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

A two-state solution and peace are essential for regional stability. The Middle East has been embroiled in turmoil due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades. This conflict has created a rift between the Muslim world and the West, as well as between citizens and their governments. Additionally, the conflict has been cited as a contributing factor to terrorism due to the tensions it generates between Muslims and the West. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is crucial for easing these various tensions. To the extent that a two-state solution can bring an end to the conflict and establish peace, it can help alleviate tensions and promote stability in the broader Middle East and in the global struggle against terrorism.

So, while markusabernathy1998 forfeited the last round, I'm going to continue to reinforce my three main premises, and they are that first, we should cut funding to Israel because of human rights violations, second, because its costly, and third, because we serve to gain nothing. Now, its not just markusabernathy1998 who has been trying to refute my human rights arguments, but there have been many comments saying that the US is a hypocrite who took lives and thus have no right to blame Israel. The US of A has always stood for freedom and justice. After the attack on the world trade center, we avenged every one of those lost lives. the United States has fought many wars, and have thus killed many people over our nation's history. But we fought for freedom, we fought for country, and we fought for justice. Let's not forget that, and refer back to Israel. Recently, a UN report showed that North Korea had human rights violation and torture methods similar to that of Mr. Adolf Hitler. Everyone was off and scolding North Korea. These are people like markusabernathy1998 who ignore the crimes of Israel, and point their finger at nations like North Korea. It might seem like North Korea is more inherently evil, and that is most likely case. But a crime is a crime, and saying one murderer is better or cleaner than another is unacceptable. That's american law and principle. So,let's stick to our principles of freedom, justice, and liberty and work to put an end to ISrael's crimes! What better way to do so than to withold aid. By doing so, Israel will be pressured into stopping their abuses. Enough about ideology, lets just talk as human beings. Israel's former prime minister the late Ariel Sharon allegdly killed more than 200 innocent women, children, and men (palestinian) at a refugee camp during the war with Lebanon. That's 200 innocent lives lost for no reason. Ariel Sharon paid no real punishment for his crimes, and was quietly let go. You see, folks, it's because of moments like these that we have Palestinians crying out and begging for the US to help. But like most of the human rights abuses and crimes, these pleas for help never reach America's shores. But let's move on to the next important topic, which is our economy. 3 billion dollars. That is 1/5 of our foreign aid budget in itself, and it's being sent to Israel. When we talk about our economy, we should imagine the frugal man. If we continue spending lavishly just because we want to, we will never fix this nation's economic crisis. With debt over 17 trillion, unemployment just under 7%, and a stock market that has had its worst days since 2011, we are in no position to be wasting 3 billion dollars. I say waste, to mean that we don't gain any real inherent benefits.

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.

How do we know what is true when we read/watch news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Americans are invested in the conflict for a bounty of different reasons and the sources for the ways they stay up-to-date have dramatic effects on the way they relate to the conflict. In the relationship between people in the U.S. and the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, I think Americans are blindly polarized by biases in media sources.

Hamas is a group of fanatics, and I never justified them. I just said that their actions did not define the Palestinians. Also, the Israeli government attacked the civilian population of the Gaza strip, not even specifically targeting the members of Hamas. What do you mean by the fact that all three religions have quarters in Jerusalem? Because as far as I know, Jerusalem is not the capital of a Muslim or Christian nation, but of a Jewish one. Minorities do not have less rights. But the fact that such a symbolic city is in the hands of one religion alone is unfair. In 1948, when Israel first declared itself a nation, the Arabs and the Jews had the same number of people in Palestine. Neither was a minority, and so, displacing half a nation's residents is unheard of.

Throughout history, people have relied on wars and violence in order to resolve issues, whether it be for profit or satisfaction in other ways. As of now, it is culturally acceptable, in certain circumstances to use violence in order to resolve issues for a supposed peaceful endpoint that "justifies the means". My argument is that violence only perpetuates more violence, and in order to mitigate it, we must create new alternatives and change our ideology that has been ingrained through social conditioning.

