Question: Is the Two-State Solution a Viable Option for Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

Communism presents a logical resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Indeed, you've presented a compelling argument) "Compelling two adversarial groups to coexist is unlikely to yield positive outcomes." Let's recall that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx outlines history as a class struggle, and class divisions have proven to be more profound than racial or ethnic distinctions, thus validating the assertion that "communism is a logical solution to the conflict." This is particularly pertinent as the Palestinians' primary aspiration is equality, which can be achieved through the creation of a proletariat class, essential for societal harmony. "Neither side desires equal land redistribution. The majority of Palestinians yearn for an independent state." This point allows me to challenge the two-state solution. Upon the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948 and Israel's declaration of independence, what transpired? The Palestinians and six Arab nations promptly launched attacks. In my earlier remarks, I highlighted that the two nations would perpetually clash, thus confirming the assertion about equal land distribution. This approach would also mitigate the wealth disparity that exacerbates tensions among the Palestinian population and enables Israeli dominance. "In theory, perhaps, but in practice, class divisions persist in every 'communist' country, making this highly improbable." I counter by stating that a genuine communist state has never existed, and adhering to our agreed definition, this solution would alleviate tensions, substantiating its rationality. The Palestinians' ultimate goal is independence. What evidence suggests that the only alternative to a "strong central government" is a weak confederation? Compelling both sides to merge would be detrimental, as the Palestinians prioritize independence. It seems my opponent overlooked this, but my objective was to critique every proposed resolution to highlight their flaws and irrationality, thereby demonstrating the rationality of communism in resolving conflicts. Regardless of the Palestinians' independence desires, the solution must be equitable for both parties, which is why genuine communism is a rational approach, applicable to numerous global issues. You contend that a single state solution cannot unify the two groups without coercion, yet under communism, Israel and Palestine would coalesce peacefully? Firstly, please refrain from trivializing magic around me, as I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. Indeed, as Marx posited, "history is a chronicle of class struggle," so under this perspective, amalgamating the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would resolve unity issues. This debate pertains to ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Excuse the

If you accept then state your arguments. I will respond in the next round. Note to voters: please base your votes on whichever argument you find more convincing, not on personal beliefs or nationality.

I will go over my case, then proceed to arguing my opponents. First my opponent says the incident at the weigh-ins between Chuck Liddel, and Wanderlei Silva was not a fight. I don't recall ever saying that was a fight though. That was merely an example of the dis-like the two already had for each. The purpose of me writing that, was to show that after the fight, all this ended, thus solving there situation of hate and dislike for each other, and istead transforming it into respect. By the way, this wasn't a seperate point from the fight. So saying the incident at the weigh-ins, is innacurate. This tied into the point I was making about how after the fight, these idividuals had no more loathing towards one another. Now my opponet says there is a vast difference between the words "something" and "anything". This argument is in-valid for the following reasons. 1. Whether the issue is classified as something, or anything, that still doesn't hit the action of how fighting actually SOLVES nothing, which is my opponents burden in this debate. 2. Something is referring to one individual thing. Anything is referring to to ALL things. So would "something" not go into "Anything" in this case? If "Anything" is just made up of a whole lot of "something's" then technically there is no difference at all. 3. "Anything" is talking about the problem. The word "Something" is talking about the problem. My opponent simply resorted to saying that 'something' is a more proper word to use than 'anything'. So if I say, "Fine, I agree, I should have used the word something in the resolution.", what has my opponent actually proven? By dis-proving one word and replacing it with another, you are not actually solving the resolution, but the word play of it. The resolution in itself has not been argued. Onto my war example. There is one thing my opponent has clearly missed from this argument. Have we not been in other wars before? Have all of them not ended? After all of these wars we have been in, are we still in hot air about them? The answer to all these questions is no. My opponent brings our current war as an example and talks about escalated tensions. Again, have we not been in wars before in which we had "Escalted tensions"? The point is that all these wars have ended, and truces have been made in all of them, resulting in peace. Those we do not feel comfortable with, we simply refuse to trade with. My two main points are that after a fights conclusion, respect is formed for one another, or the simply ignore each other. Both of these result in peace, which mean the said fight is "solved". My opponent seems to think the current war we are involved in will never cease and continue on for eternity. But what evidence would lead her to believe such a thing, I must ask? This was is small in comparison to, lets say the civil war. The Civil War is said to be the most bloody American wars. More Americans died in that war than any other american war. Yes there was strong tensions brought up from that war, but it eventually ended, and the confederates became part of the union. This is only one war example however. Find me one war, or fight for that matter, that has not been resolved after a physical bout has occured. Now on to the Lwerd/Mongeese example. I have not been significantly proven anything. Since my opponent uses Freud as an example, but goes on to explain absolutely nothing about his "Unconcious mind" theory. Basic knowledge of Sigmund Freud, would show that this has nothing of tangibility to do with this debate. "One key factor in the operation of the unconscious is "repression". Freud believed that many people "repress" painful memories deep into their unconscious mind. Although Freud later attempted to find patterns of repression among his patients in order to derive a general model of the mind, he also observed that repression varies among individual patients. Freud also argued that the act of repression did not take place within a person's consciousness. Thus, people are unaware of the fact that they have buried memories or traumatic experiences." http://en.wikipedia.org... I fail to see how any of this ties into how fighting solves anything. In fact I could actually use "The unconcious mind" to argue my side. And I will do so. This theory shows how people may have thoughts or feelings towards themselves and other, that may be negative, and they can be completely un-aware of them. When tensions before a fight arise, all these are brung forth, and enter into the concious mind. Now when the fight actually takes place, people tend to see more through the others eyes, by viewing their opponents physical difficulties and comparing them to their own. They find that they are not so different from the other after all, and when the fight concludes, they can see more eye to eye. This is not always the scenario as with theLwerd, and Mongeese situation. We all know that they personally are not fond of each other. But no matter what, when a fight ends, both parties gain respect towards one another. Does theLwerd like Mongeese? Does Mongeese like theLwerd? No. But while they dis-agree with each other, and don't hold the same values, I believe that both have gained a respect for each other. Not a respect for each others actions, but a more peaceful respect. They respect each other enough not to carry this issue til' the death, and they both know that they have different opinions. They understand this, and have accepted it, and moved on. This is the same with any other fight scenario. You could use the quote from ghandi here: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Seeing as my opponent has failed to hold up her claim to providing arguments of her own, I shall end this case. thankyou wonderwoman for the acceptance of this debate. -philosophical

Pro is attempting to alter the resolution. The resolution reads 'The Pope is not infallible', not 'the Pope is not incapable of being infallible'. Pro has to prove that the Pope is, at the very moment of observing the Pope and deducing this, not infallible. Unfortunately, by the time you do this, the Pope WAS infallible but no longer IS infallible. Next time, don't make such a one-sided resolution, Pro because sometimes it's not as one-sided in favor of your side as you think but rather the opposing one.

