The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Topic inside.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,278 times Debate No: 5138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

gahbage

Pro

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work:

Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one.

Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate.

Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
Sweatingjojo

Con

1. The United States should implement a military draft. (Pro or Con)

2. Jerusalem should not be under exclusive control of Israel. (Pro)

3. US should use party-based elections for legislatures, instead of location based, as it is now. (Pro)
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I'll take resolution 2. So I am CON for "Jerusalem should not be under exclusive control of Israel."
Sweatingjojo

Con

I affirm the resolution, which reads that Jerusalem should not be under the exclusive control of Israel.

Now onto definitions.

Should: Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
under: Subject to the authority, rule, or control of: under a dictatorship.
exclusive: Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.
Control:To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.

All definitions brought to us by the wonderful folks at the American Heritage Dictionary.

Some Quick Facts: Jerusalem is currently the capital city of the State of Israel, which is a country that is in the geographic area known as Palestine. The city of Jerusalem has significant and fundamental holy meaning to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The city has been under the control of Jews, Persians, Muslims, Christians, Turks, Britons, the United Nations, and now is under the authority of the recognized sovereign state of Israel. Israel claims that they ought to have total control over the land, because 'God promised it to them.' The problem is that Arabs have been living there for the past 500 years, and Jerusalem is home to such places as the Dome of the Rock, where Mohammed 'ascended to heaven'. Also, it should be noted that in East Jerusalem, the population is 65% Arab, and yet it is under the power of Jews.

I do not believe that the city of Israel should be exclusively under the control of the state of Israel. I believe that a solution that involves multiple parties should be implemented because it would result in peace being kept more effectively, and would promote fundamental fairness. Peace will be better maintained because there will be less dis-satisfaction among the currently disenfranchised people in Jerusalem. (Palestinian Arabs) This dissatisfaction has frequently turned into violence against the Israeli people, which has led to retaliatory attacks from the Israeli government. There will be a greater sense of fundamental fairness because the people of East Jerusalem will have a governing body that no longer exclusively dislikes the people of east Jerusalem, either in the form of an independent Palestinian state, or an international governing body. It would promote fundemental fairness, because under the current situation, only the Jews are granted authority over the land, because it is supposedly 'the promised land', however, Arabs should not be denied basic political and human rights as they currently are in East Jerusalem.

The United Nations, while not the be all and end all of everything, agrees that the situation as it currently stands is unfair, and a solution needs to be achieved that gives power to the Arab Palestinians over areas where they are the dominant ethic group, namely East Jerusalem. Also, every major peace agreement of recent has stressed the need for a two-state solution, where East Jerusalem would be under the power of the Palestinian Authority.

My policy is simple, give East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority, who would ensure that religious freedom is maintained for the sparse few Christians and Jews who live in East Jerusalem. Of course, their rights would also be maintained, but what would happen is that the Palestinians would now have a majority voice to ensure that they can govern themselves as they see fit.

I'd like to say sorry for making this argument kinda sparse, I'm tired and yeah.

Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

I accept the definitions my opponent has provided. I will make my case by attacking the points my opponent has provided, sometimes turning them into my own contentions. For this reason I feel I need no separate contentions; only a rebuttal is necessary.

"Jerusalem is currently the capital city of the State of Israel, which is a country that is in the geographic area known as Palestine . . . Israel claims that they ought to have total control over the land, because 'God promised it to them.'"

I'd like to point out that since Jerusalem is a city in Israel, it is subject to the "law of the land" set by the Israeli government. So Israel should have exclusive control of Jerusalem, because, well, they own it. Their claim is correct (albeit not because "God promised it to them") - they ought to have total control over the land. After all, if Washington, D.C. had milestones from different religions, should we split it with those countries? Of course not. It's OUR capital city. The same goes for Jerusalem.

"The problem is that Arabs have been living there for the past 500 years . . . "

But they don't control the land now. Native Americans were living in North America before the colonists came. Should we hand over control of the U.S. to them?