With many thanks to my opponent for his eloquent and comprehensive rebuttal, I should like to apologise in advance for the brevity of my reply - I only have a very short window of time before the deadline is up, and it thought it better to write something, no matter how brief, rather than forfeit the round. So, my argument will be all-in-one, as folows: Consider almost the countries that have gained independence in recent years - many have done so against the will of their former masters. Take the satellite states of the Soviet Union, for example. There was huge resistance from Moscow to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria et al from breaking away from the Warsaw Pact, but they weren't Soviet Republics. However, after the fall of communism, countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan broke free from Russian rule and were recognised by the UN. And just this week a new nation was formed, South Sudan, although this was no velvet revolution - most of Sudan's oil reserves are in the south (just like much of America's oil reserves are in the south, particularly Texas) and the (formerly united) Sudanese government fought bitterly against the south having independence. Nevertheless, the people of the south fought and won their right to self-governance and South Sudan was duly recognised by the UN. Of course, Tibet is still under the control of the Chinese, but the UN and the West have been calling upon Beijing to allow the Tibetans to govern themselves. This may well be against Chinese or Tibetan national law, but the will of the people to gain independence, with the support of the international community must prevail and that's why Texas should be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if Texans choose that as their destiny. Thank you.

" also the statement two wrongs make a right makes sense as it just makes things worse for both sides but if someone were to approach you and punch you in the jaw would you just stand there and do nothing or would you punch them right back and make it equal"Just because we do it or are capable of doing it does not make it right. As I said this is a fallacy. "this is just my opinion you might just stand there and take it as yes it would make things better for one of you but why would you want to make things better for your enemy."A physical altercation and a war are incomparable. There are more than two people fighting in a war. Innocents are involved and harmed.Infrastructure is dismantled. Leadership is in disarray. None of these thing happen in an altercation."but in my deference i wasn't saying that two wrongs make a right i was saying that if we cant do that to them why should they be aloud to do that to us."Who said their allowed to do it to us? When these opposing forces attack, do they ask the United States for permission to fight? They are doing as they wish. They have not been "allowed" to do any thing."but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs"In wars, the United States does take the opposing forces' lives. A war is inherently violent so we are intentionally are attempting to end their lives. Just because there are war crimes does not mean we can not kill in a war. As I said terrorists are not a state or a formal organization. There is a reason why the Americans are still fighting in Afghanistan. That is because they don't know who to negotiate with in the Taliban. It is not an elected body or a formal body that has a leader(1). Versus if the United States lost, the opposing forces could negotiate with our elected officials.(1)No Easy Task: Fighting in Afghanistan-Bernd Horn" but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs. and what if the people are not civilians what if they are oposition the people trying to kill us"To kill civilians while fighting terrorists or insurgents, only brings us deeper into the conflict for the worse. Insurgency and terrorist conflicts don't take place in "battlefields" usually. The fighting takes place where civilians live. The United States should of learned from Vietnam where Vietnamese civilians who had relatives killed aided the Viet Cong to get back at the Americans. Currently, the United States is relearning what happens when you kill civilians in southern Afghanistan(2). Many of these civilians are aiding or joining the Taliban. As General McChrystal said "Because of civilian casualties, I think we have just about eroded our credibility here." Fighting an insurgency is different from fighting a conventional war where the war formally ends.(2)http://www.thenation.com...#"why should we show mercy to them why cant we strap them to a char and kick the "%$&* outa them till they tell us what we want to here"The United States is a professional army that is disciplined not a band of brigands roaming the countryside. The US wouldn't do this even if there weren't any war crimes. The Army Field Manual states that prisoners treated humanely will more likely give valid information over prisoners who are physically tortured(3). Physical torture produces unreliable information from the person being interrogated. Essentially, they would make up information to stop being tortured(4). Inadequate intelligence leads to wasted time and effort, and worse the possibility that lives will be lost in a misadventure. (3)http://www.fas.org...(4)http://www.cgu.edu..."in my oppinion if you have the power to do something and not have any reprocutions from it do it its only your gain"Wars are fought based on thought out opinions. Your encouraging recklessness would cause more Americans to die. The civilian population would turn on us and then we would lose if we did what your recommending. Insurgencies can't be won once the civilian population turns against you.