I'm glad we can see eye to eye about an honest discussion free from coercion and the decision to show us other cultures. My respect for you is immense. May the best man win! First though I must protest that Pro actually told a blatant lie to the audience, and this should be corrected. Islam DOES mean submission, we agree. However, he claims that it is derived from the word Salam meaning peace. This is NOT THE CASE. Islam is from the word 'al-silm' which literally means submission. If it were true that Islam also meant peace and security al-silm and al-salam would be the same word. This is not the case thus we can conclude through logic Islam only means submission. Furthermore, one Muslim scholar even says "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law. " - Ibrahim Sulaiman. So either Pro is lying or misguided, in either case it really does not matter as not all scholars agree that through SUBMISSION will peace come. Therefore in order for peace to ensue everyone must become a Muslim through force and indicates that it is NOT a religion of peace. . http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... Second I must again protest the claim that Muslims may be irresponsible but not Islam. This is a fallacy at best. Again, the Islamic world seeks to put Salam Rushdie to death (something I have noticed he has NOT refuted directly at all but instead plays linguistic games). The source above indicate that even the slightest indication of the prophet Muhammad may result in a militant response not only by the people of any Islamic country, but their leaders as well. He never refutes this. Also I ask of this: Name one country that is an Islamic state that has a higher quality of life than that of North America (whichever is the lesser) by that of a third party organization (i. e. Reporters without borders). North America isn't even number 1, yet no Islamic state will defeat them because Islam is not a nation of peace. They are riddled with crime, lack a middle class due to severe punishments, and on top of that are in a consistent state of war. Even the Shiite and Sunni Muslims persecute one another. I again ask you; what religion is peaceful that suppresses freedom of speech, and even persecutes their own members? Even worse in the article below done by a member of Islam, a man murdered his wife simply for denying him sex. The person showing the article even makes a mention that 'praise this pious person for upholding Islamic values'. So if Muslims cannot be held responsible for Islam, then Islam must be the problem, otherwise why would such an individual do such a thing? Why don't Buddhists kill then as well? . http://thechroniclesofislam.blogspot.ca... Third: This will further my point later in this debate. I shall not touch this for now. Fourth: still does not account for Rushdie. Even if it did you only further my point that Islam is a violent religion; as Rushdie fears for his life for creating a character in the Satanic Verses Controversy that was close to Muhammad. Therefore if a fatwa is a legal opinion binding on the scholar that looks terrible upon the religion as a whole. Under Islam here is the long list of apologies this kind sir would have to make before claiming they are a religion of peace: Discrimination against Women (female gender mutilations, Sharia law requiring the Burka, 'justified' domestic disputes) Discrimination against Shiites Bombings and death threats after the Norwegian Muhammad controversy (not even in Norway these people were blowing up their own homes in the Middle East out of anger! ) Discrimination against the Jews and Children due to Muhammad marrying a 9 year old (in which she would lead several campaigns after Muhammad died to spread Islam . .. again making it not peaceful! ) Again I ask: what is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? What would happen to me in the Middle East if we were to have this debate? And why does the Qu'ran justify slapping a woman when a man even fears -just a little suspicion by her tone of voice for example- her 'highhandedness' according to the Qu'ran? How many campaigns had Muhammad led? I turn it over to Pro

Notwithstanding necessity and hypocrisy and an overburdening of U. S. Politics with Judaism. The State of Israel was recognised only by those with a vested interest in recognising Israel. And one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And who is Pro, To decide which is which? And the worship of the Billion Dollar God exceeds all rationality.

========== Contention 1: Given my opponents definition his argument still fails ========== "Inconceivable- not conceivable; unimaginable; unthinkable unbelievable; incredible. " - mongoose (from his source) . http://dictionary.reference.com... By focusing on only one or two words in this definition you are guilty of observation selection. You picked one aspect of your definition that was convenient for your argument and ignored the others. ----> "Clearly, my opponent's argument isn't feasible. "- mongoose Feasibility- The state of being feasible or possible. . http://en.wiktionary.org... My situation is completely possible. It doesn't violate the laws of physics and it would certainly be possible as long as there are at least 110 people on the planet. Since there are at least 6 billion people on the planet I win this point. And since my opponent didn't define conceivable in his second round I will define it below. Conceivable - within the realm of possibility. ----> "The idea of a supernatural force forbidding me from doing anything besides torture the man or nothing seems quite impossible, especially because it forbids me from breathing, sitting, or standing. " My argument doesn't assume that you are utterly helpless by a supernatural force either explicitly or implicitly. This entire point is nothing more than a straw man argument. [1] I will appeal to the fairness of the audience. Nowhere in my first round did I mention the intervention of supernatural forces or any logically compulsory form of behavior. By refusing to comply with a demand to torture you would still be able to breathe. Don't be silly. There are only too choices logically possible. You can torture the individual or you can choose not too. Doing nothing is only one part of the larger option of not torturing the man. And I have already established the consequences of this choice. ======== Conclusion ======== Clearly there is at least one situation conceivable when torture can be justified. (Resolution affirmed) Good luck :) [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Responses to refutationsBanningBanning Nuclear weapons has never been done before but the world is moving towards it now. Four of the NPT nuclear weapons states are decreasing the number of nuclear warheads that they have and only China's stockpile is still increasing. They have already signed Partial bans and Test bans and are now moving toward a complete ban. Therefore banning is a realistic solution that my opponent can't just dismiss as unrealistic.Imbalance of power & ResponsibiltyMy opponent says that there should be an imbalance of power because North Korea attacked South Korea, Iran may possibly attack Israel, and that Iran allegedly supplied the Taliban with weapons. First, I must explain that according to Con's source, it was suspected not proved. Secondly wars happen. The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain and France colonized many countries in Africa ans Asia and enslaved the populations there. It is not accurate for any nation to say that they are "the responsible powers" and that their enemies are irresponsible. "Responsibilty" is highly subjective. My opponent says that the U.S. has only used two nuclear weapons. I would like to point out that "only" two weapons caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians. The fact remains that no country has ever used nuclear weapons besides the USA. So, the USA can't really take credit and say "only two weapons were used" and "since then they have not been used again."My opponent says that the only reason poor "banana republics" (his words, not mine) did not use nuclear weapons is because the NPT prevents them from owning any. This does not negate the fact that they have Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is an open secret that Israel does too. Iran and Syria are suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons before [2]. None of these states used their nuclear weapons to kill innocent civilians so argument that "we are the responsible powers" is weak. Refutation of Con's defenseUS has shown restraint by not using Nuclear Weapons in North Korea and VietnamSame point as above.Abolition of treaty vs minor revisionsOne of the two options that I considered was "2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states" (emphasis added). So, equal restrictions means a fair treaty, that is what I am arguing for. My options include a provision for revision. The whole point of the NPT was to prevent non Nuclear Weapons states from making them. So, allowing India and Brazil to join would be a pretty major revision, not a minor one as my opponent says. Nuclear Safeguards of other nationsMy opponent says that I conceded this point. I absolutely did not concede this point. Let me restate: Almost All countries have their own safeguards. My opponent attacked the word "almost" and said that it means I believe some states don't have nuclear safeguards. My opponents is actually saying that an actual sovereign country with a government may not have nuclear safeguards to protect their nuclear weapons. This is impossible as whoever manufactures nuclear weapons will want to protect them. My opponent's assertion that states could just manufacture something as powerful as nuclear weapons and not safeguard them is unfounded.Sources[1] http://www.rerf.or.jp...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Violence can be solved with violence. Case in point, if every country launched every nuclear device there would be no more violence forevermore. Thanks for the debate.

The very nature of political oppression means that any non-violent means of the oppressed gaining the upper hand over the oppressor has been shut down. Thus, the only two options left for the oppressed are to physically overthrow the oppressor (which insinuates violence) or to accept the oppression and make peace with the oppressor. The question is if, on balance, violence is a just response to political oppression and I am yet to see a reason why it wouldn't be.

Hi there, I'm back. Thanks for the fast response. Before I respond to your arguments, I will show you another possibility of what is possible. A terrorist attack. There have been about 200 documented cases of a person buying material for a nuclear weapon from the black market. Now, just think of how many purchases have REALLY happened. How much material do you need for a nuclear blast the size of Hiroshima? Either a coconut filled with plutonium or 6 Coca-Cola cans filled with uranium. So, it would be very easy to smuggle the material to Israel. Who would suspect a six-pack of Coke as a weapon of mass destruction? Now, all they need is the know-how of making a real bomb. They can find the instructions anywhere. (http://www.amazon.com...) Or they can just Google. Of course, it goes without saying that the book is better, since it is written by a nuclear scientist with 20 years of experience. When done, they detonate it and... Touchï¿½. [quote]If by some chance my opponent was referring to some other 'expert' opinion then please provide this evidence.[/quote] Okay. Here you go. "The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route." "A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [quote]However the video does little to back up Con's claims, it merely confirms that Russia's relationship is a peaceful business arrangement and also brings up the interesting fact of America's aggression to Iran being connected with oil. Even the biased and right-wing CNN are careful not to make unsubstantiated claims of the kind made by my opponent, preferring to just make sinister implications.[/quote] If a country who has the know-how of making a nuclear weapon makes a close alliance with a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons... I'm sure the outcome will be delighting. [quote]I refer to my original point that the inclusion of the word 'regime' transforms this statement from a threat of force to a political prediction.[/quote] Israel is a peaceful country, as long as you leave it alone. Why did Israel attack Gaza? Because missiles were fired upon them. [quote]Not if he held any hope of a second term. While I am willing to believe that the current US president is a more highly principled man than the last few who have held his job, like all politicians his primary motivation will be to keep himself in power.[/quote] He does not want to start a new world war or a nuclear war. [quote]1) All the allegations of Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons come from US sources looking for any excuse to target Iran.[/quote] ...And IAEA. [quote]'The Bush administration last week clearly marked out Iran as a prime target for US aggression.[/quote] Yes, but as we can see, US has a new president. [quote]And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?[/quote] As I pointed out, Bush has been voted out of office. [quote]the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U.S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U.S.-occupied Iraq[/quote] This matters no longer, since America has a deeply vowed pacifist as their president. [quote]2) Iran would never nuke Israel as long as it (Iran) remains an Islamic state because the state of Israel contains many sites holy to Muslims such as Hebron, the Dome of The Rock and of course Jerusalem ,which is counted along with Mecca and Medina as one of Islam's three holiest cities.[/quote] You know, they can just leave those sites untouched and attack the major cities and army bases. Also, since Muslims do their pilgrimage once a year, it means they have 364 days not to kill any one who is taking the pilgrimage. [quote]1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons. 2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel. 3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia. 4. That Iran has publically stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel. 5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel. 6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.[/quote] 1. IAEA, USA, EU, UN... 2. Why wouldn't they? They hate, I mean HATE Jews and want to get Israel off the face of the earth. 3. Look at the video I posted the last round. 4. Well, okay. "Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives." A direct threat. 5. He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever. 6. CNN and other sources claim 3, 1 is kind of obvious ;) 2 is claimed by the Iranian president, 4 is claimed by the Iranian president, 5 is claimed by Barack Obama, 6 is claimed by the sources I just mentioned.


