Question: Is the Two-State Solution a Viable Resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

Only a two-state solution can fulfill the aspirations of both parties.

A two-state solution can provide ample territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel, this would entail retaining the vast majority of areas populated by Israeli citizens within the State of Israel. Simultaneously, the two-state solution would also ensure sufficient land for the Palestinians. While skeptics might doubt the viability of the West Bank and Gaza due to their size, optimists can find reassurance in the example of Singapore. The combined area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times larger than Singapore's, yet the total population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than Singapore's. Singapore boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar prosperity by developing a modern economy based on science, technology, and the dividends of peace. Furthermore, numerous polls over the years have consistently shown substantial majorities of Israelis and Palestinians in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement. Even Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has indicated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution would, at the very least, secure the support and possible cooperation of the Iranians, which would be diplomatically advantageous, particularly in resolving the broader conflict between Iran and the West. Hence, the most equitable and peaceful solution is to embrace a two-state solution, which can satisfy both sides.

Thanks for taking me up on this. I think it's critically important to draw a distinction between the government and the citizenry. You said "These countries [that I mentioned] pretty much stand strong on any issue, and aren't going to change." If by 'countries' you mean 'governments,' then I agree with you. It's hard to dispute that most tyrannical, repressive governments are quite stubborn and unwilling to listen to competing points of view. However, citizens are quite different. A good friend of mine who's an Arabic major in college spent last summer in Syria and the preceding summer in Jordan, and he found that the people he met were quite normal and reasonable. They all had an attitude of resignation regarding their tyrannical governments; they felt that their government's presence was an immutable fact of life, so they just accepted it. What I'm trying to argue is that by far the best way to make the Middle East freer and safer is to give the people a thirst for freedom, and to do that by exposing them to the culture and knowledge of the world via the internet. How would this effect change, you might ask. Imagine a gay man living in a small Saudi Arabian village today. He's been told by everyone he meets, his friends, family and government, that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, so of course he covers it up. Then give him the internet. Even if he has largely convinced himself that he's straight and that being gay is wrong, of course he will find gay sites at some point. He will learn that in other countries, not only are gays free from the fear of execution, but are free to be open about it and are actively agitating for civil rights. Add up enough revelations of this sort and opposition to the government will be formidable and fierce. As for your argument that military intervention is just a necessary evil at times, I have to agree, but only under very dire and specific circumstances, the likes of which we haven't seen during my lifetime ('84 onward). Perhaps I should have prefaced the debate resolution with "in today's world." So to sum up, I wasn't advocating diplomacy as much as exporting information and culture. I'd like to add that economic sanctions are basically always a terrible idea; they hurt the citizens, not the government, and the sanctioning government gets the blame.

Some people believe that all Jews are Israelis. I may not be a Jew nor an Israeli, but I do believe the terms are different. If you call yourself a Muslim, does that mean you are an Arabian? No, it means that you believe in Islam. If you call yourself a Hindu, does that mean you are Indian? No, it means that you believe in Hinduism. If you call yourself Christian, does that mean you are a Greek (as Greece has the highest percentage of the population which is Christian)? No, it means that you believe in Christianity. So why must people say that if you believe in Judaism, you must be an Israeli?

As I assume that like myself my opponent lacks a crystal ball. .. [/quote] Exactly. You don't have to prove to us with 101 percent certainty that Israel will not get nuked. In a court the objective of the defendant is not to prove with 100% certainty that he's innocent, he just has to prove that he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt. [quote]I trust that my adversary is satisfied with my interpretation and clarification of rules. [/quote] I am. [quote]Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction. .. [/quote] . .. Yet. According to some experts, Iran will have fully functional nuclear weapons in a year or two. [quote="Wikipedia"]On 22 October 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei repeated that, even assuming Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb, they would require "between another three and eight years to succeed", an assessment shared by "all the intelligence services". A 2005 assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded "if Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems. [/quote] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [quote]'The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. [1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran. '[/quote] Yes, indeed. However, this happened 30 years back. World changes. [quote]'Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes'[/quote] Of course they say that. If I was building a nuclear weapon, would I publicly tell every living soul, "I am building a nuclear arsenal! Watch out! !" or would I say, "Oh, you have it all wrong. I'm just making nuclear energy. " [quote]'Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize. '[/quote] Russia has made an alliance with Iran, therefore possibly giving instructions and know-how on how to build nuclear weapons. . http://www.youtube.com... [quote]Secondly, in the next sentence I would like voters to note my opponents acknowledgement of his own willful ignorance of the details of the topic he has chosen to debate and the allegations he is making. 'president whatever'? .. .. .. whatever. [/quote] I would like the voters and spectators to notice that the president of Iran has a very long and complicated name. The only reason I said "president whatever" was because I could not remember his name. [quote]The text in fact reads 'United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives', not 'the US and Israel will soon end lives. '[/quote] 1) The two sentences are two different ways of saying the same thing. 2) I copied the sentence from the gray subtitle, since I did not wish to paste the whole text to my post. [quote]Fourthly, my opponent says: 'Russia is an ally of Iran. ' Please provide evidence of Russia having links beyond the scope of general business dealings with Iran. [/quote] I think the video I posted says everything ;) [quote]Fifthly, my opponent says: 'Barack Obama. .. does not give a poop about Israel'. Like all US presidents since Israel was created the Obama will be under extreme pressure from the Jewish-American corporate and political lobbyists to maintain good relations with Israel. [/quote] Barack Obama has not said a SINGLE time he supports Israel. Not during his campaign nor his term. Let's take a scenario, just for fun. It is the year 2013. Iran has acquired nuclear weapons and fires them on Israel. The president of the US has two choices. Either: A) Nuke Iran, and at the same time start the thrid world war, possibly a nuclear war. B) Not do anything and prevent mass casualties globally. C) Attack Iran withour using nuclear warfare, only to find the US Army overpowered by the Iranians and possibly Russia. This, too, could go out of hand and end up as something much larger. Since Barack Obama does not really care about Israel, he could easily just leave Israel for dead. [quote]It is clear to me (and I consider myself a rational being) that the best way of ensuring peace is diplomacy rather than aggression. .. [/quote] Tell that to the Iranian president. A radical dictator who wants to erradicate a country from the face of the earth and a nuclear arsenal are not a good combination. Well, have a nice day or night, whatever the time is in your location. I have to sleep, so see you all tomorrow.