The major lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations." It's because I agree with Robert McNamara that I affirm the resolution: "RESOLVED: States ought not possess nuclear weapons." For the purposes of this debate I provide the following definition: State: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign. VALUE: Safety CRITERION: Upholding international humanitarian law CONTENTION 1: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and could be targeting the U.S. Wolfsthal '06 … continued development of missiles should worry all Americans as over the past few years North Korea has acquired enough nuclear material to build a small arsenal of nuclear weapons and… they are clearly pursuing a system capable of holding American cities at risk of attack. Their success is only a matter of time… how can Americans be sure that some future "test" missile won't be fitted with a nuclear weapon and targeted on a US city? they can't… North Korea has succeeded in developing a nuclear arsenal and in advancing its missile programs… This only encourages more provocative behavior in the future. Contention 2: Officials believe Iran is building nuclear weapons. MAZZETTI and SANGER 8/19/10 The Obama administration has persuaded Israel that it would take roughly a year for Iran to complete a nuclear weapon… American officials said the United States would detect an Iranian move toward breakout within weeks… Iran, would build nuclear bombs from a of nuclear material, currently enough for two weapons. Israeli officials have indicated that if they saw a race for the bomb under way, they would take military action and encourage the United States to join… Israeli officials remain suspicious that Iran has a secret enrichment site… in the tunnels it has dug throughout the country. Last September, Iran acknowledged that it had such a hidden facility near the city of Qum… Israel was particularly concerned that Iran's supreme leader could order that nuclear materials be dispersed to secret locations around the country… Contention 3: Terrorists smuggle nuclear weapons. Wolfsthal '05 … and terrorist groups cannot at the moment produce highly enriched uranium or plutonium--the key ingredients in a nuclear device… The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented two dozen cases of nuclear smuggling… Allison provides ample evidence that terrorists have opportunity to buy or steal either a nuclear device or the material to build one… with graphic images of recent terrorist attacks in Russia, reports of such opportunities communicate the gravity of the threat. Contention 4: Nuclear Reduction addresses major problems without reducing deterrence. Weber 7/13/10 The presidents of the United States and of Russia have signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which authorizes significant reductions of the nuclear weapons and delivery systems of both countries… Whatever deterrence the United States may require is provided by its awesome air and naval power… Any hostile state so foolish as to contemplate war with the United States will be deterred because it does not want to risk fighting the United States and confronting its massive conventional might, not because it fears being blown up by nuclear strikes. The New START will not compromise that deterrent capability. This architecture of deterrence was the basis of bipolar relationships. The treaty will help work against proliferation and will reduce substantially the number of weapons available to be targeted by terrorist theft operations… Cooperation between these two powers is essential… If they work different sides of these conflicts the political difficulties will grow worse and the temptation to nuclearize the conflicts will increase. For the aforementioned reasons, a ballot for the Negative is a ballot covered in human blood. Also, I would like to tell you why nuclear deterrence is bad for other reasons: 1.Nuclear deterrence is speculative. Just because nothing has happened in the past doesn't mean deterrence works -- the threat isn't credible. 2.Nuclear weapons don't deter against terrorists b/c they have no permanent base that will be threatened. Also, deterrence depends on rationality of deterree to NOT risk being attacked and rogue nation leaders and terrorists are irrational so they won't be deterred. 3.Deterrence only has to fail once. Even the strongest advocates of nuclear deterrence realize it cannot work 100% of the time, due to irrational, "undeterrable", and sometimes suicidal aggressors. This means when it fails once, nuclear proliferation occurs. 4.Deterrence can't prevent accidents which can escalate into global conflict 5.Link Turn: Deterrence is based on perception, so you don't actually need nuclear weapons to achieve same effect. 6.For deterrence to work, it is necessary for the attacker to find the cost of retaliation extremely high. If they don't, nuclear deterrence isn't effective. 7.Nuclear deterrence only works if the deterree is credible. This depends mostly upon the state leader's reputation and the state government's legitimacy. 8.TURN: President Kennedy made a deterrence threat against the Soviets, and failed miserably. 9.Deterrence can often be set in place after a nuclear decision has already been made. For example, President Kennedy set deterrence in place after the Kremlin decision had sent missiles to Cuba. 10.An aggressor nation could believe its actions are below the threshold of what could trigger a nuclear response. Then, the defending nation retaliates. 11.There often is not a certain threshold for when retaliation is necessary. Thus, the "nuclear threat" is often not set into action after an aggressor attacks, OR the deterring nation could proliferate nukes at the drop of a hat. 12.There's always the threat of "catalytic nuclear war." This is where a third party launches nukes on "country X," and blames it on "country Y." Thus causing nuclear war between these two countries. This was especially feared to happen during the Cold War. 13. Nuclear deterrence makes other countries want to possess nukes, leading to even higher danger. Onto my opponent's case.. Contention 1: TURN: The globe is a much more dangerous place with nukes. My opponent claims that nuclear weapons are the reason that no other countries have nuked us. This is untrue. He provides no empirical evidence on this. Do you know why? Because there is no empirical evidence saying that. There's a phrase called "the fog war." This means in war, there's too many variables to predict what your opponent will do, just like I don't know how my opponent will respond to this. This means we cannot conclude that MAD was the only reason we weren't nuked. When my opponent jumps to this conclusion, he actually commits a "Post Hog Ergo Propter Hoc" logical fallacy. And nukes have moved us past genocide? So... What about Darfur? Also, my opponent claims there has been no death in the U.S. What about 9/11? This is from a terrorist attack, and nukes certainly didn't prevent it. And if you're speaking internationally, what about the U.S. troops in Pakistan who have been victims of bombings? And it's moved us past the age of conquest? What about Palestine and Israel arguing over land? Contention 2: TURN: Conventional warfare is better. This is because while conventional means might kill thousands or millions, nuclear warfare will cause 7 billion. Let's do a little math... And we can see that my impact calculus is much bigger, thus I outweigh. Also, the Holocaust isn't conventional warfare. That was a genocide, which is not synonymous with conventional warfare. Contention 3: Nukes have been used with good reason??? I don't think so. When we nuked Hiroshima, we did so unnecessarily. Experts agree that the U.S. could have invaded with conventional means,