The religion problem can also be solved, because Israel could simply allow people to go there and practice their religion. You do not need to hand over control to someone else to let them exercise their faith there.

"I believe that a solution that involves multiple parties should be implemented because it would result in peace being kept more effectively, and would promote fundamental fairness . . . "

Having Israel give up exclusive control of Jerusalem does not make this problem any better or worse. All Israel has to do is let people from other religions worship there. They do not have to hand over any amount of control.

" . . . gives power to the Arab Palestinians over areas where they are the dominant ethic group, namely East Jerusalem."

So just because an ethnicity is dominant, they should have control over something? What if the U.S. was overrun by Mexicans? Should we let them control part of our capital city, just because there are more Mexicans than whites?

"My policy is simple, give East Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority, who would ensure that religious freedom is maintained for the sparse few Christians and Jews who live in East Jerusalem."

I have a better idea; why not just make Israel provide religious freedom? No "fight for control" would be necessary, just an implementation of basic rights to freedom of religion.

I rest my case.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Right into rebutting:

"
I'd like to point out that since Jerusalem is a city in Israel, it is subject to the "law of the land" set by the Israeli government. So Israel should have exclusive control of Jerusalem, because, well, they own it."

Exactly! They unjustly rule over people who they should not have power over.

"After all, if Washington, D.C. had milestones from different religions, should we split it with those countries? Of course not. It's OUR capital city. The same goes for Jerusalem."

Yeah, unfortunately, the land had been lived on for thousands of years by millions of Palestinians. It'd be like if the US walked into London and said "Mine." The land of East Jerusalem is full of Palestinians, who controlled their land for hundreds of hundreds of years, before ISRAEL INVADED AND TOOK IT.

"But they don't control the land now. Native Americans were living in North America before the colonists came. Should we hand over control of the U.S. to them?"

No, we shouldn't secede the country, but we have given them major tracts of land where they have total political control. The same should happen in Jerusalem, where the Palestinians should be given land to govern themselves.

"The religion problem can also be solved, because Israel could simply allow people to go there and practice their religion. You do not need to hand over control to someone else to let them exercise their faith there."

I never mentioned religious freedom... I've been talking about political freedom the whole time....

"Having Israel give up exclusive control of Jerusalem does not make this problem any better or worse. All Israel has to do is let people from other religions worship there. They do not have to hand over any amount of control."

See above. Although giving up control of Eastern Jerusalem would give Palestinians political control over the land in which they live, which is just and will result in less bloodshed on both sides.

"So just because an ethnicity is dominant, they should have control over something? What if the U.S. was overrun by Mexicans? Should we let them control part of our capital city, just because there are more Mexicans than whites?"

1st. The United States is a melting pot country, so that doesn't make sense. Israel, not so much.
2nd. Whats funny is that the converse happened in Israel. The Palestinians have been living there for hundreds of years, governing themselves, and then the state of Israel is created, having the Jews take over completely. THIS ISN'T FAIR. There needs to be a balance created, so that the Palestinians can still govern themselves, and so can the state of Israel.

Going back to your native American situation, what I am proposing is similar to the current resolution of our affairs with native Americans, where we give them vast amounts of land for them to live, and to govern themselves. Same as what would happen with the Palestinians, give them land, let them govern themselves (within the bounds of not being unjust towards other ethnic groups.)

"I have a better idea; why not just make Israel provide religious freedom? No "fight for control" would be necessary, just an implementation of basic rights to freedom of religion."

See previous statement.

Not talking about religious freedom, I'm talking about the rights of Palestinians to govern themselves in a manner that is fair to them, which can be achieved in part by having Jerusalem not being under the exclusive control of Israel.

Can't wait for your reply.
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

Alright so apparently I had no idea what I was talking about and got completely owned. However I will make an effort to refute my opponent's arguments.