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.

How could such a structure (450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep) be built on gopher wood ? Johan's Ark (built by dutch creationist Johan Huibers in Schagen) is about half the size of the bibilicial Ark and had to be built on a steel hull which makes the arguement for the ark implausible (unless you credit divine intervention but we are talking facts here). Secondly it seems unlikely that a world flood happened when we have both salt and freshwater and each have their own distinct species how could a global flood create this? 2. In 1948 the State of Israel was declared but I fail to see how the Chernobyl disaster was a fallen star. While the word Chernobly(Russian) does translate to Wormwood it is hardly compelling that a series of explosions represents a fallen star , without biblicial evidence that a star represents a series of explosions it is simply speculation. Just because Chernobyl translates to Wormwood doesn't make it a fulfilled prophecy. 3. There were religions way before the bible people revered such gods as Horus and Mirtha. Just because a book is around for a long time doesn't make it a godbreathed collection of book to base your principles on. My seperate arguement. 1. The Bible also has conflicting genealogies present in Matthew and Luke. Some Biblician Scholars say that one is through Mary and one is through Joseph but Joseph's would be irrevelant since he supposedly was Jesus's stepfather. 2. The Bible also was translated form 3 different languages. Languages often do not cleanly translate wouldn't that take away from the original meaning of the scriptures and take its supposed inerrancy away. 3. Why in Matthew is says Jesus healed one blind man out of Jericho while another states that he healed two. It also states that he saw two demon possessed men while another only mentions one, while they do not technically contradict each other if it is godbreathed it seems they would be closer to being identicial. 4. Stephan L. Harris stated : "Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace. [Isa. 9:6-7] [11:7-12:16] Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a 'shameful' death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews". This arguement is often countered by saying that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies during the millennial reign but once again, this is speculation. Why would the God of the Bible leave his followers to speculate on things written in his word? Why would he let his followers wonder about a Old Testament proprecy?

Silly me, I thought that someone who believes humility and meekness are godly virtues would humbly learn from a mistake like this and use it to craft better debates in the future. Everyone makes mistakes. It's your reaction to those mistakes that really defines you.Pro started with a resolution that is impossible to defend, and then expected me to ignore the resolution and argue something different. If Pro wishes to debate with anyone of even average skill, he should learn from his losses rather than hiding from opponents who pose a real challenge. Pro's behavior shows a disregard for basic debate decorum and technique.At this point, Pro has all but conceded. I will await arguments or concession, should my opponent deign to give either.

I am concerned that what began as an interesting and intelligent debate is running the risk of becoming boring and repetitive as my opponent seems to be arguing in circles. Additionally as some of the rounds have been quite lengthy I hope that voters will take the time to read them in entirety and vote accordingly rather than basing their votes on previously held opinion. My opponent persists in misquoting and misrepresenting the quotes he cites, in an effort to back up his claim that: 'According to some experts, Iran WILL have fully functional nuclear weaponS in a year or two.' he has now cited the following evidence: "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." and: "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." Like his previous examples this does not back up his claim, note: 'could', 'if' 'would', 'one' and the timelines quoted in his sources which do not support his assertions. In fact none of the sources and especially not the posted video offer any evidence to back up allegations that my opponent continues to represent as facts. 'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.' 'Russia would be there to protect them' 'the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel.' 'Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Isreal and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.' 'a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons' All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact. My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters. As I was using the actions of previous US administrations to demonstrate a recent historical basis for aggressive persecution of Iran, my point stands. Does my opponent really believe that the president himself makes all the decisions on US foreign policy? Also I would like to point out that if indeed America's attitude is changing under Obama this surely makes an attack by Iran less likely rather than more so, therefore supporting a Pro vote. In response to my assertion that a Muslim state would not attack holy Islamic sites, my opponent says: '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.' I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year) not that they would be concerned about Muslim pilgrims being present at the time of such an attack. Lastly to return to the specific points I raised which I am still waiting for some kind of concrete evidence for. To quote again in full with my opponent's responses: [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 publicly 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. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims. 2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants. 3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance. 4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat. 5. some evidence of my own to the contrary: 'Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America.' source: http://www.nysun.com... '"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.' source: http://www.haaretz.com... 6. (1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence. (2) Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again]. (3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased. (4) See 4. above, misquote, no evidence. (5) I have just proved that Obama has stated that he supports Israel, see above. (6) Does not make sense. Thanks to all voters, please vote Pro if you have any respect for logic and proper research. Thanks to my opponent, please take all the time you need to post your final round.