Question: Is a Two-State Resolution Deemed a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

Resolved: A Two-State Solution is Not an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Thank you for the opportunity to present my arguments. I will outline three main points to support my stance:

C1: Historical Land Rights and Displacement
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, often referred to as the "Catastrophe" by Palestinians, led to a significant shift in land ownership, with Israel acquiring much more territory than allocated under the partition plan. Initially, 85% of arable land in Palestine belonged to Arabs, but by 1949, only 6% was under Arab control (Source: itisapartheid.org). The narrative that Palestinians voluntarily left their properties has been debunked by historical consensus, revealing a systematic expulsion. Currently, there are around 6 million Palestinian refugees, a stark reminder of the displacement caused by the conflict.

C2: Systematic Apartheid Practices
According to the UN's International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973), apartheid involves establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group over another, accompanied by systematic oppression. Israel's policies towards Palestinians align with this definition, evident through military law, arbitrary arrest, and detention without trial for Palestinians, while Israeli settlers on Palestinian land enjoy civil law protections (Source: itisapartheid.org). Palestinians face collective punishment, including home demolitions, curfews, and closures, whereas Israeli settlers do not. Land confiscation, water resource control, and movement restrictions further illustrate the disparity.

C3: Benefits of an Independent Palestine to Israel
Supporting the resolution for Palestinian independence could bring significant benefits to Israel. By gaining international support through backing the Palestinian UN resolution, Israel might encourage Palestinians to resume negotiations, enhancing its global standing and diplomatic maneuverability in the region's turmoil (Source: foreignaffairs.com). This could lead to a safer Israel, as reducing tensions and recognizing Palestinian sovereignty might decrease terrorist activities targeting Israel.

In conclusion, granting Palestine complete independence would not only rectify historical injustices but also contribute to regional stability and security for Israel. The current two-state solution does not address the core issues of land rights, apartheid practices, and the need for a peaceful coexistence. Thank you.

Thanks, Envisage. =Framework= a) The resolution goes two possible ways. The first is the way of realism--we look at our world and try to apply the resolution to it. Under this interpretation, euthanizing raped women would have to be involve some kind of state mechanism identifying women who had been sexually violated and exterminating them. The second way is idealism, where we could assume some mystical pie in the sky mechanism that affirms the resolution. We should prefer the former interpretation for debates as it evens the playing field and allows for better policy analysis--if my opponent wants to claim an impact, he should be able to prove that it would actually happen. Since Pro did not specify which country is implementing this policy, we can assume that he wants it done in every country and we should analyze the impacts on a global scale. b) A shared burden of proof merely means that both parties are obligated to explain to the judges why a world on their side of the resolution is preferable as opposed to only one side having this obligation. To fulfill my burden, I only have to prove that my world better solves for values my opponent and I agree on. This is, after all, and LD debate according to Pro and as such I agree to his (implied) value of minimizing suffering and will prove throughout the debate why my position is superior in this regard. =Case= I. Gendered arguments Before anything else, reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on gender when there is no compelling reason to do so is discriminatory. Pro must prove not only why euthanizing rape victims is good, but why we should only implement this policy for people with a specific set of genitalia or identify with a certain set of traits we consider to be feminine. This debate is not an actual policy testing ground and as such the effects of the policy are not real, however the effect of language is real and immediate--the judge is obligated to act by their conscience to reject sexism and discrimination in all its forms, including debate resolutions. The resolution also offers no explanation for what action we should take when dealing with individuals who are hermaphrodites, transgendered, or biologically male but identify as female and as such assumes a heteronormative framework, which harms sexual minorities. AsYep, Lovaas, and Elia explain[1]:"Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others." Thus a vote for Pro is a vote for sexism and heterosexism--since the policy impacts discussed in the round aren't real but the impacts of sexist and heterosexist language are, they have to be preferred as they affect the real world. We should reject discrimination by voting Con. Even if, at the end of the debate, you buy all of Pro’s arguments and don’t buy any of mine, you still vote Con until he shows a unique link between his impacts and the female gender because I can just turn them by suggesting we implement the policy except for all genders instead of just women. II. Realism Before getting to the nitty gritty analysis of why this resolution is an abomination, it’s worth noting that even if you buy everything Pro says you still have to vote Con because he isn’t going to access any impacts in the real world. The only possible way the state apparatus could know which women had been raped is via the justice system. What this means is that if we implemented a policy of summary executions for rape victims, we wouldn't actually minimize any suffering because as very few of these victims want to die, they will not report being raped. Not only does this destroy whatever arguments my opponent chooses to makes, but it shows how the resolution actually increases suffering because what will actually occur is handing rapists a blank check as they know their victims are incredibly unlikely to actually report their crimes. The streets will become unsafe for women as roving bands of monsters and vagrants seeking to ravage them reign free. The only way to check the widespread unreported rape epidemic that will occur is through vigilante justice as women and their families take revenge into their own hands the only way they can when the system fails them, but vigilante justice is inherently unstable and dangerous. Moreover when women do defend themselves and maim/kill their attackers, if there was any sexual contact of any kind (including mere touching) they will have to lie about their reasoning lest they be executed for the crime of being raped. Thousands of innocent women will be unjustly thrown into prison, eating away at budgets. I'm not allowed to directly engage Pros case in this round, but no matter what arguments he chooses to make this is a direct solvency takeout as nothing he argues will happen actually will. Instead we'll have a minor societal breakdown.III. Practical concernsIf we want to reduce suffering, murdering thousands of women is not the way to do it. Since after implementing the policy reports of sexual assault would abruptly stop, the only women executed would be those who have already reported their sexual assault. The statistics vary, but most research suggests that in the United States something around 20% of women experience rape in their lifetime[2]. In 2008 alone, over 160,000 women in the United States reported being victims of some kind of sexual assault (which falls under my opponents definition of rape) according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics[3]. Even if we're going to completely ignore their rights and judge based off a utilitarian calculation, these women do not exist in a vacuum--they are mothers and daughters, sisters and aunts, friends and doctors and lawyers and taxpayers. The negative effects of exterminating somewhere around 1/5th of the female population would outweigh by hundreds of orders magnitude whatever benefit it garners as their loved ones suffer emotional and financial loss and their economic production is completely ended. Moreover a worldwide demographic crisis would occur with much fewer women than men, leading to far less children being produced and no one to pay into the welfare state system, causing it to collapse. It's a dubious prospect at best to believe that the world economy, already on the brink, could survive a sudden and enormous population drop. The shock alone as virtually everyone in the world loses someone close to them would be enough to drive us over the edge.Moreover, implementing this policy would literally destroy the state. Large amounts of lives would be unjustly taken--rebellion and civil war in virtually every country would swiftly follow leading to millions if not billions of deaths as governments of various levels of authoritarianism crack down on their protesting populations. No matter what, governmental legitimacy and the idea of the rule of law will be forever destroyed as even the most well developed governments commit a veritable holocaust. IV. MoralityEven knowing full well that my opponent is not being serious in this debate, the entire idea makes me uncomfortable because by debating a policy that robs these women of their lives without their input we are inherently treating them not as human beings but rather as objects to subject to policy analysis, and that just isn't right. We shouldn't trivialize the suffering these victims go through by making them a means to the end of the greater good and they at least deserve a compelling defense of their rights as individuals.Indeed, my opponent has quite the mountain to climb to prove that these victims have so few rights as people that we can debate the merit of murdering them with the same cool headed, cost benefit analysis as a corporate meeting. Unfortunately for Pro, we aren't businesspeople discussing Oatmeal packaging, we're dealing with real people and their lives here and so the kind of analysis Pro wants this debate to be judged on simply isn't persuasive in this context. Like the user dirkson pointed out in the comments, in this round I'm essentially limited to "Mostly a longwinded way of saying, "Hey. Don't kill people."" It's Pros burden to prove incorrect the fundamental moral axiom of murdering people being wrong, not my burden to prove it correct. Although it's worth noting that any moral system which values human well being but doesn't value life itself is incoherent because at the end of the day there's no point in minimizing suffering if we don't care about the individuals who's suffering we're minimizing. Pro may attempt to circumvent my argument by exploiting the suffering of these individuals and saying that this outweighs the utility they get from life, but this analysis will fall flat because if these women wanted to die, they could commit suicide. There's no reason to *murder* them just because we arrogantly believe we know better than they do if their lives are worth it or not. Shame on my opponent for thinking this way.The resolution is, quite frankly, disgusting and completely negated. Vote Con. Sources:1. Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45 pp. 182. https://www.ncjrs.gov...3. http://www.bjs.gov...