"Yeah, unfortunately, the land had been lived on for thousands of years by millions of Palestinians. It'd be like if the US walked into London and said "Mine." The land of East Jerusalem is full of Palestinians, who controlled their land for hundreds of hundreds of years, before ISRAEL INVADED AND TOOK IT."

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

From what I can read, Israel annexed it and then had to fight to keep it.

"The same should happen in Jerusalem, where the Palestinians should be given land to govern themselves."

Right in the middle of a city/Jerusalem? Hm...

"I never mentioned religious freedom... I've been talking about political freedom the whole time...."

Here's a reference to religious issues:
"Israel claims that they ought to have total control over the land, because 'God promised it to them.' The problem is that Arabs have been living there for the past 500 years, and Jerusalem is home to such places as the Dome of the Rock, where Mohammed 'ascended to heaven'."

"Although giving up control of Eastern Jerusalem would give Palestinians political control over the land in which they live, which is just and will result in less bloodshed on both sides."

Despite if more Palestinians live there, if the land is owned by Israel it should be theirs.

"1st. The United States is a melting pot country, so that doesn't make sense. Israel, not so much.
2nd. Whats funny is that the converse happened in Israel. The Palestinians have been living there for hundreds of years, governing themselves, and then the state of Israel is created, having the Jews take over completely. THIS ISN'T FAIR. There needs to be a balance created, so that the Palestinians can still govern themselves, and so can the state of Israel."

1. Bad example... Let's pretend it wasn't. Should Mexicans control it because there are more of them?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... It says here that England owned it, but pretty much gave control of it to Israel. It also says that Israel was denied access to parts of Jerusalem despite the contract made by Jordan (which was only recognized by Pakistan).
Sweatingjojo

Con

"From what I can read, Israel annexed it and then had to fight to keep it."

This, my friends, is completely false. While I accept the reliability of Wikipedia for the purposes of this debate, my opponent obviously does not know what happened with the changing of governing forces with regards to East Jerusalem (where I want my policy to be implemented.)

Further reading of the article on Jerusalem would lead to one finding out that, "During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured East Jerusalem and asserted sovereignty over the entire city."
This fact of information is significant because it shows that East Jerusalem was, before June 10th, 1967, not under the control of Israel, but of Jordan, which was a popularly sovereign government. My opponent considers 'annexing' to be the same thing as 'invading and winning', which is hogwash, and has been recognized as such by organizations such as the United Nations. (UN Security Council Resolution 478)

"Right in the middle of a city/Jerusalem? Hm..."

Jerusalem is a city that is easily divided into two parts, a partition existed before from 1948-1967.

"Here's a reference to religious issues:"
Uhm, false, that's just proof that both Jews and Arabs have valid claims to the land. Neither side is restricting eachother's rights in that regard.

"Despite if more Palestinians live there, if the land is owned by Israel it should be theirs."

BUT ISRAEL STOLE IT FROM THE PALESTINIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"1. Bad example... Let's pretend it wasn't. Should Mexicans control it because there are more of them?"

What if Mexicans lived there first, and in greater quantities than other ethnic groups?

"http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... It says here that England owned it, but pretty much gave control of it to Israel. It also says that Israel was denied access to parts of Jerusalem despite the contract made by Jordan (which was only recognized by Pakistan)."

England owned East Jerusalem for 31 years. Arabs owned East Jerusalem for the 400 years before that. Arabs owned it again from 1948-1967, but then Israel invaded and is still to this day, occupying east Jerusalem.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

Hm... it seems I have not done my research >.<

I forfeit, vote CON.
Sweatingjojo

Con

A good try, no doubt, for Pro. I would be much inclined to try again at a later date.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
If you want to debate again then sure. Just not on this subject >.>
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Dude. I need to stop debating after midnight and start doing some research.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Owned.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Round 3, FIGHT!

25 chara
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
OM NOM NOM NOM. I win the debate already.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
TOPIC INSIDE~!!!
Batteries not included.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Charity 8 years ago
Charity
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
gahbageSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07