to Palestinian school children daily. Con argued adequately point-by-point, but did not stress the consequences of an American policy change. Pro framed the issue in terms of relative trivia, and Con let him get away with it. Still, Pro admitted that his theory of international law trumping American interests did not extend to China or India when anything as important as money is involved. Pro admitted boycotts should be judged by "more harm than good" as the standard, and Con clearly showed that with respect to Israel, a boycott would do more harm than good: Israel is a US ally, is one of the few examples of democracy in the Middle East, and offers far more human rights protection than a Palestinian alternative.
Vote Placed by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: None of the debaters established a framework -- anything said can be taken without any value. Nonetheless - the debate hangs around whether or not violation of international law justified isolating a country. Con adequately explains why it doesn't, and Pro refrains from giving sufficient arguments for his case that violation of IL does justify isolation or sanctions. Both debaters dance around the resolution by arguing for the purpose of Israel, whether separation of the ethnicity exists, and so forth. Again - if they had established a framework, they could've made more useful arguments. Con wins by arguing from a pragmatic point of view -- a: Violating IL does NOT mean a country should be isolated, and b: The US benefits from good ties with Israel. Either side could have won by making a cost-benefit analysis of US relations with Israel. Spelling and grammar were sufficient on both sides. Pro loses conduct for arguments in last round. Both sides had reliable sources.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment, excellent debate. Arguments to PRO to CVB DanT's unjustified arguments vote.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters spent too much time talking around each other and addressing extraneous claims they both made. The debate sort of turned into a whole "Israel bad, Israel good" point counter point but that isn't the resolution which is if the US should break *all* ties with Israel. In terms of the resolution cons case was clearly superior and his impacts vastly more sound. I think he definitely should have pulled together his case in R4 and explained exactly what was meant to be argued in the debate and why he won that, but regardless cons realpolitik impacts like deterring Iran outweigh the US wanting to cut all relations with Israel because Israel is supposedly bad. The US backs bad regimes all the time, pro needs some very compelling arguments to change the status quo but he just doesn't offer them. I think a better argument can be made that US support for Israel causes backlash but Pro didnt make this argument very well.
Vote Placed by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
Eitan_Zoharbrian_egglestonTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con relied too heavily on wiki, so sources go to Pro. I felt Con met the BOP for a continued US support of Israel, while Pro lacked the BOP to support breaking ties with Israel. I am also countering wrichcirw's conduct vote bomb. Votes should reflect the debate, not private conversations between the the voter and a debater.