[quote]All of this is conjecture, not backed up by evidence, yet presented by my opponent as fact.[/quote] I have presented a ton of evidence, whether or not you choose to accept it is a different thing. [quote]"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."[/quote] This is a different source. [quote]My examples of US aggression remain unchallenged, all my opponent has been able to say is that now there is a new president none of this matters.[/quote] It matters, because Barack Obama wants to establish a friendship with Iran, contrary to Bush. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) [quote]I would like to point out that the most holy of these sites Jerusalem is in fact the capital and most important city in Israel. Also my point was that they would not want to contaminate these sites with the radioactive fall out of a nuclear attack (which would of course last much longer than a year)[/quote] In seven hours (7 h) the radioactive radiation decreases from 1000 R to 10 R. In two months there are *very* small traces of nuclear radiation, not threatening anything. And still, radiation does not affect buildings. Also, there are other towns in Israel than Jerusalem ;) [quote]'"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.'[/quote] Then where was Obama during the conflict of Gaza? He NEVER said he supported Israel's actions. He just hid in the corner and shut his mouth. ***Actions speak louder than words.*** Also, the writer of this article is clearly biased [quote]2. 1. I said evidence not just more unsubstantiated claims. 2. I have offered several reasons why they would not (fear of reprisal and Islamic holy sites being the main ones) They want an end to the state of Israel in its current form, not to destroy the land and all it's inhabitants. 3. I watched the video carefully and as I have already pointed out it offers no evidence or even direct allegations. It is a business deal not a military alliance. 4. We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat. 5. some evidence of my own to the contrary:[/quote] 1. The chief of IAEA said that Iran could have nukes in six months. (http://blog.wired.com...) EU: http://www.upi.com... USA: U.S. officials have said repeatedly they believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. (http://www.time.com...) 2. And I gave some reasons why they would leave the holy cites alone and nuke the cites e. 3. "...The Iranian president gained a powerful *ALLY*." [quote](1) How is it obvious?, you have clearly made up your own mind, but don't expect me to agree without seeing any evidence.[/quote] Look at the three links I provided. (http://blog.wired.com...) (http://www.upi.com...) (http://www.time.com...) [quote]Please direct me to a quotation of his where he states such an intention [please not the same non-quote again][/quote] If you don't accept evidence, there is little point in debating. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote](3) CNN is US, financed by republicans and clearly biased.[/quote] FOX is financed by Republicans. CNN is quite liberal, actually. And still, they did not make up Vladimir Putin's statement nor the visit he paid to Iran. [quote]We've been over this one a few times, please stop misquoting your own source Con. This quote refers to the regime and is in no way a direct threat.[/quote] It's kind of the same as: Actual quote: "We will nuke wicked and zionist country X who has been a disgrace to God." Quoted: "We will nuke country X." It's the SAME meaning. Okay, fine. "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives." [quote]Does not make sense.[/quote] Okay. Number 1 is claimed by IAEA (unbiased), USA (slightly biased), and UN (unbiased). Number 2 is claimed by the Iranian President (non-US biased, non Israel-biased). Number 3 is claimed by Vladimir Putin and the Iranian president. Number 4 is claimed by the Iranian president. Number 5 is claimed by Barack Obama's actions. Therefore, number 6 is fulfilled. So, accompanied with the threat of Iran ***is the threat of TERRORISM.*** when Iran gets done with its nukes, they can simply give one of them to a terrorist group and have them detonate it in the middle of a large town. How? They could rent a truck and position the nuclear weapon inside it. It can never be traced back to Iran. Why? Well, if an object has been detonated to a trillion pieces, I imagine it may be a little tricky to find out who made it. Vote for either one of us, although I wish I could get your vote ;)

ok... it's true that Iran has a certain hate against Israel but the lack of topic specification allows this resolution to be all over the place. 2nd of all, you should not base you argument on a report published on 2003 but due to fact that u mentioned nuclear weapons and for some reason the only one who can be a victim if that threat would be the US. A U.S. intelligence report released on Dec. 3 expressed that Iran would not be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015. And let's also say that if Iran had, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,they would've used them already at the past of a weak time for the US when the military is streched thin and a weak economy. truth is that due to the tecnological advantege of wealfare in the US, no one will attack the US due to the nuclear responce that we are most likely to have. the fear tactic works. reason why no nation has taken action against the US. Diplomacy works, economyc sancions and INTERNATIONAL action against Iran's nuclear program made this program fade and no action of the irani government has raised any alarm to think that a nuclear weapon will be their ambtion.

I said Hamas in the title and that is the focus but this also includes other terrorists like them such as whoever was responsible for the murder of the three Israeli teens. By current I mean in the last few months. Just to be clear it is still permitted to bring up an occurrence before if it is relevant. Other than that I think the title says it all but I will define fault. Fault- Responsibility for a problem, mistake, bad situation etc. source: Merriam Webster dictionary.


Question: Is a Bipartisan Resolution Viable for Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute?

A one-state solution would result in Israel no longer being either democratic or Jewish.

As former Israeli President Shimon Peres noted, the majority of Israelis aspire to live in a Jewish homeland where they can shape their institutions and culture in accordance with their Jewish heritage. However, a one-state solution would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is untenable for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the inevitable outcome of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered Jewish if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority. Therefore, any one-state solution would likely not be truly democratic, but rather a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs. A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track. Hence, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can ensure that Israel remains both Jewish and democratic, while allowing a Palestinian state to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

Positive effects are not saving lives if Israel continuously attack on civilians of Philistine! have you ever asked yourself why Hamas does the attacks? because they have to protect their self &they are defending from their nation, if they don't respond, Israel will occupy their country! If you kill innocent people it wont save the future lives, plus Israel is not the only country who thinks of saving future lives! because other powerful countries are in the world who can sort it out, bu Israel constantly attacking on Hamas?? are they the owner of this world? are they the owner of philistine?? are the human lives are in the hand of Israel? Of course not! Please search!; The Rafah shelling in particular was widely criticized, with Ban-Ki Moon calling it a "moral outrage and a criminal act" and US State Department calling it "appalling" and "disgraceful". UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said that both Hamas militants and Israel might have committed war crimes. A Human Rights Watch investigation into three of the incidents concluded that Israel committed war crimes. Just check out, how many people are killed, how the infrastructure of philistine is destroyed! how people are suffering! if you think you are human being and you think you have empathy, checkout cruelties of Israel how are they killing people. Rebuttals: a.Israel is perhaps anti Muslim nation though they kill people! c.Hamas is not the issue because they are not in conflict with any other country, perhaps they are defending from their nation against a country who think they are the owner of world! Overall in conclusion; Both the countries are count guilty, but mostly Israel! because all the attacks are on civilians, and non of their attacks are justified! i request them to stop their attacks to prevent future defends from Hamas! Israel is never justified on their attacks, just by saying we are saving the future lives, they can't continue killing innocent people! Attacks are not justified!

