The Instigator
samwilner
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrendanD19
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

isreal vs gaza conflict

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 3 votes the winner is...
BrendanD19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 364 times Debate No: 92890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

samwilner

Pro

I'll start short Hamas which is a terrorist organization launches rocket's at isreali civilians with that no will argue now if someone is killing your kids you would do anything to save them even if other people would die on the way because your kids go first that why Isreal retaliates when they do and they try there hardest not kill cillvilans but Hamas makes there civilians stay in dangerous neighborhoods so they can have propaganda attack on isreal even they it means there own kids will die now theses people are just monsters
BrendanD19

Con

The Pro states that Hamas launches rockets at "isreali" civilians. Let's begin by acknowledging the fact that, ironically, "isreal" is not real. IsRAEL, however, is a real place and we can only assume that is what the Pro meant.
That aside, the Pro contends that these rockets are being launched at Israel are "aimed at Israeli civilians", however, these rockets are not exactly aimed at Israeli civilians or the Israeli military for that matter. These rockets, the majority of which are homemade Qassam Rockets, which are unguided rockets propelled by a mixture of sugar and fertilizer. They are notoriously inaccurate and clumsy. Often they fail to detonate on impact, or even land inside the Gaza strip or explode on the launch pad. Rockets which land and detonate in Israel usually land in the desert, far from populated areas. This is not to defend the rocket attacks, but to simply state the facts.
The Pro then claims that these rocket attacks are killing Israeli children. However in a ten year period from June 2004 to July 2014, the number of civilians in Israel killed by Rockets fired from Gaza totaled 26, with only 4 of them being minors. Given that in the time period over 7,000 rockets were fired by Palestinian militants, plus more than 3,000 mortars, to say that Palestinian rocket fire posed a great risk to Israeli children would be a gross distortion of the facts.
This is the justification the Pro gives as to why Israel "retaliates the way they do." However, these regular attacks on Gaza are actually a strategy used by the Israeli government called "Mowing the Grass", with the intention of making it impossible for Palestinians to build up their infrastructure or economy and keep the administration in Gaza unable to operate with the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank.
The Pro then goes on to claim that the IDF makes efforts to avoid civilian casualties, however, this claim by the Pro falls flat, especially in light of testimonies by Israeli soldiers who have exposed that IDF officers told them that "there is no such thing as innocent civilians" and that "You are permitted to shoot at any person you see”. Such instructions completely contradict the claim by the Pro. And when the extremely high number of civilian casualties is considered, the claims of restraint by Israeli forces simply do not add up.
Because of this, the Pro claims that the reason for the high civilian casualties is because Hamas forces civilians to stay in dangerous neighborhoods for propaganda purposes. However, this is nothing more than a Demonization strategy with no basis in reality. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip do not have the option to leave when fighting breaks out, due to the blockade of Gaza by Israel and the sealed borders. Residents are left with nowhere else to go but other places inside the 140.9 Square mile Gaza Strip, which is being bombed (during military operations).
The claims by the pro simply do not align with the facts.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://fpif.org...
http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://www.alternet.org...
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il...
Debate Round No. 1
samwilner

Pro

samwilner forfeited this round.
BrendanD19

Con

Seeing as the Pro forfeited I shall extend my arguments and await his response.
Debate Round No. 2
samwilner

Pro

samwilner forfeited this round.
BrendanD19

Con

Seeing as the pro has forfeited yet another round he is therefore ineligible to win. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
samwilnerBrendanD19Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
samwilnerBrendanD19Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Hillary4Prez 1 year ago
Hillary4Prez
samwilnerBrendanD19Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con posted all three rounds. Spelling and Grammar: Pro had several spelling/punctuation errors (Isreal, rocket's, no periods or end punctuation used, etc.) Arguments: Con responded to each of Pro's arguments, whereas Pro did not reciprocate. Sources: Pro used several reliable sources, while Con did not cite any sources.