The purpose of debate is for both Pro and Con to have a thorough, evenly-balanced discussion on the resolution. Pro crafted this resolution specifically so that he would be the only possible winner. thereby making it impossible to have an "evenly-balanced discussion". He's *abusing* the medium of debate to score a free win -- ignore all of Pro's bullsh!t attempts at justifying these cheap tactics, and punish him with a loss so that he won't engage in such antics in the future. That aside, let's get back to the semantics game.My opponent's main criticism is that I ignored the following line:"Since the topic is already resolved I will not be taking ANY debate challengers."Again, this is incoherent. He IS the "debate challenger" -- he's the one who instigated the debate, and left the debate as an open challenge in the challenge period. It makes no sense for him to refuse to "take any debate challengers" when he's the only debate challenger for this debate... we can safely ignore this nonsensical statement. Additionally, if the topic was truly "resolved" already, then there would be no need to start a debate over it. Therefore, simply the fact that he instigated this debate is evidence that the topic is NOT "resolved." Pro's statement is incoherent on every level!Pro attempts to edit his "agree concede the debate" statement to make it coherent, but it's too late for that. The rules were set in stone as soon as he posted his opening round. The *only* part of his round that makes any sense at all is the last sentence, where he explicitly states that he will concede the debate. Clearly, he has not followed up on his promise. Hold him accountable to this rule violation and vote CON!Thank you.

The resolution states that 10 year olds should be allowed to stay at home alone by default. Let's assume pro's sister enjoys the following:- She is responsible enough and willing to stay at home alone.- Her neighborhood is devoid of considerable danger, e.g., drug transactions or pedophilia.- Her house is childproof. However, not every 10 year old enjoys or exhibits the aforentioned. Many are irresponsible or are in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Ergo, not every 10 year old should be alone at home.

Con copied an article that does not oppose the resolution, and has since forfeited without making arguments. My arguments stand unrefuted. Con shows bad conduct by plagiarism, forfeits, and violating the experience requirement for accepting the debate. The resolution is affirmed.

My man sets the stage, for this battle we wage, with the typical narrative tale, My people fleeing, your people being, good luck, we will see who will prevail. Either narrative extreme, is just a false dream, no truth from one or the others, Neither the emply land, nor the welcoming hand, as though we were welcome like brothers. Yes it was preffered, to the outright deterred, but it was far from anything sufficient, Take what you allow, to survive and just bow, anyone wants something a bit less deficient. Let me be clear, for any confusion I fear, you are correct about the nature of then, But you can't expect, with all due respect, for us just to worry about the inevitable when. Europe has significant guilt, but it is not uniquely built, for opression knows no nation, It should be apparent, as it never is errant, to seek out and find ones salvation. Again I realize, since it's needless to theorize, this factual notion of how it once was, But it wasn't all great, and let's keep that straight, but does it matter? Yes it does. Freedom of self-determination, of non-discrimination, should be everyones dream, Free to improve ones station, to build a new foundation, however unlikely it may seem. The world is flawed, often built on silent lies and overt fraud, but it is where we are, Controlled by the corrupt, truth tranished as abrupt, so can salvation really be going too far? Not where we belong? Don't get me wrong, but this is how you presented this for viewing, I know it's not nice, but the world just rolls the dice, and we know when it is worth pursuing. A world divided by whoever inevitably will, fight against it and still, this is how this will be, Everyone given their piece, but only I should cease, since I'm just unlucky enough to be me? You can take your ideals, your uniquely oppressive appeals, apply them to everyone remaining, Because I am not fooled, to being the last one who is ruled, while you insist that I keep abstaining. Poor choices are made, by countries who have certainly betrayed, but I am not the one you envision, An opportunity for safety, still not built then too hasty, how could I possibly regret my decision? No longer a victim, by this simple dictum, declared by a world of guilt that finally understands, Yes there are those lost, but this is no unique cost, unless you lement your perpetuated demands. Obfuscate to perpetuate, complicate just to propagate, the status quo will just remain, Don't hesitate to decimate, relegate to segregate, If that is your agenda to maintain. Elevate hate just to detonate, celebrate why you devestate, should I be conceding? Dedicate to renovate, educate and regulate, because it wont be succeeding. An established country stolen and taken, that is just as mistaken, as any narrative lie, My people just rolling through, like it's the thing to do, and lies lacking an explanation for why. I don't mean to strawman the story, I'm not in this for the glory, just to set the record straight, Coexistance is no illusion, unless you maintain your delusion, but know that it's already too late. Yes I agree, for we can all see, the simple falsehood of that basic and wrong explanation, It's oversimple you are right, it ignores two sides of the plight, in the building of a nation, But that can't ever absolve, or give any answer to solve, what is the past, present, and future of we, No it wasn't void of people here, that much is clear, but neither is it yours, from the river to the sea.

here are four main reasons why we should cut aid going to Palestine. Reason 1: Palestine Is In A Unity Government With Hamas SOURCE: Clifford D. May, (president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. May holds master"s degrees from both Columbia University"s School of International Affairs and its School of Journalism. His undergraduate degree is from Sarah Lawrence College, and he hold a certificate in Russian language and literature from Leningrad State University, USSR.), July 2014, The Washington Times, (a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C., United States), "MAY: Salaries for terrorists" http://www.washingtontimes.com...... "Two months later, Hamas, the U.S."government"designated terrorist entity that rules Gaza, publicly ended its often lethal, seven"year feud with the PA, which rules the West Bank. The two entities announced a "government of national unity."" Impact: This means that when we give money to the Palestinian Authority- It is also going to Hamas. Reason 2: The Palestinian Authority Rewards Terrorists For Committing Acts of Terror SOURCE: Edwin Black, (the award"winning, New York Times bestselling international investigative author. Black began working as a professional journalist while still in high school, later attending university where he further developed the craft. In the late 1970s he was a founder of the investigative magazine, The Chicago Monthly.), November 2013, The Jewish Daily Forward, (a Jewish"American national newspaper published in New York City.), "American Tax Dollars Help Fund Hefty 'Salaries' for Jailed Palestinian Killers" http://forward.com...... A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532;A532; "Here"s how the system works. When a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror against the Israeli government or innocent civilians, such as a bombing or a murder, that convicted terrorist automatically receives a generous salary from the Palestinian Authority. The salary is specified by the Palestinian Law of the Prisoner and administered by the PA"s Ministry of Prisoner Affairs. A Palestinian watchdog group, the Prisoners Club, ensures the PA"s compliance with the law and pushes for payments as a prioritized expenditure. This means that even during frequent budget shortfalls and financial crisis, the PA pays the terrorists" salaries first and foremost " often before other fiscal obligations. The Law of the Prisoner narrowly delineates just who is entitled to receive an official salary. In a recent interview, Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser read aloud that definition: "A detainee is each and every person who is in an Occupation prison based on his or her participation in the resistance to Occupation." This means crimes against Israel or Israelis. Nasser was careful to explain, "It does not include common"law thieves and burglars. They are not included and are not part of the mandate of the Ministry." Impact: American Money is incentivizing and rewarding terrorism. Reason 3: Palestinian Authority Glorifies And Promotes Terrorism SOURCE: Palestinian Media Watch, (nongovernmental organization and media watchdog group. Founded in 1996 by Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch documents cases of incitement in Palestinian media.), Copyright 2014, "Violence and Terror" http://palwatch.org...... PA terror promotion takes many forms. Nationalistically, the PA actively elevates violence as a valid and heroic means to achieve political goals, while religiously, fighting and killing Jews has been presented repeatedly by PA religious and academic leaders as Allah"s will. On the social level, Palestinian leaders and society honor even the most loathsome of murderers portraying them as heroes and role models: Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in which 37 were killed, has schools, summer camps, and many other events and places baring her name to immortalize and glorify her and her terror attack. Reason 4: Palestinian Police Force Collaborates With Terrorists SOURCE: Steven Stotsky said in (is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. He has degrees from Yale University and the University of Massachusetts.), Summer 2008, Middle East Quarterly, "Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?" http://www.meforum.org...... "Not only did the security forces fail to prevent terrorist attacks, in many cases they colluded with terrorist groups and sometimes perpetrated attacks themselves. For example, on January 30, 2004, a Palestinian policeman belonging to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades boarded a crowded bus in Jerusalem and detonated a bomb strapped to his body, killing ten Israelis. The same article goes on to say that, Documents captured during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 detail security forces involvement in terrorist operations.[29] An Israeli document describing the interrogation of Fatah leader Nasser Aweis in 2002 revealed the links between Tanzim operatives and the PA national security apparatus and showed not only how Palestinian security officers instructed Tanzim operatives in bomb-making, but also how they regularly updated Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat.[30] Other documents detailed Palestinian Authority salary payments to terrorists in the employ of security service officials."