Hello, Thank you for responding to my debate! I look forward to the challenge! In your argument you are referencing the creation of Israel. Israel has the right to exist. This is not the argument, my platform is not one of a one state solution that is Palestine. My argument is for cutting aid to the government on the basis of human rights issues. Which you did not acknowledge. It is also because an Apartheid against the Palestinian people is forming.1 That was not addressed, the one point you did acknowledge is their nuclear arsenal. While it provides protection, it is against international law.2 As a global super power we should not be supplying aid to a country with a nuclear arsenal that is against the NPT while we are threatening the DPRK with war for doing the same thing. The war crimes the Israeli government is apart of is not something that I want my government supplying billions of dollars too. Palestinians are people too, and while they have also committed crimes they have repented, and Israel hasn't even though their crimes are much worse. The fact we won't acknowledge the state is appalling. If we cut aid what bad would happen? They aren't a threat to our military. We would strengthen our relationship with rule abiding countries in that region such as Jordan, Morocco, and more. Iran would be willing to talk to us. I'm sorry, but we would a small country verse the rest of the world... I like this better than going against 2 P5 nations, and the whole Middle East. Thank you and please refute my points I said or else I will just assume that you don't have an answer to them.. 1.https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com... 2. NPT

Refutations:Banning all Nuclear WeaponsI dismissed the notion of banning nuclear weapons, because it's never been done before. We banned nuclear testing, but that is much different from banning the possession of nuclear weapons all together.As a result of having nuclear weapons, countries have the most destructive weapon known to mankind and they aren't willing to give them up. Sure they may decide not to test them anymore, but they won't agree to destroy them all. There is no reason to believe a ban on nuclear weapons can be accomplished unless you think the U.S, UK, Russia, and China are all run by upfront and honest leaders who are willing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals out of good will towards one another.Imbalance of powerI thought it was widely known that North Korea instigated a 3 year long war that resulted in the deaths of millions of North Korean, Chinese, South Korean soldiers and civilians after they launched a dastardly surprise attack on South Korea in order to unite Korea under communism.[1]They have since been responsible for multiple violations along the DMZ, an assassination attempt on the SK president, the sinking of a SK destroyer and a bombing of a SK military base, all translates into thousands of casualties.[2][3]Iran is an anti-Semitic nation bent on “wiping Israel off the map”. [4]Additionally, Iran has been supplying terrorist groups such as the Taliban with munitions such as explosive compounds which have caused the deaths of hundreds British and American soldiers. [5]This is ignoring countless other unstable regions around the globeIn short, aggressive countries are threatening our allies and we should make it certain that we can defend them.Responsibility of the Nuclear PowersThe U.S. only used two nuclear weapons in combat during the largest war in human history. Since then they have not been used again even though several generals and leaders have pushed to do so. [6][7]We used them on Japan because the Big Six of Japan ignored our surrender terms. [8] Nuclear bombs were not used by the U.S. in the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, The Gulf Wars, the Invasion of Afghanistan, etc.I also did not say that it was solely the U.S. that was the responsible power.Russia, China, UK, India, Pakistan, and France all have nuclear weapons and have not used them.It is also very fallacious that my opponent points to the fact that no other nation on the planet has used nukes, including poor "Banana Republics". He avoids the fact that currently the NPT prevents them from owning any.Defense of my argument :Irresponsible nations will be able to possess nuclear armsMy opponent says that since the U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons that means the U.S. hasn’t shown restraint using nuclear weapons.If this was true then we would have used them in Korea when Macarthur asked to use them against China. [6]We would have used them in the Vietnam when several military officials wanted to use tactical nuclear devices to block supply routes. [7]The U.S. has been in several fierce "wars" over the span of 60 + years and hasn’t used a nuke in any conflict after WW2.Regarding the pre 1967 time limitMy opponent wrote, "I propose that the NPT be abolished and one of two options be considered"I am against this, not minor revisions.Other nations will not have nuclear safeguardsNotice how my opponent suggest that we should allow every country to posses nuclear arms and then states, "Almost all countries have their own safeguards"This is clear admission as a concession that even my opponent isn't certain that every country will have good safeguards in place, largely because it is a ludicrous notion that countries run by dictators or other authoritarian figures in poor and unstable states will have something to restrict their power.[1]http://bit.ly...[2]http://bit.ly...[3]http://bit.ly...[4]http://nyti.ms...[5]http://bit.ly...[6]http://bit.ly...[7]http://bit.ly...[8]http://bit.ly...

I accept the concession but would like to point out one thing yet again. Jif continues to claim that I tried to snipe the resolution and changed it View this down below to show that once again he is lying. In the comments he states, in a conversation with thette Posted by thett3 1 day ago thett3 What kind of resolution is this Posted by Csareo 1 day ago Csareo That American culture has diluted what freedom is Posted by profile card thett3 1 day ago This debate is going to come down to semantics. What is "freedom"? What is "American culture"? How does a culture, a non actor, dilute anything? I mean if you're into that I guess that's cool, but it's not a debate I would want to have... As the judges can see, he blatantly lied about himself wanting the resolution to be deluded. I would also like to note by his own definoitn that would change nothing For someone to be deluded that would have to be a person. So the resoultion would have to be "American culture has deluded what freedom is to (x possible mind)" The same premise still stands, you cannot delude a concept/thought I would continue debating due to his conduct, but it seems as if he is going to be banned anyway. I accept the concession and wish my adversary the best with his family troubles.

