Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Israel Debate

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

Or:

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

If you wish to debate on either of those formally, comment here, if you wish to debate these topics on this thread, you may do that also.

I take the Pro position for both.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:15:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

Or:

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

If you wish to debate on either of those formally, comment here, if you wish to debate these topics on this thread, you may do that also.

I take the Pro position for both.

Resolved: Amerinazis support the Israelinazis and their apartheid regime.

Resolved: No fair debate is possible when it will be judged by amerinazis who support apartheid.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:24:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

"Ought" to is subjective. Based on commonly accepted cannons of morality, and modern international/humanitarian law, Israel has no right to exist as a state. However, that is in a vacuum.

Taking into account the current situation, actions of other countries, and what would be required to end Israel's sovereignty, then its clear Israel's existence is the lesser of two evils. In other words, you would cause more harm trying to end Israeli sovereignty, then any good that would come of it, and clearly, more harm would be done then was originally done during Israel's creation.

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

You need to be more specific here. There is at least one other nation in the world that has acted worse then Israel, making the con-position for this topic impossible to accept. A better way to phrase this would be to compare the actions of Israel vs the actions of Palestine, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I'm willing to engage you on these topics, though preferably on this forum-thread, as formal-debates take longer to work-out, and have much less interest/participation then forums do.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:24:58 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

"Ought" to is subjective. Based on commonly accepted cannons of morality, and modern international/humanitarian law, Israel has no right to exist as a state. However, that is in a vacuum.

Taking into account the current situation, actions of other countries, and what would be required to end Israel's sovereignty, then its clear Israel's existence is the lesser of two evils. In other words, you would cause more harm trying to end Israeli sovereignty, then any good that would come of it, and clearly, more harm would be done then was originally done during Israel's creation.

So you don't wish to debate this topic because you believe Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State? Ought is subjective, I intentionally used Ought for that reason to make it a more philosophical debate, rather than fact based, whereas the 2nd would be more fact based. This is more based on philosophy/logic, second is more a combination of evidence and logic/reasoning.

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

You need to be more specific here. There is at least one other nation in the world that has acted worse then Israel, making the con-position for this topic impossible to accept. A better way to phrase this would be to compare the actions of Israel vs the actions of Palestine, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

If you accepted this, I would strike 'other nations' from the resolution or make it more specific.

I'm willing to engage you on these topics, though preferably on this forum-thread, as formal-debates take longer to work-out, and have much less interest/participation then forums do.

I would prefer to discuss the topics casually here and have a formal debate for serious, engaged discussion. The reason I didn't reply to your last statement on the thread we were debating on was that a lot of your evidence that layed the foundation for your argument was biased and more reliable sources contradicted it. I didn't feel like it was my duty to verify the information on your sources, so I simply left the thread be, whereas in a formal debate I would be more compelled to do so. The other problem is that casual forum discussion sometimes unintentionally causes a diversion from the topic at hand to something irrelevant because we are not compelled to reply to other people's statements fluidly and fully, whereas in a formal debate you are compelled to do so.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:39:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:32:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:24:58 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

"Ought" to is subjective. Based on commonly accepted cannons of morality, and modern international/humanitarian law, Israel has no right to exist as a state. However, that is in a vacuum.

Taking into account the current situation, actions of other countries, and what would be required to end Israel's sovereignty, then its clear Israel's existence is the lesser of two evils. In other words, you would cause more harm trying to end Israeli sovereignty, then any good that would come of it, and clearly, more harm would be done then was originally done during Israel's creation.

So you don't wish to debate this topic because you believe Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State? Ought is subjective, I intentionally used Ought for that reason to make it a more philosophical debate, rather than fact based, whereas the 2nd would be more fact based. This is more based on philosophy/logic, second is more a combination of evidence and logic/reasoning.

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

You need to be more specific here. There is at least one other nation in the world that has acted worse then Israel, making the con-position for this topic impossible to accept. A better way to phrase this would be to compare the actions of Israel vs the actions of Palestine, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

If you accepted this, I would strike 'other nations' from the resolution or make it more specific.