Responses to refutationsBanningBanning Nuclear weapons has never been done before but the world is moving towards it now. Four of the NPT nuclear weapons states are decreasing the number of nuclear warheads that they have and only China's stockpile is still increasing. They have already signed Partial bans and Test bans and are now moving toward a complete ban. Therefore banning is a realistic solution that my opponent can't just dismiss as unrealistic.Imbalance of power & ResponsibiltyMy opponent says that there should be an imbalance of power because North Korea attacked South Korea, Iran may possibly attack Israel, and that Iran allegedly supplied the Taliban with weapons. First, I must explain that according to Con's source, it was suspected not proved. Secondly wars happen. The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain and France colonized many countries in Africa ans Asia and enslaved the populations there. It is not accurate for any nation to say that they are "the responsible powers" and that their enemies are irresponsible. "Responsibilty" is highly subjective. My opponent says that the U.S. has only used two nuclear weapons. I would like to point out that "only" two weapons caused the death of between 150,000 to 246,000 civilians. The fact remains that no country has ever used nuclear weapons besides the USA. So, the USA can't really take credit and say "only two weapons were used" and "since then they have not been used again."My opponent says that the only reason poor "banana republics" (his words, not mine) did not use nuclear weapons is because the NPT prevents them from owning any. This does not negate the fact that they have Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is an open secret that Israel does too. Iran and Syria are suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa used to have nuclear weapons before [2]. None of these states used their nuclear weapons to kill innocent civilians so argument that "we are the responsible powers" is weak. Refutation of Con's defenseUS has shown restraint by not using Nuclear Weapons in North Korea and VietnamSame point as above.Abolition of treaty vs minor revisionsOne of the two options that I considered was "2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states" (emphasis added). So, equal restrictions means a fair treaty, that is what I am arguing for. My options include a provision for revision. The whole point of the NPT was to prevent non Nuclear Weapons states from making them. So, allowing India and Brazil to join would be a pretty major revision, not a minor one as my opponent says. Nuclear Safeguards of other nationsMy opponent says that I conceded this point. I absolutely did not concede this point. Let me restate: Almost All countries have their own safeguards. My opponent attacked the word "almost" and said that it means I believe some states don't have nuclear safeguards. My opponents is actually saying that an actual sovereign country with a government may not have nuclear safeguards to protect their nuclear weapons. This is impossible as whoever manufactures nuclear weapons will want to protect them. My opponent's assertion that states could just manufacture something as powerful as nuclear weapons and not safeguard them is unfounded.Sources[1] http://www.rerf.or.jp...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. that violence is not the answer, I negate the resolution, "Resolved: On balance, violence is a just response to political oppression. "Since the resolution says "violence is a justresponse to political oppression", if I prove that violence is unjust, I win this debate. Justice is defined as "giving each their due"If something is creating unneccassary suffering, then it is unjust. So if I prove that violence is creating unneccassary suffering then i also have proven that it is unjust, and I will win this debateViolent revolutions produce unneccassary suffering because there is always a non-violent alternative. Contention 1: Non-Violence often gives the revolution more power and popularity. A. ) The Orange revolution in Ukraine was handled in a non-violent manner. Soldiers, if faced with violent methods, would most definately shoot at their targets. However, due to the non-violence acts used, they were faced with a moral dillema. The soldiers were persuaded by the non-violent protesters, and they overthrew an illegitamtely elected leader. a) Violence however, would have simply escalated the problem, and would have brought upon more injuries and casualtiesContention 2: In recent history, a vast majority of successful rebellions have been non-violentA) Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall explain: "In 50 of 67 transitions from authoritirianisum in the past 35 years, according to a recent study by freedom house, it was not violent rebellion, but rather non-violent civic resistence that was a pivotal force"Contention 3: violent revolutionaries are outclassedA)Once again, Peter Acroman and Jack Duvall explain: "because of the nature of the stake, violent revolution is unlikely to succeed. In a contest of violence against violence, the superiority of the government has always been absolute people who choose guns and bombs as the way to rise up will find that the regimes they attack will have far more experience in such context. "a)This means that violent revolutions wil not be successful___________________________________________________________________________________________________________I'm not providing an alternative. I'm providing an alternative that doesn't have to harm people. If we have to choose violence or non-violence we must always choose the latter, because if we don't then we would be unnecesarily harming the rights of people. My opponent is trying to say that it is necessary to use violent revolution because it is the only response left, but that does not prove that it is justified. For example, we can agree that sometimes killing is neccessary, but we never say that killing is justified. In self defense (or in this case under oppression) it might be neccessary, but that doesn't mean it's justified. The conclusion then, is that killing is permissible [definition of permissible -Permitted; allowed]. For example, If someone were assaulted on the street they are commiting a permissible act when they try to hit their assaulter back, but that doesn't mean hitting people is justified. It means that it's permissible in certain situations. In the same way, violent revolution is permissible, so even if my opponent is winning every argument, he's not proving the burden of the reolution. He's proving that violence is permissible in certain situations, but not that it's justified. .Furthermore, if we know that violent revolution is going to produce harms, than know that its notjustified. Revolution is justified, but violent revolution is not. We can always use non-violence, so you always prefer the negative. **Good luck trying to win the debate. Because, I believe you have already lost!