Hi there,I just noticed your current ongoing debate about "Europe countries should join the BDS and boycott Israel".I was struck by two things. Firstly how civil it was considering the topic which is always a joy when it so often turns nasty and secondly how, despite the fact that I agree his point of view IRL, I don't think OsamatheCityzen put his points as well as he could have done and I'd like a chance to be able to put forward my views on this contentious topic in the open and hospitable manner I saw in the last thread.For that reason I've issued this closed challenge.Would you like to have a repeat of it with me?

I'm not saying that what's happening in Syria isn't a tragedy, because there is no denying that it is. In every single way shape and form it is. But you're original statement was that the United Nations was useless and now you've started to argue the merits of what's occurring in Syria? The reason the deaths by chemical attacks have caused so much more of an uproar so to speak is because it breaks one of the rules of war. Murder by guns, knives and other forms of assorted violence happen every day. I'm not saying its a good thing, but it doesn't resonate to the level that a chemical attack does. Think of it like this, the reason every is putting so much emphasis on it know that there is chemical weapons involved are very important. One Is because noone wants a repeat of the holocaust which was truly a horrific event that claimed the lives of too many people. Also, these chemical weapons pose much more of a threat to our safety than a few guns and knives do. It has obviously become very clear that the people of Syria can't resolve this situation themselves, but involving every country in the United Nations is not a good idea. Once we form alliances and bonds, as soon as one nation is attacked, that sets the stage for another world war. And yes each country has its own agendas, but the safety of their people as a whole has to come first. I honestly don't know if this situation can be resolved peacefully, but I believe it's in our best interest to try. I f we resort to violence and think we fix this problem, we could just as easily be putting a proverbial band aid on it. Whose to say a few years later the Syrians won't have another issue with their government, and blame the results on the actions that we took. People like al Assads group won't think twice before acting against there own people if we wipe them out because they'll all be gone. But then they will become martyrs for every wannabe terrorist out there. Believe me I'm not saying we should let these actions go unpaid, but hate can't solve what it began. We need to get the whole of the United Nations together to come up with a more peaceful solution that will end that tragedy and not put other countries in harm. Maybe then people will start to have faith in the system again.

Resolution: "The requirement that in order for a person to be President of the USA he or she must be born in the USA is fair, just and reasonable" I am against this resolution. I will let my opponent formulate his argument first.

Israel is what they say does not exist — a miracle.Since its official establishment in 1948, modern Israel has existed under duress. Its strength has waxed, waned, then waxed again repeatedly. It began as a miracle and continues as an ongoing miracle. So, to those who don’t believe in miracles, Israel makes no sense. They repeatedly try to “help” in ways that can only hurt.Round after round of peace talks fail, yet the nation persists. Wave after wave of violence strikes at it, yet Israel survives. More than that, Israel prospers. Even Israelis struggle to understand. How could this happen?The answer is simple. God keeps His Word. God made certain unconditional covenants with Abraham and his descendents through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob. These covenants promised that God would make them His nation forever, and that a very specific piece of real estate was given to them forever. Although God predicted that they would stray from Him so that He would have to discipline them, He nevertheless swore that He would bring them back and fulfill all His promises to them. He also promised that though He would discipline them Himself, He would judge everyone who persecuted them. He also promised that He would bless all who would bless them. And that even if they would be under His discipline, He would curse all who mistreated them. What the unbelieving people of the world fail to understand is that God has consistently fulfilled these covenant-promises all through history.August 23, 1992......Talks resumed for Israeal to surrender land for peace. Within 24 hours, Hurrican Andrew slammed the US with a cost of 30 billion dollarsApril 27-Sept. 13, 1993.....Israel and the PLO work on and sign a compromise peace agreement in Washington D.C.. During this period, the USA was hit with the most widespread and devestating flooding in it's history, costing 21 billion dollars.August 25-Sept. 10, 2001......Just before plans pushed by the USA for the most comprehensive peace plan ever between Arabia and Israel. the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked on 9/11/2001. Another land for peace deal pressured by the USA is met by a national catastrophe. The immediate cost was 40 billion dollars, the cost of the economic impact was far greater.Nov. 7-12, 2002.....During Ramadan, President Bush hosted a dinner to honor Islam and the "revelation of God's word in the holy Koran". When US officials flew to pressure Israel, 88 out of season tornadoes hit 7 states.Aug 28, 2005.....While the Jews dug up their dead in Gaze to re-bury them in new cemeteries after the US pressured Israel into evacuating Gaza, President Bush applauded the dividing of God's land. Hurricane Katrina formed as a tropical depression the very next day, becoming the largest disaster in US history as it devestated New Orleans, drove 1 million people from their homes, and cost the USA close to 200 billion dollars.Does anybody see a pattern? God protects Israel, and is warning the USA to stop pressuring Israel into compromises that weaken it amidst it's enemies.Thanks to Jack T. Chick for the recent historical references......easily documented by many sources. I watched these events unfold on the national news.

