Is being right possible in a conflict where both parties have equal reasons to kill eachother?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Theunkown
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 8/10/2014 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 792 times | Debate No: | 60263 | ||
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)
 Pro  Con Pro provided no format so I shall go straight into my arguments (with some defenitions). Defenitions [1]Right: morally or socially correct or acceptable [2]Equal:the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality My job in negating the resolution is to prove that it is impossible for either party of a conflict to be right when both sides have equal reasons to kill each other. Killing is not right. It never is. However, sometimes, when given a choice between killing and something else, killing can be a lesser evil but that does not necessarily make killing 'right' so to speak. Pro's only argument is that: the state of Israel should use any means to make their citizens safe. Israel's citizens are living in heaven compared to Gaza. Hamas uses home made rockets while Israel's military is funded by what is considered a superpower, the United States. Israel uses technology that Hamas cannot hope to match. Israel is safe. In recent stages of the conflict only 50 Israelis (almost exclusively soldiers) were killed. Israel has its so called Iron dome defence system, which shoot out the few Gazan rockets that 'threaten' Israel, thus keeping the civilians safe. It should also be noted that Hamas's rockets are extremely inaccurate, hence the so few casualties on the Israeli side. This is all I can provide for now and it is frankly far better than Pro's round 1 but I assume he is saving arguments for the later rounds. I hand the debate back to Pro. Sources: [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...; [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...; |
 |
|
Pro Con That the scale of the massacre of Palestinians is of International concern rather than its cause is my concern The sentence is very hard to comprehend but from what I understand, Pro is saying that the cause of the massacre (of Gazans) should be more concerning to the international community than the massacre itself. This changing moral compass about the effects of war is a mistake. Why is it a mistake? The resolution combined with Pro's arguments thus far implies that both parties in this conflict (Hamas/Gaza and Israel) have equal reasons to kill each other. When both Israel and Hamas have equal reasons to kill each other, but Israel commits more atrocities then obviously Israel has the lower moral ground. But this does not mean that Hamas is a peace loving group. Both sides are on a very low moral ground and should stop fighitng. Pro has not even argued for the resolution - Is being right possible in a conflict where both parties have equal reasons to kill eachother? |
 |
|
Pro Both sides of the war in Gazza have equal but opposing views. They are both right. I expect when they tire of the killing they might have a bit of a ceasefire. Its all you can hope for , a lull in the slaughter. Con My point is that being right may be not needed in a military conflict. But we are arguing is being right is possible. Whether it is needed or not we are talking about its possiblity as stated in the resolution. Perhaps my opponent wants to change the resolution? Its a bit late dont you think? So let us not waste anymore time. Pro, please state exactly and clearly what you are arguing for in Round 4 and provide an argument for it. I really have lost touch with what is being debated. |
 |
|
Pro Good Guys v Bad Guys only exist in John Wayne Cow Boy films . Taking a moral ground in a conflict implies that there is one and it is the same as yesterdays. Both dubious assumptions. "It is in our national Interests to Intervene" is an unusual statement in its honesty by the USA spokespeople. The carnage caused by IS will horrify us but probably wont make much difference to how we respond. Being right is not top of the agenda. Con Thanks to Pro for clarifying his arguments. When he said being right in the resolution, he means whether one party can have the moral high ground. Since my opponent is Pro, he should argue that yes, a party can have the high ground despite the fact that both parties have equal justifications for the war. But Pro is arguing for the Con side saying that Taking a [high] moral ground in a conflict implies that there is one and it is the same as yesterdays his arguments seem like Being right is not top of the agenda and that one side is not on a moral high ground. This is what I am supposed to be arguing for as Con. I am supposed to say both sides are on an equal moral ground due to the fact that they have equal reasons to kill each other, as dictated by the resolution. Note to Pro - For next time, clarify exactly what you are arguing for and take the right stance (Pro or Con) for the resolution. It would be pointless debating this further, since we argue for the same side. |
 |
|
Pro angryduck forfeited this round.
|
 |
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Report this Comment
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
| angryduck | Theunkown | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: I almost didn't award arguments because Pro was nearly impossible to understand, but that was his fault for lacking a coherent argument, so the points go to con. Conduct of course for the forfeit. Spelling for such gems as "Cow Boy."