I will argue that America should take a role in Israeli-Iranian negotiations, not necessarily a central role, but a role nonetheless. I will first address the Pro's arguments then introduce my own. I apologize for taking so long, my life has been pretty hectic lately. 1) Israel was artificially created, but when Israel was created Palestinians were perfectly fine with it, and for a short period of time the two got along splendidly. But the Zionist movement caused problems, along with claims over the holy city of Jerusalem, territory lines, and displacement of Palestinians. Then in 1947 numerous predominantly Arab countries began acting hostile towards Israel, and war broke out very quickly. Israel though kicked plenty of a** and soon began to occupy territory originally designated for Palestine and its inhabitants. Over time though Israel still controls these lands, displacing people, and wars broke out numerous times. Israel was established with backing from Palestine, it was only until a clusterf*ck of activities did such turmoil engulf both sides, and both sides did play a part in the current state of affairs today. So where does Iran come into play? see the next argument. http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... 2) Israels conception was a little controversial to begin with, and the actions of both Israel and surrounding countries has been nothing less than problematic, but how does Iran fit into this equation? Iran has recently emerged to become one of the biggest threats to destabilize relations in the Middle East right now. Threats to blockade the Straight of Hormuz and the possibility of ending Israel's nuclear monopoly over the region have caused a lot of worry for everyone over how much longer the temporary peace in the Middle East will last.... While its true that most people from the Middle East that hate us do so because of our support for Israel, Peace in the Middle East doesnt just affect the US or just Israel, it affects most of the world. Because the Middle East plays a large part in global economics regarding oil and natural gas exports, stuff that the world needs lots of, and at cheap prices too, peace in the Middle east is essential to allowing nations to have stable economies that are built partially off of foreign imports of such energy resources. The reason that the US plays such a large role in these issues is because 1) we are already in the region due to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and our alliance with Israel, and 2) The US has deep ties to Israel because for decades Israel was the window into the Middle East for information to the US. After 9/11 more attention was focused on the Middle East, and naturally the US only had one real ally in the region to support them, Israel. Recently though the US has been on friendlier ground with other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, nations the US gave protection to against Saddam back in the 1990's. The US has always been a part of issues in the Middle East, and that is still true to this day. American intervention into the Middle East has helped identify and wage war against terrorists, dictators, enemies, and others who were not just a threat to the US or Israel, but to the world or even their fellow countrymen. Iran though, Iran has hated us for a long time and they have had a good reason to. The Us has a very colorful history of giving chemical weapons to Iran to fight Iran in the 1990's war those two had, the US also had previously installed a puppet government in Iran that was overthrown in 1979. The US has also had its share of issues with Iran that ended badly, particularly a couple of coups, a hostage crises, embargoes, axis of evil thing, etc. Iran hates US for a long list of reasons, many of which are understandably justified. However the US still plays an active role in the Middle East, The US has always played a hand in trying to establish peace, and the US is currently the go to player for trying to keep the region in peace and not break out into possibly nuclear war. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... 3) Both sides are arguably wrong. Israel has ticked off its neighbors with some rocket attacks and settlements in areas they shouldnt be settling in here and there, Iran has its share of not abiding by UN protocols too. However just because both sides are wrong that doesnt mean we should turn our backs on both of them and pretend that whatever happens doesnt affect us because whatever happens WILL affect us, along with many other countries too. The factthat Iran may be going nuclear though and threaten up to 20% of the worlds oil supplies makes the Middle East a very important issue to be handled, and the US has had a larger and longer presence there than anyone else so it is unfortunately up to the US to handle such relations. I personally dont like it, and neither do many other people, but at this point for the sake of the world the US should continue to mediate between the two nations about to ignite a powder keg, because if we turn our backs on them they could go to war, and that would be and for all of us

Resolved: Pakistan is not a sovereign state.Definitions1) Pakistan is indeed the nation of Pakistan in South Asia2) legitimate: conforming to justified standards, rules or laws3) sovereign state: a nation or state that holds authority or jurisdiction over a territorial regionRules1) No semantics or trollng2) Drops are concessions3) No new evidence or arguments in the last round4) Forfeit(s) will result in a loss*Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 will start argumentation.


Question: Is a Two-State Resolution Deemed a Viable Answer to the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

The international community has a responsibility to support the establishment of a Palestinian state. In light of the recent military actions by Israel against Palestinian-Arabs, labeled "Operation Pillar of Defense," we must condemn violence targeted at civilian populations in both Israel and Palestine. The history of Israel/Palestine, beginning with the Balfour Declaration, led to the creation of Israel within Palestinian borders in 1948. The Zionists, however, went beyond the allotted territory and occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine before the end of the British Mandate. The Israelis embarked on a program of ethnic cleansing, forcing Palestinians out of their homes and off their land, creating six million refugees. Even after this, Israel launched a preemptive strike in 1967, leading to the Six-Day War, where they seized land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The UN position is clear: Israel's acquisition of territory by war and changes to the demographic characteristics of Jerusalem are illegal and invalid. The UN supports the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders. Despite this, the Israeli government continues to encourage settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the Arab citizens of Israel face discrimination in almost every aspect of their lives. The time to act is now, and the international community has a moral and legal duty to protect persecuted Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

Thanks Con. Your arguments are much appreciated and I'm pleased that this debate took such a unique and thought provoking turn.First, extend the contradiction in my opponents definition of the state. He tries to argue it away by pointing out that governments initially arose out of the consent of the governed, but it does not follow that their descendants are bound to the same agreement. You don't show agreement by complying when the result for not doing so is imprisonment or fines, enforced by a million man army. This is significant because my opponent bases his case around what the state ought to do, and yet the very definition he bases this on has a fatal flaw. UtilitarianismMy opponent completely drops my entire critique of utilitarianism, accusing me of committing an unnamed fallacy in which I take "extreme scenarios" of utilitarianism that he agrees are unfair. Count this as an implicit concession about the failings of Util. as a system of justice on it's own. Moreover, if you are convinced by this re-read my arguments against utilitarianism and you'll see that each example falls within what util. would allow (measuring moral worth as only what benefits the most amount of people). At this point, you have to vote Pro because my opponents position is based on a moral principle that he's failed to defend from my attacks. He makes no response to the point that there needs to be the backdrop of another principle (like the NAP) to evaluate what constitutes the maximization of human well being.He says that the merits of util. are irrelevant, but if the system of morality fails when applied, then obviously his position in the debate falls. Compare this to my case, where the non aggression principle is implied in round 2 and explicitly invoked in round 3. My opponent has made no argument against the NAP, and as such has conceded to it. It's a mountain to climb to negate the resolution now, as my opponent would need to somehow show that consensual relations between two individuals constitutes an act of aggression. He has not, and indeed cannot and his failure to address the NAP shows that dueling (along with all other consensual relations) is indeed a right and must be allowed. Consider the NAP an objective moral fact when weighing this round because he makes no response to it.Law I'll say here that I was mistaken about my opponents conception of law/rights but that it's entirely irrelevant. I honestly only brought it up because the worldview it seemed like he was espousing is one that irks me beyond all belief. Aretaic ethicsMy opponents position here makes no sense. He argues first that util. is the way to make value judgements, then that "there is no specific way to determine what is 'good'", and then that killing is obviously bad. So basically, dueling is bad because utilitarianism says its bad, except that there's no real right or wrong, except when there is. His position is self contradictory. Never in the entire debate does he really say why we need to value Aretaic "ethics" anyway. I say ethics in parenthesis because this too needs principled morality in order to apply value judgements--a principle he's failed to provide. My opponents argument can be summed up as follows: The state should promote moral behavior. Dueling is immoral. Dueling should be banned. First, his complete concession to my attacks on util. destroys this argument because his system for applying justice is, in his own words, "unfair". Secondly, there are other ways to discourage immoral behavior than banning it. Look to how banning drugs has failed. Third, he drops my argument about how he's advocating competing moral systems. He even admits that there is a contradiction between util. and Aretaic ethics, but feels it doesn't matter if it doesn't occur in this case, except since debate is by nature the presentation of competing world views, it matters significantly. If the worldview he presents is flawed than you cannot negate the resolution based on that worldview. He agrees that both capital punishment and self defense can be justified. This defeats his argument about how killing is always wrong, and moreover he refused to respond to the fact that duels aren't always to the death. Very very very few fights (a modern duel would most likely be an honorable and contractual fight) start out without the intent to kill, and indeed it is the lawlessness and lack of honor that ultimately leads to deaths in street fights. To be clear, this is a turn argument. If life is inherently valuable, letting people fight in situations where they're less likely to kill eachother is beneficial. Dueling bad 1. He didn't weigh his harms against my advantages. 2. His disadvantages need to be ignored because at this point in the debate, its been firmly established that dueling is a right under the NAP which he's dropped. Rights protection outweighs subjective advantages (note that I have held throughout the entire debate that dueling is societally good besides being a right). 3. He dropped the worst problem I saw with his argument, which was that he values human well being without providing any actual reason to value humans on their own. He says that life is to be inherently valued, but the worldview advocated only values humans as a means to an end. Parts of a whole. Collective cogs in societies machine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the valuation of life. Truly valuing humanity means placing rights above all, as the recognition of rights (the interpretation of moral situations) is what distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animals on earth. Sacrificing these rights for collective well being (a subjective term if there ever was one) is a complete affront to all that is objectively valuable in humanity. TURN: Not recognizing rights as more important than collective well being leads to moral perversion. Refer to his Nazi example for this one. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and anything can be justified as being for "the greater good" if enough people share your desires. I realize that my opponent was just trying to show how dueling is bad, but just listing a multitude of reasons without weighing them isn't a compelling case, especially given that util. has been (for the purposes of this debate) ruled insufficient. =Advantages=Remember that I win if I prove that dueling is a right, which I already have. However, in case you fallback to util. my advantages clearly outweigh. 1. ViolenceIn my last round, I gave many reasons and explanation as to how violence will be somewhat reduced. My opponent quotes this and then says simply that he disagrees, no meaningful rebuttal or anything. This drop equates to a concession. He also concedes that less private property will be destroyed. 2. HonorCompletely conceded. He simply says this is not a good enough reason to legalize dueling. Yet he concedes that gaining back our sense of honor would lead to less murder, rape, and property crime. It seems incredibly improbable that the negative effects of dueling can outweigh all this. Under a utilitarian framework, taking steps to regain honor is an inherent good. Therefore the resolution is affirmed under my moral framework, and his.3. Government My opponent argues that he's provided a purpose for the government. Not exactly. He advocated a state with a self contradicting definition enforcing moral codes that he hasn't backed up, who's failings he's conceded to. His only response is that many states prohibit people from driving without a seat belt, but this is no reason to vote con. Just as he implies that the law is good, I can imply it's bad by stating that I think it's a stupid regulation created solely to generate revenue. In conclusion, the NAP supports dueling and has been conceded to. Pure utilitarianism is flawed, but even accepting it, concessions in this round make dueling legalization look promising.