RefutationsBan on NukesIt is very unrealistic because the U.S., UK, China, Russia, and France all have long "rap sheets" of violating international laws, agreements, treaties, etc.The U.S. violated international law repeatedly by sending U-2 spy planes over the USSR.[1]Russia violated the START treaty by developing new ICBM's.[2]The U.S. violated international law by producing biological weapons.[3]Russia violated international law by attacking Georgia in the South Ossetia War.[4]Some of these violations are minor, but others are rather horrifying.Regardless, Russia and the U.S. have already outright violated international laws and treaties by producing nuclear and biological weapons. This just goes to show you how ineffective these bans regarding nuclear weapons are when they are already in the hands of those that have them.So I will dismiss the notion of banning all nuclear weapons as unrealistic seeing that the signatories have trouble following bans on Bio weapons and ICBMs.Balance of PowerMy opponent has no rebuttal to the fact that North Korea attacked South Korea with no justified reason or in response to the threat Iran poses to Israel. He makes no attempt to defend the point that they are irresponsible and have malicious intentions.I've already shown that the U.S. bombings of Japan were in response to Japan's refusal to accept the Potsdam declaration (surrender terms), and therefore would have required more time, lives, and money to end the war. [5] In this case the bombs were used responsibly.The colonization of foreign powers by the UK and France does not show that they are responsible with nuclear weapons. They would have no need or motive to use them irresponsibly against their colonies especially with firm governments in place. North Korea and Iran are currently aggressive to nations that mean them no harm and would have motive to use them in a war they may instigate if they were being beaten in a military confrontation.Israel is a stable country with a firm government in place and has not been aggressive towards other major powers.Belarus, Ukraine, and South Africa were simply places were the U.S. and USSR kept nuclear weapons to be used in the event of a war. Just because the USSR kept nukes in Ukraine does not mean Ukraine could fire them. This point is moot.North Korea has crude nuclear weapons that have less yield than 1,000 tons of tnt.[6]To give you an idea of how ineffective that is I have posted a video link that shows the explosion of 100 tons. They have "nukes" in the most liberal sense of the word.South Africa was only able to create 6 nuclear bombs and only in response to the communist presencce in Africa. They quickly destroyed them showing that they were responsible. [7]DefenseU.S. restraintThe U.S. has considered using nuclear weapons in large conflicts but refused to. That shows restraint.Minor RevisionsAllowing nuclear states to be legitimate under the NPT is a minor revision. India and Israel already have nuclear weapons. Revising the NPT to allow stable states with proven safeguards is minor since every state that has nuclear weapons worth reckoning with is currently under a stable govt. Revising the NPT to include them would change nothing.Nuclear SafeguardsThe NPT does not simply oppose the production of nuclear weapons in unstable states, it also opposes the exchange of nuclear weapons between other countries.Sure the countries who manufacture nuclear weapons such as the U.S., Russia, China, etc all have complex safeguards.But say Russia decides to hand a few over to Iran. Then Iran decides to give a handful to Palestine and so on.The point is is that countries obtaining nuclear weapons will not always be the ones building them, they could simply be the buyer or allies of those that posses them.Sources[1]http://bit.ly...[2]http://bit.ly...[3]http://bit.ly...[4]http://reut.rs...[5]http://bit.ly...[6]http://bit.ly...[7]http://bit.ly...bit.ly/KjcKM <-- YT link