I'm willing to engage you on these topics, though preferably on this forum-thread, as formal-debates take longer to work-out, and have much less interest/participation then forums do.

I would prefer to discuss the topics casually here and have a formal debate for serious, engaged discussion. The reason I didn't reply to your last statement on the thread we were debating on was that a lot of your evidence that layed the foundation for your argument was biased and more reliable sources contradicted it. I didn't feel like it was my duty to verify the information on your sources, so I simply left the thread be, whereas in a formal debate I would be more compelled to do so. The other problem is that casual forum discussion sometimes unintentionally causes a diversion from the topic at hand to something irrelevant because we are not compelled to reply to other people's statements fluidly and fully, whereas in a formal debate you are compelled to do so.

No, if you're going to try to defend apartheid then you need the whole audience to see and hear you doing it. You can try to justify it but you can't deny it.

the debate: Can apartheid be justified? I take the decent position which of course is the con.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:40:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:39:37 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:32:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:24:58 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

"Ought" to is subjective. Based on commonly accepted cannons of morality, and modern international/humanitarian law, Israel has no right to exist as a state. However, that is in a vacuum.

Taking into account the current situation, actions of other countries, and what would be required to end Israel's sovereignty, then its clear Israel's existence is the lesser of two evils. In other words, you would cause more harm trying to end Israeli sovereignty, then any good that would come of it, and clearly, more harm would be done then was originally done during Israel's creation.

So you don't wish to debate this topic because you believe Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State? Ought is subjective, I intentionally used Ought for that reason to make it a more philosophical debate, rather than fact based, whereas the 2nd would be more fact based. This is more based on philosophy/logic, second is more a combination of evidence and logic/reasoning.

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

You need to be more specific here. There is at least one other nation in the world that has acted worse then Israel, making the con-position for this topic impossible to accept. A better way to phrase this would be to compare the actions of Israel vs the actions of Palestine, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

If you accepted this, I would strike 'other nations' from the resolution or make it more specific.

I'm willing to engage you on these topics, though preferably on this forum-thread, as formal-debates take longer to work-out, and have much less interest/participation then forums do.

I would prefer to discuss the topics casually here and have a formal debate for serious, engaged discussion. The reason I didn't reply to your last statement on the thread we were debating on was that a lot of your evidence that layed the foundation for your argument was biased and more reliable sources contradicted it. I didn't feel like it was my duty to verify the information on your sources, so I simply left the thread be, whereas in a formal debate I would be more compelled to do so. The other problem is that casual forum discussion sometimes unintentionally causes a diversion from the topic at hand to something irrelevant because we are not compelled to reply to other people's statements fluidly and fully, whereas in a formal debate you are compelled to do so.

No, if you're going to try to defend apartheid then you need the whole audience to see and hear you doing it. You can try to justify it but you can't deny it.

the debate: Can apartheid be justified? I take the decent position which of course is the con.

Will this be a formal debate or on the forums?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:40:18 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:39:37 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:32:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:24:58 AM, HPWKA wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:37:37 AM, Objectivity wrote:
Resolved: Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State

"Ought" to is subjective. Based on commonly accepted cannons of morality, and modern international/humanitarian law, Israel has no right to exist as a state. However, that is in a vacuum.

Taking into account the current situation, actions of other countries, and what would be required to end Israel's sovereignty, then its clear Israel's existence is the lesser of two evils. In other words, you would cause more harm trying to end Israeli sovereignty, then any good that would come of it, and clearly, more harm would be done then was originally done during Israel's creation.

So you don't wish to debate this topic because you believe Israel Ought to Exist as a Sovereign State? Ought is subjective, I intentionally used Ought for that reason to make it a more philosophical debate, rather than fact based, whereas the 2nd would be more fact based. This is more based on philosophy/logic, second is more a combination of evidence and logic/reasoning.

Resolved: Israel's Actions are no Less Justifiable than it's Enemies or other Nations

You need to be more specific here. There is at least one other nation in the world that has acted worse then Israel, making the con-position for this topic impossible to accept. A better way to phrase this would be to compare the actions of Israel vs the actions of Palestine, in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

If you accepted this, I would strike 'other nations' from the resolution or make it more specific.