Premise I: Prescriptive and Descriptive Text.The text of a holy book are not all the same. There are two types, Prescriptive and Descriptive. The names give away their differences, with Prescriptive text being text Prescriptive to the reader, like a moral law, or important how-to information. Descriptive text being text that is used to describe something, like a war, the feelings of the characters, or what culture was like. It important to understand these different texts before making assumptions.Premise II: Definition of TerrorTerror: the use of terror to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons; terrorism. (1)Terror is not the same as going to war. Being asked to fight is not the same as being asked to commit terror. It is important to remember that the resolution references Terror as in Terrorism, as to not allow the goal posts to be moved through semantics.1) http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal I: Islamic Text.Pro has listed off numerous texts from the Quran, but if we look at the whole passage, we see the meaning behind the text change rapidly. Let's look at Pro's first text:- "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" Quran (2:191-193)This text has been quite literally cherry-picked. If we look just one verse back, we see this:"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." Quran (2:190)(2)In this passage, fighting is referencing self defense, likely on a national scale. This would be likely due to the Middle-East's vast religious diversity and the habit of Middle-East religions to war often back then. The passage says to fight, but not to "Transgress", or sin. Pro's arguments also includes poor translation of what the words used mean. Al-Fitnah does not mean Disbelief, it means to Try the Lord, or test him, and is used to reference a grave transgression against the lord (3). Pro had to both cherry-pick text and lied about the meaning of words to make the text look more violent.Pro's attempt at demonizing the meaning of the text is so grave that she got the entirety of the second passage wrong. The passage goes like this: "And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." This is clearly explaining the meaning of 'fighting' in this passage, and every other passage in the Book (Surat Al-Baqarah). When the Quran says to Fight in the way or cause of Allah, it is often referring to self-defense, not Terror. We see this here in the text: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Quran (2:216)"This text is referencing self defense. It is saying that defense is prescribed. This is an example of not understanding the culture or situations under which the text was written. The culture and pagan religions in Mecca and much of Arabia was violent and oppressive. This lead to the need for religions to fight if they were to survive. This is fighting in self-defense, not terror and oppression.- "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:56)This isn't referencing man-made terror, it's referencing God's wrath. This does not imply that the religion endorses it's own people to commit terror.- "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:151)This is an example of Descriptive text. This is not instructions prescribed to the reader, but a description of the writer's feeling. We see a similar example in the Bible. The Israelites sing a song condemning the Babylonians to the pain and death the Israelites suffered. This isn't a prescribed text from God or a command, but a description of how they felt and what they wanted, not how God felt or what he wanted. This is simple misrepresentation.All of Pro's texts are cherry-picked, and doesn't take into account ancient cultures or the scenario under which it was written. They involve poor and even false translating and leaves out important details and passages.2) http://quran.com...3) http://islamqa.info...Rebuttal II: Allah and WomenPro's Argument II is entirely fallacious. Just because Muslims commit terror doesn't mean Islam promotes terror. This statement is in grave error. We see this in the US, where Islam commits only 6% of the terrorist attacks, compared to 42% from Latinos (4). Pro's argument implies the Latino culture promotes terrorism.Pro's statement about women is also irreverent. It has nothing to do with terror, or at least not the terror seen in terrorism. The Quran also gives women rights to chose whom they marry, and to divorce. Sharia Law is cultural, and has no grounds in the Quran. It's important to understand that Muslims are actually very loving towards their wives, less likely to be violent then other Americans. While 15-25% of Jewish women are abused, the same as the general population, only 10% of Muslim women are abused (5).4) http://tinyurl.com...5) http://tinyurl.com...Argument I: Islamic Texts.The Quran is full of text promoting peace and love. While the text only supports fighting in self-defense, it doesn't promote terror or unjustified warfare. It does, however, preach love and tolerance, even towards women."The most perfect believer in faith is the one whose character is finest and who is kindest to his wife" Quran (5:282)While the religion does believe in Marriage Roles, it also believes in being kind and loving to one's wife."It may be that Allah will bring about love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity... Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, Allah loves those who are equitable." - Quran, 60:8-9Another example of how the Quran preaches that violence may only be done in self defense. This passage preaches loving each other. The passage claims you may only not love them if they declare war on you for your religion or if they drive you from your home, both of which where major issues in the Middle East and especially Arabia when the passage was written.Argument II: Religion v Culture.One error in Pro's assessment of Islam is in not considering culture and religion. Looking at trends among Muslims, most violent, anti-women's rights, and anti-democratic views correlate in the same areas. This implies that terror and hate isn't religion based, but cultural. Most issues correlate in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.Muslims are actually less approving of killing innocent people in awar, which is a prime focus of terrorism and terror. They are actually against it more than anyone else, being one of the only 2 groups that is more against it than for it (5). Muslims are widely against killing innocent people, even when the Muslims of other cultures are took into account. Muslims in Britain, Germany, and France are even less approving of killing innocent people, and Muslims in Spain are only slightly more approving (6). As this shows, People who follow Islam is less likely to approve of Terror tactics, unless they live in Iran and Iraq, signs that approving of terror is more cultural.While other groups believed most US Muslims are sympathetic towards groups like Al-Qaeda, 92% of Muslims claimed US Muslims had no sympathy to Al-Qaeda (6). Islamic approval of Suicide Bombing and violence towards civilians is immensely low. Pakistan is 87% against it, while most nations are above 50% against it in all cases. This doesn't take into account how many people are against it in most cases. The question leaves open Rarely Justified and Sometimes Justified (7). Approval towards Suicide Bombing as Often or Somethings Justified is low, with the average being no higher than 17%. And support toward Bin Laden has declined in every nation but Nigeria. The average approval rating being no higher than 20%.Killing Civilians was also took into account. With approval towards killing civilians being less than 25% in every nation that isn't Middle Eastern, we can conclude that approving of killing civilians and suicide bombing is cultural, not Religious. Most Muslims in the Middle East support Democracy, and have no qualms with other religions or Christianity. There isn't a single Middle-Eastern nation where more than 50% of the population approves of any terrorist group. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda's approval ratings are below 20% in EVERY nation (8). We can see that there is no true connection between Islam and Terror by looking at Pakistan. The nation believes in following the Quran strictly more than any other, at 82%. Their approval of Suicide Bombing and Terrorist groups are lower than any other nation.Approval towards Suicide Bombing, Terrorist groups, killing civilians, and the use of terror is cultural (Iraq/Iran) and NOT Religious.6) http://tinyurl.com...7) http://tinyurl.com...8) http://tinyurl.com...Conclusion: Verses showing Islam as a religion of terror are all cherry-picked and misrepresented. The Quran preaches love, while Terror and hate are more Cultural and not based off Islam. Even in the Middle East, Muslim are not supportive of terror.