First: Before any other evaluation of the resolution we must evaluate the effects on human ontology that the resolution has. Campbell: Campbell & Shapiro 99 (Michael, and Campbell, professor of International Relations at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, p. 97-8) google books “the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is. Any mode of thought, always already carries an ontology sequested within it. What this ontological turn does to other- regional – modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review demand[s] a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy.” I negate, negate is defined by Encarta World English Dictionary: as to deny the truth of something, or prove something to be false. Thus my burden as the negative is to only disprove the affirmative. The thesis of the negative case is that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering is wrong because suffering is needed in order to understand human fatality of the ontological mode of being. Long explains the way humans exist: Suffering and Transcendence Eugene Thomas Long International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol. 60, No. 1/3, Self and Other: Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion (Dec., 2006), pp. 139-148 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org... “we exist in the future that is coming towards us. Our being is such that in the present we recollect the past and anticipate the future. Our transcending or becoming, however, comes up against many boundaries along the way which set limits to our transcending or becoming. Suffering stands over against our transcending, our acting the process of becoming in which we act to realize some state of affairs that we desire and through which we find meaning in existence, the experience of suffering appears to be the opposite of activity. Suffering may bring us up against our finiteness and suffering may be accommodated into our human becoming. for example, that although we would not have sought suffering we are better persons for having undergone the experience of suffering.” Thus, the way in which humans exist is through the experience of suffering in order to know the distinction between gods and humans. This allows for human becoming and transcendence to happen. Long 2 explains why suffering is needed: “suffering is necessary to a greater good or that it will be transformed or overcome in the future by a greater good. persons are called not only to condemn such evil and suffer with those who suffer, but assume responsibility for working for new possibilities for good. Human suffering on this account is at one and the same time an experience of emptiness or nullity and the giving or loving of Being, the on-going creative activity or providence of divine reality. In this giving of Being in reaction to the suffering of beings in the world” Thus suffering allows prospering over future problems; the on-going creative activity of the divine reality, which allows people to come to their fullest being This proves that suffering is a necessary part of human existence in order to find solidarity with others and confront our finiteness as human beings. The suffering of others calls us to question who we are what actions we take as human meaning that it is necessary to understand the true function of being a human. This argument functions as an apriori because it disproves the assumptions the affirmative framework is founded upon. Additionally, confronting notions of death and suffering is how individuals conceptualize good and bad and this confrontation is the only reason why life has value Strauss: Jonathan Strauss. “After Death.” Diacritics. 30.3 (2000) 90-104. “Dasein is the term to speak of individual human consciousness, and is Unique among entities in that it puts Being itself- Death, in turn, puts the whole of Dasein's own being at stake. In part, this is because death is "nonrelational," which is to say that no one else can represent me or stand in for me at my inevitable demise. dying is something that I must do for myself. I am therefore alone in the face of my death, and that mortal isolation informs me of my separation from others, makes me aware of my finitude in relation to them. The non-relational character of death, as understood in anticipation, individualizes Dasein down to itself.” Me capable of being a whole to myself, and I actually do become whole to myself through my attitude toward that death. it is that a privative limit can structure experience into subjectivity and existence into a life. One's relation to death is either authentic or inauthentic, In the latter case a person tries to forget that he is finite and must die by imagining that he is the same as the indeterminate They authentic" Anticipation turns out to be the possibility of understanding one's own most and utter most potentiality-for- Being-that is to say, the possibility of authentic existence. The ontological constitution of such existence must be made visible by setting forth the concrete structure of anticipation of death" The structure of our relation to death makes our authentic individual existence apparent to us as a whole, and it is, consequently, through anticipating death that we authentically exist as whole individuals.” Thus it is necessary to confront death in order to find meaning in life. Also, I do not advocate that we advance suffering, but let the suffering in the world flow naturally and avoid trying to minimize it so any arguments about me justifying another holocaust or promoting extinction won’t link. Further, suffering is not something with a brightline i.e we have never undergone enough suffering, it is always static because if it weren’t then we would slowly be able to lose the ability to suffer which doesn’t make sense because even people who have suffered through insane torture or crazy diseases will always have the ability to suffer more And, they are going to stand up and say they know what it is like to suffer just by watching other people suffering however this is false for two reasons A) The warrants in long assume that it is the experience of suffering that calls into question what it means to be and to find meaning in existence and B) The warrants in strauss are clear on the fact that it is the confrontation of death that only I can do for myself and it helps me realize my finitude in relation with others which would function just by watching someone confront death because that would only increase the false idea that we are in some relation to others. This has 2 impacts on the round 1.) I am proving the resolution false 2.) This turns the AC because their notions of trying to reduce suffering only harm human ontology Next, presume neg because a statement has a higher chance of being false than true for example if I have a pink pen then it is only true to say that it is pink however you can make several false statements about he pen i.e. it is blue black or orange. So let me clarify on exactly what my case implicates. My opponent is arguing through her two contentions as well as her criterion of de facto utilitarianism that we should adopt rehab over retribution because it lowers crimes rates and saves people money, all of which reduces the total amount of suffering we can experience. That's all bad for the reasons listed in Long, Long 2 and Strauss. Therefore, you reject the aff case and vote neg. Don't let her try to delink from the harms of the neg case because that would mean that you end up defaulting neg under her framework. If she isn't arguing that adopting rehab would offer some sort of benefits then there's no reason to adopt it under her framework of "cost-benefit analysis", meaning that she doesn't have any kind of offense she can extend out that fulfills her framework and you default neg anyway. So, to summarize:- She's arguing that rehab offers x and y benefits that reduce suffering and bring about all these different benefits.- I'm saying that we shouldn't be trying to reduce suffering, but rather keep things at the current level and avoid deviation, therefore you reject her cas apriori.- If she isn't arguing that rehab has those benefits, then she isn't fulfilling her framework via cost-benefit analysis, therefore has no actual offense to win the debate.


Question: Is the Two-State Solution a Viable Resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

Should individuals enforce a boycott against Israel for its inhumane actions towards Arabs, particularly through the BDS movement?

The debate here revolves around human rights. It's been documented that Israel has carried out numerous atrocities against the Palestinian people. The focus is not on the Israeli people but rather on the actions of its government. Here are a few points to consider:

1. The Israeli Government has been accused of perpetrating acts of terror against the Palestinian population.
2. The oppression of Palestinians has led to an apartheid-like scenario where they have no representation in the government.
3. The hostile environment created by the Israeli Government has pushed Palestinians towards supporting Hamas.
4. Peace deals that could have resolved the conflict have been obstructed by Israel.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been involved in gross and systematic violations of international humanitarian law in Rafah, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. This includes the targeting of Palestinian civilians, infrastructure, and property, resulting in the deaths of 255 individuals, 212 of whom were civilians. Among these casualties were children. The Israeli Army has been accused of using torture that contravenes UN Law and the Geneva Convention. A video showing a young Palestinian being subjected to electric shocks is available. During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, 1,400 Palestinians were killed, with 80% being civilians, including 300 children. Israel's military offensive in Gaza involved bombing at least 24 medical facilities, 203 mosques (73 of which were completely destroyed), 2 churches, rendering over 20,000 civilian homes uninhabitable, and firing on ambulances, civilian infrastructure, and UN shelters.

During Operation Cast Lead, there was a 100:1 ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties. Israel has repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions by targeting, killing, and collectively punishing non-combatant men, women, and children. They have also moved their population into occupied zones and imposed unnecessary curfews and closures. A two-state solution is supported by 53% of Palestinians.

The Israeli Government has to maintain control over the Gaza Strip through fear, as evidenced by bombings of civilian homes, mosques, and torture. This is unacceptable. Apartheid is evident in Israel, with 6,336,000 Jews and 1,754,000 Muslims living there. There are over 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel

In my rebuttal I will be stating why it is a viable option to use genocide in order to limit global population and thus prevent economic or social collapse, rather than my opponents alternative, which is government intervention on a global level. First, we need to look at human nature, is it not more in our "blood" (figuratively speaking) to be violent creatures, rather than to obey laws that keep us from what is natural to us or any other animal? Yes, we are a more sophisticated species, yes, we have formed laws in order to protect ourselves and others but is that right? What is so wrong with death in the first place? Genocide is an option to prevent global collapse because it is easy. The governments of the world would have a much harder time trying to work together to find a solution to resource consumption than to allow certain entities to try their best at taking over sections of the world and eliminating certain populations. Even with all of the resource conservation we could muster, a growing population such as our would continue to sky rocket, and it would not be enough to save us from collapse, for the world simply cannot continue to grow the way that it is now. While many of the worlds more civilized countries would be more against using genocide as a tool to limit our population, third world countries, and all the corrupt powers in the world would use it to seek not only further power, but also global domination, and naturally larger states like the U.S., Britain or Russia would step in and "fight the good fight" in order to stop these powers. Through many wars we would slowly but surely decrease population and return to a more reasonable standpoint with our population. If we decide to continue to outlaw genocide and continue to work around trying to conserve our resources, we will be forced to limit the number of children to be had by each family, thus not only causing society to decline due to unhappiness with either gender or the limit of kids allowed, but also a very regulated and hard to control population that may simply lead to revolt, as many cannot see the eventual outcome of the increase in population and what the would mean for us as a whole. This example has already been show by the feature "The Children of Men", as well as by China's own decision to limit the number of kids allowed by a couple, which has led to many Chinese daughters either sold into sex slavery or even being killed so that the couple has a chance to have a boy; the desired gender in China. (Source: http://geography.about.com...) (Source 2: http://www.gendercide.org...) While we, being humans, see death as a dreadful thing, not to be welcomed into society as I think it should, as a whole it needs to be understood that for the betterment of mankind and thus more joyful future that death will bring upon a balance in not only resources, but wealth, and power as well. A decrease in population would serve many purposes, not just to avoid a certain global collapse, but also to prevent future war and suffering, through a short period of war and the outlawing of curing certain life threatening diseases such as cancer etc. I feel that if we as mankind are willing to make the small and insignificant sacrifice of about 5 billion people, then we can retain a much longer and more peaceful human existence, for a long period of time to come. If we decide to deal with all of these issues on a diplomatic level then we not only run the risk of still seeing global collapse, but we also do not solve the problem, as we will continue producing, ignoring the risk of it all, and becoming frustrated when we aren't allowed to have children. The diplomatic view only allows a "band aid" to the current situation, whereas the elimination of a large number of humans allows a much longer lasting peace and a future where we can all be civilized and provided with the proper amount of necessary resources for all

I look forward to seeing the reasoning Pro will provide to show Pakistan to be something other than a sovereign state.

Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? http://www.sfgate.com... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce.

Pro tried to make an unlosable truism of a resolution and instead was thwarted through the even more sinister power of semantics. Et voila. http://www.youtube.com...

Thank you for responding., and for fighting for what is right and good, and peace and truth. I apologize for my resolution being awkwardly stated. I had to futz for a while with it so it made some semblance of sense. Your analogy about the murderers, while technically correct, does not effectively analogize my argument. My argument was not that Iran's nuclear weapons program is bad, per se, but that we don't have any power in the matter. Murderer 2 won't cite Murderer 1's request as his reason for quitting, if he does. Here's what murderer 2 would be most likely (and rightful) to say is something along the lines of, "But you can?" And that's pretty much Mr. Ahmedinijad's response, and rightfully so. "My opponent is essentially saying that Iran's nuclear weapons program is justified because 'other people do it too.'" That is not what I meant at all. Iran is plotting horrible things with their nukes. And, as I said, all nukes are bad. However, I did say Iran has no reason to listen to us, just as murderer 2 has no reason to listen to murderer 1. Your second contention is also true. No denying that. However, remember that, to Mahmoud, Iran is the greatest, strongest, most stable nation on earth. We are being the little kid when we try to cite the "immatureness" of his nation as the reason they can't have nukes, and we can. I recognize that they do have anger issues, and they should not have nukes, but Iran simply has absolutely no reason to listen to America. We could hire Canada or something, but we simply cannot do the job. I'm looking forward to your next argument.

My conclusion is that genocide is not acceptable. There are always another way to deal with overpopulation (and terrible human beings). Besides, you dont want to kill your grandma while she is drinking her evening tea right?

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

Pro is named Bryan Mullins, not Dr. Dahlia Wasfi. Without any claims outside that plagiarized source, there is no argument from pro to grade. There are negative sources, but I suggest a conduct only vote. Argument: Just to hammer it home a little more, there are a couple quotes (one also copied from the plagiarized material), which are not tied to any argument. These quotes also speak of 9/11, thereby encouraging us to remember it; making any case pro could be said to have, entirely self-refuting. Sources: [1] . http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Political means have many times failed to resolve this conflict. When we're looking at a situation where killing fewer people can save more down the road, we need to take that option. The main thing Europe did wrong at the start of World War 2 was let Germany build up forces. Attacking them the second Hitler showed military intent would have prevented World War 2. Sure, some people would have died, but those deaths would have prevented more deaths later. Israel is in the same situation. By continuing the attack on Hamas, lives in the long term will be saved. These lives will outnumber the ones being lost by attacking Hamas. This is not a racist war, this is a war for the security of a nation, something always justified. I want to emphasize that this is not a racist war, this is a war of protecting lives, what you yourself think is most valuable.

Let's take this step by step, shall we?"Peace on Earth would mean that no living thing on earth would harm another living thing."Not according to the definition I provided in round one. You missed your chance to define it as such."So when two alligators want the same bird do you think they will write up a contract and distribute it evenly? No, they are going to fight over it."They probably would fight over it, of course. But it isn't physically or logically impossible for them to find a peaceful solution."Over the last two rounds I explained how world peace IS impossible."No, you've been explaining how world peace is improbable."There will always be that bad apple that screws us all over. There will always be that one person that is just evil."Why? Why is it physically or logically necessary for the world to contain at least one evil person at all times? You've never divulged this information to us.VOTE FOR PEACE