I'm willing to engage you on these topics, though preferably on this forum-thread, as formal-debates take longer to work-out, and have much less interest/participation then forums do.

I would prefer to discuss the topics casually here and have a formal debate for serious, engaged discussion. The reason I didn't reply to your last statement on the thread we were debating on was that a lot of your evidence that layed the foundation for your argument was biased and more reliable sources contradicted it. I didn't feel like it was my duty to verify the information on your sources, so I simply left the thread be, whereas in a formal debate I would be more compelled to do so. The other problem is that casual forum discussion sometimes unintentionally causes a diversion from the topic at hand to something irrelevant because we are not compelled to reply to other people's statements fluidly and fully, whereas in a formal debate you are compelled to do so.

No, if you're going to try to defend apartheid then you need the whole audience to see and hear you doing it. You can try to justify it but you can't deny it.

the debate: Can apartheid be justified? I take the decent position which of course is the con.

Will this be a formal debate or on the forums?

It's on the forums. You are going to try to justify apartheid and so we'll need to define it first.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:42:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm embroiled in Finals week right now, so a formal debate would have to wait. I'm willing to discuss Israel's right to exist somewhat lightly on this forum, though.

For instance, just to make it interesting (since we both agree Israel should exist right now), I'll contend that in a "vacuum", Israel has no right to exist, based on generally accepted moral cannons, and modern international/humanitarian law. My outline would be as follows.

1.) A land should be subject to the will of the majority of peoples living there.

2.) Against the above "moral cannon", and against the Britain's own "legal" Mandate, the land of Palestine wasn't allowed to be ruled by its citizens. Instead, the colonial occupier Britain militarily held Palestine in "limbo", while facilitating the colonizing of the land by hundreds of thousands of Jews.

3.) By 1947 Britain had transferred control of Palestine to the UN, which essentially partitioned the land into two "countries". 55% of the land going to the Jewish-Israel, 45% going to the native Muslim/Christian Palestinians. Though the very idea of a partition runs counter to the above principles, and the UN's own laws, there is a second injustice committed Palestinians.

The part of Palestine that was to be granted to Israel was roughly 50:50 Palestinian to Jewish. Furthermore, the Jews only owned roughly 7% of the land. So, despite not being a majority in the land they colonized, and despite owning only a sliver of that land, they were established as the ruling body over that land, creating the state of Israel.

4.) So, on its face, the state of Israel as we know it has no "right" to exist. If the appropriate legal and moral instruments were followed during this event, there would be one state, Palestine.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:52:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:42:52 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I'm embroiled in Finals week right now, so a formal debate would have to wait. I'm willing to discuss Israel's right to exist somewhat lightly on this forum, though.

For instance, just to make it interesting (since we both agree Israel should exist right now), I'll contend that in a "vacuum", Israel has no right to exist, based on generally accepted moral cannons, and modern international/humanitarian law. My outline would be as follows.

1.) A land should be subject to the will of the majority of peoples living there.

2.) Against the above "moral cannon", and against the Britain's own "legal" Mandate, the land of Palestine wasn't allowed to be ruled by its citizens. Instead, the colonial occupier Britain militarily held Palestine in "limbo", while facilitating the colonizing of the land by hundreds of thousands of Jews.

3.) By 1947 Britain had transferred control of Palestine to the UN, which essentially partitioned the land into two "countries". 55% of the land going to the Jewish-Israel, 45% going to the native Muslim/Christian Palestinians. Though the very idea of a partition runs counter to the above principles, and the UN's own laws, there is a second injustice committed Palestinians.

The part of Palestine that was to be granted to Israel was roughly 50:50 Palestinian to Jewish. Furthermore, the Jews only owned roughly 7% of the land. So, despite not being a majority in the land they colonized, and despite owning only a sliver of that land, they were established as the ruling body over that land, creating the state of Israel.

4.) So, on its face, the state of Israel as we know it has no "right" to exist. If the appropriate legal and moral instruments were followed during this event, there would be one state, Palestine.

Well done! That should be the basis on which a debate could be framed. Your assertions are safe and beyond reproach.