In my opinion, you should have written your opening statement with your challenge. The system seems to be set up that way. But, I can go with the flow and put up a simple statement for my opening and then strengthen it woth subsequent rounds with suppirtive facts, etc. Why is Islam not a peaceful religion? For starters, ISIS, al-queda, Taliban, boko haram, MUSLIM brotherhood etc. All of these organizations recruit MUSLIMS from Muslim mosques, and madrasas (schools - for any non Muslim voter out there). These organizations teach from the Muslim canonized Scripture, and even "moderate" Muslims and experts in Islam (either those who convert out of Islam or just familiar with Islam in geberal like I am) freely admit that "extremist" are taking their Scripture (the Koran) "too literal", meaning thw violent acts of (so-called) "extremsists" re being done because they are doing exactly what their book says to do, not what some other scholar "thinks" that their al-ilah "meant" when he says what he says in the Koran. In other words, they are bwing dutiful obedient Muslims following what their Scripture tells them to do. Not only do we have all of these organizations that are being obedient violent Muslims, but Sunnis and Shi'ites are ina life and death struggle with each other. This isn't just a one sided battle where the "violent" side is trying to eliminate the other side, they are both trying to wipe the other side out of existence. Now, I know what my opponent will likely say (besides explaining away the violent passages of the Koran), that one must look at the religion itself and not it's followers, but as I just stated, these violent acts are being done by people who are following their book "too literalky", and the moderates are the ones saying this. So, the question is begged - does the Koran REALLY meab what it "literally" says, OR did al-ilah not know what his religion would turn in to when he gaves these violent passages in his book? This concept of al-ilah not really knowing the future is also reflected in other silly aspects of the basic tenants of Islam. For example, whe al-ilah supposedly took Jesus and "lifted him up" off the face of the earth (after making the Jews crucify the wrong man), why didn't al-ilah figure out ahead of time that people who were rightfully following Jesus would supposedly be confused about the crucifixion and that Jesus's "gospel" would supposedly be corrupted during the same generation of those "Companions" that followed Jesus around listening directly in person, to His teachings for three years. For anyone to say that Islam is peaceful certainly does not know what they are talking about, and that extends to those "moderates" who choose to follow Islam, they obviously don't know Islam's history. And, if we don't want to judge the religion by the actions of it's current followers, certainly we can judge the religion by examining the history of the religion, in its entirety.

Should the U.S stay close diplomaticly with Israel? I say yes, what do u think?

A land without a people for a people without a landA wartorn, weary nation sought a home in barren sand.They made the desert bloomPeace denied by Khartoum,Assailed on all fronts; threats always loom.A brave little nation, caught against the sea,Fighting for a people fleeing inhumanityAt least that's how the story goes:Noble spirits versus implacable foes.The joyous homecoming of a people cast asideBeating back an inhuman, hostile tide.But willful blindness can hide so many facts:When the Jews were without a home, how did my people act?Jerusalem in ruin, it's people expelled.Umar marvelled at the ruin he beheld.He called this city's people to its freshly broken gatesthrowing them open, he invited these expatriatesfor the first time in centuries to walk their city's ways,denied to them for generations, for their refusal to obey.Ever a safe haven for the abused,Our empires have nurtured the oppressed, the diffused.It was on our shores that Judaism flourishedEven as, in Europe, it struggled, malnourishedSo in our darkest hour, how were we repaid?Our people are expelled, our, leaders betrayed.Western powers who divided Arab landDrew an all too hasty line in the sand.A Jewish state was founded, out of their 'charity'Which meant the exile of our people for their majority.They war is portrayed as offensive,Our aims as expansive.But war is never avoided, just postponed to our disadvantage.In our fight to have an oppressor disbanded,We are cast as assailants of a heritage.This narrative is prevalent,Omnipresent, yet fraudulent.The land was not without a people:The explanation's oversimple.

I must admit, this is a rather silly debate. But I digress... My opponent, Yraelz, seems to have misunderstood one fact... The resolution states that Pro cannot win (Rather that it is impossible for Pro to fully win.) Therefore, We see that my opponent's solutions are, invariably, situations in which the resolution would be proven and disproven all at the same time. My opponent states, "You can vote for Pro thereby affirming the resolution which my opponent has already stated would not make sense considering the resolution says it is impossible for him to fully win. " This has already been established, therefore my opponent has actually ADOPTED one of my contentions. Also, his second contention states, "You can vote for Con thereby negating the resolution which would mean that it is possible, which if my opponent manages to disprove my example will mean that the vote is equally non-sensible. " Fair enough but at the same time it would prove the resolution is correct as well, meaning that I have actually won. Either way you look at it, my opponent has taken on the same views as myself and hereby believes: "Thus if the debate does simply come down to this I urge for no vote at all. This will avoid an action that does not make logical sense and I believe the time spent voting could better be used for constructive criticism. " I believe you should vote. The resolution stands firm, Yraelz. Therefore, for them to vote would be an action of support to whomever had the best debate. Though, I am fairly certain all that needed to be said has been. Good luck in the next round, thank you to the judges for... judging, and, please, no flames about how this is a fallacy, I know it is and I wrote this resolution for fun and the sake of debate. Thanks again, -EG

1. There were weapons there. 2. Yes this is something unexpected. Israel found them searching for the teens. If they did not there was suppose to be a massive terror attack by Hamas terrorists dressed as Jews to kill and kidnap thousands of Jews on the Jewish new year. 3. Hamas was the one that broke all the cease fires. During one they killed three soldiers. 4. Once again Israel targets Hamas and they have every reason to target them. Unlike you I do not hate Palestinians. I hate terrorists like Hamas. I actually think their just stuck in the middle of this conflict with Israel and Hamas. PS: You have never even said the issue you had with this debate.

toamatt26 already has this troll on his plate in two debates(1)(2), so I'll take this one for the collective DDO team. I guess I'll show why he's a troll and not worth the proper argument of his biased and ad hominem based topic. A. Troll behavior. A troll is best defined by Urban Dictionary. While i cannot post a link, due to some browser restriction, and i apoliagize, the definition is: "One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attack other users on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance..." The entirety of the topic is ad hominem. He has provided no proof of his claim either. Now you might be saying the following: "Well what about his video? Is that not proof of his resolution?" The video does not sufficentally quallify for proof. It's one instance of that happening, and not a well preformed or managed "debate" at that. The whole point of the video is biased. There are right ways of using video in a debate(3), but it should not be your entire arguement unless that is the debate format. I believe that i mentioned this somewhere before, but i have not the time nor respect for this resolution to try to link it. Bring it. Sources: 1.http://www.debate.org... 2.http://www.debate.org... 3http://www.debate.org...

I would like to thank Mongeese for accepting this debate and for his worthy contribution to which I respond as follows: It is entirely reasonable to assume that money from Jewish businesses will be channelled to Israeli settlers and terrorists because Israel is fundamental to the Jewish religion and it is the religious duty of all Jews to support the settlement and expansion of Israel. As Rabbi Eliezer Melamid explains: "The commandment to settle the land of Israel requires that we conquer the land. It is thus written, "Possess the land and settle it, for I have given you the land in order that you take possession of it" (Numbers 33:53), and our sages explain the expression "possess" to imply the conquest and establishment of Israeli sovereignty in the land. Moreover, this commandment remains binding upon us in all generations In addition to the more general Torah commandment to take possession of the land of Israel, the Torah warns: "Do not allow them to reside in your land" (Exodus 23:33). The Rambam (Hilkhot Avoda Zara 10:6) explains that when we have the power it is forbidden to allow any non-Jew to reside in our land. The Torah also exhorts: "...do not give them any consideration" (Deuteronomy 7:2), and the sages interpret this to mean that it is forbidden to provide non-Jews with any sort of foothold upon the soil of the land of Israel (Avodah Zara 20a). The Almighty God has given this land to the nation of Israel and every Jew has a portion in it." http://www.yeshiva.org.il... In other words, Jews believe that Greater Israel (the land between the Nile and the Euphrates) belongs to all Jews and that all non-Jews should be driven out. However, many people believe that Jews are not "the chosen people" and that they have no "god-given" right to occupy other lands and to displace families from their homes and farms, and to slaughter any that resist. In fact I doubt many people would be happy if they realised their money was were helping to fuel the fire of the world's most volatile trouble-spot. Similarly many people would be unhappy if they thought their money was supporting Islamic terrorists which is why many people boycott Muslim businesses. http://www.haindavakeralam.com... A Star of David, Islamic Crescent or other religious symbol at the enterance to a business would not substantially interfere with the overall appearance of the enterprise but would allow people to make an informed choice without having to enter the premises to enquire about the religion of the majority shareholders – something the staff may not know anyway. This would not lead to proprietors being deceitful – they wouldn't risk their business when they could so easily be found out – and, in any case, a religious symbol may actually increase business by attracting customers who follow that faith. In conclusion, this proposal would give the shopping public the ability to spend their money as they choose by equipping them with the information they need to ensure their money will not ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists or illegal settlers. Thank you.

I'm willing to accept, under the condition that the first definition for coexist (something that can exist together at the same time) be dropped as it isn't as specific to the resolution as the second definition. Using the first will likely lead to a semantical arguement rather than reasoning.