The Instigator
ConservativesRule
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

U.S.A. should consider military action, if a nation attacks Isreal.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
ConservativesRule
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,128 times Debate No: 7512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

ConservativesRule

Pro

Ok, now this is my first debate but please do not go easy. I started the debate club at my school. Any way to begin...
Actually I'll let my opponent begin. Thanks in advance for joining.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate topic.

Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent to tell of the place or nation known as "Isreal". A search of Google Earth revealed no such place, I did however uncover a place known as Israel. However, I fail to see how such a place relates to the current debate topic. It's like the difference between P.R.O.C (Peoples republic of China) and R.O.C. (Republic of China). I conclude from this Israel does not exist, ergo, it is fictitious. In spite of this, I will put forward my argument:

==CON ARGUMENT #1: THE U.S. CANNOT GIVE MILITARY AID TO A FICTITIOUS PLACE==

The U.S. military, which live in the real, non fiction world. Isreal is a fictitious world. It would be impossible for the United States to give aid to a place which exists in a realm we do not live in. If Spiderman were set to die in the next issue of Spiderman, the u.S. army could not do anything about it.

This will be my case for now. I reserve the right to make new arguments. I would liek to thank the readers, voters and my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativesRule

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for responding, and second I must apologize. So far I'm not going to get any medals for the spelling and grammar portion. I did in fact mean the nation Israel and again I apologize.
Getting back to topic, this would be my argument:
1. If Israel (the only nation who we are currently chummy with in the middle east) is not backed up by a larger country, odds are it won't be able to support itself.
2. Even more nations will see an opportunity to attack Israel as they have done in the past, if we let them get away with such an attack.
3. If sometime in the near future, a middle eastern country, which odds are it will be hostile to Israel, obtains a nuclear device, it will only take one bomb with about 15 kilotons of force (about the amount that exploded above Hiroshima), to do irreparable harm to Israel. Also, if we let the country go Scot free with such an attack, than we are inviting disaster in the form of global reputation loss and attacks on our soil.
I-am-a-panda

Con

Firstly, I would like to remind my opponent he cannot change the subject from the fictitious land of Isreal to the nation Israel. There is a great difference, such as that of the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China(PROC). The difference, Like Isreal and Israel is just one letter, yet it is astronomical.

If my opponent were to contend that PROC was a democracy, the suddenly change the place to ROC, then it is is unjustifiable, because:
- PROC and ROC are completely different, like Isreal and Israel.

Because my opponent has not challenged my argument in regards to the true resolution, my argument still stands, thus I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativesRule

Pro

ConservativesRule forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

My points have not been addressed, therefore my argument still stands. I urge a CON vote and await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativesRule

Pro

I do believe the United States could aid the nation known as Isreal by simply renaming the nation known today as Israel.
(I apologize, I was really busy last week and didn't have enough time to post any sort of argument :( )
I-am-a-panda

Con

PRO claims:
>>I do believe the United States could aid the nation known as Isreal by simply renaming the nation known today as Israel.<<

However, the name Israel is historic and important for the Israelites. The name Israel descends form Israelites, the 12 tribes that descended from Jacob. The name is important for them in terms of identity. They would not willingly change their name from Israel to Isreal because someone misspelt their resolution.

I urge a CON vote. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
I would like to thank my opponent for...an unorthodox strategy. It was a good match. Thanks again! :)
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Oh snap, off by 3
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
On second thought, Pro's brief arguments in the second round are an adequate affirmative case. they were no refuted.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
It was never unclear for a second that Pro meant "Israel." Making a spelling error in the resolution is definitely bad form, but the meaning was clear. Pro never made an affirmative case, so cannot win the arguments. Con was posturing and by doing so just killed the topic. Con loses conduct.
Posted by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
I've been on sites where people follow their names with "Isreal." I've ask quite a few if they were Jewish, and, uh, it didn't turn out well.
Posted by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
Funny, funny, you are correct, I was referring to Israel.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
I assume that the instigator is referring to Israel, not a fictitious nation called Isreal (or should that be Isn't real)
Sorry for being such a pedant lol
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by JakeF 8 years ago
JakeF
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
ConservativesRuleI-am-a-pandaTied
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:43