I understand. I'm currently in the process of moving myself, and only put together weak arguments one hour before the deadline each of the last two rounds. I hope we can revisit this debate at a later date, one where my arguments are better and where both of us have more time.


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

The idea of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which involves creating separate sovereign states for both Israel and Palestine, faces significant challenges and may not be the best course of action. Firstly, the practical difficulties in dividing the land along clear lines are immense. The presence of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and Arab farmers in Israeli lands complicates the process, leading to potential chaos and violence reminiscent of the tragic Indo-Pakistan partition. Additionally, Israel's concerns over defensibility and territorial integrity are heightened by the proposed borders, which could exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them.

Secondly, the conflict's complexity, rooted in historical, religious, and geopolitical factors, cannot be resolved simply by statehood for Palestine. Mutual distrust, territorial disputes over Jerusalem, and the influence of external powers like the United States and Middle Eastern nations add layers of difficulty. Unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state without negotiation could inflame Israel, leading to a breakdown in peace efforts. Moreover, a weak Palestinian state, potentially reliant on Middle Eastern aid, might provoke Israel's military response, reversing any progress towards peace.

Lastly, the concept of statehood is not solely determined by legal rights but by the international community's recognition of a government's sovereignty over its territory. While some advocate for a return to the 1947 UN borders, the reality of the situation and the lack of pressure from the UN suggest that these borders are not a viable or universally accepted solution. Statehood, as seen in the cases of Kosovo and Sudan, is about global acknowledgment of a state's autonomy, which has not been forthcoming for Palestine.

In summary, the two-state solution is fraught with practical and political challenges, and it may not effectively address the underlying issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I think a sufficient response could simply be to state that correlation does not equal causation. Simply because A occurred before B, does not mean that A caused B [1]. The fact that President Bush did something one day, and the US was hit with a major “act of god” the next does not, in any way, imply that they are connected. However, to do PRO’s full response justice, I will presently address it more thoroughly. Crappy Protection The first thing to hit me is that if God is actually protecting Israel by way of adverse weather events in the United States, he is really doing a poor job. First off, in the events PRO noted, with a single exception, the storm took place after the event. If God were trying to protect Israel, perhaps it would have been a better idea to make the storm hit before the US took whatever action he didn’t want to happen. Also, it is well documented that in major storms like the ones PRO noted, it is the poor that pay the greatest price [2][3]. If God was trying to prevent particular actions by the United States, perhaps a better way to affect change would be to actually do something that will primarily affect the decision makers, not the poor and helpless. Regarding 9/11 (the exception noted earlier), the planning for the tragedy had been taking place for years before the event [4][5]. Therefore, if God was going to use 9/11 as a message to the US, he had it in the works for years before the peace plan, and then he allows the talks to occur before extinguishing thousands of innocent lives in an attempt to get the leaders of the United States to take notice. If this is the best protection your God can offer, he is doing a crappy job. Final Thoughts PRO has claimed that Israel is under the protection of a god, yet he has not provided any solid evidence in support of this claim. He basically relies on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, commonly referred to in English by the phrase, “correlation does not equal causation” [1]. He has also not addressed my point that the continued existence of Israel my well be the result of support from other nations. He has failed to fulfill his burden, and I have shown that his claim is unlikely to be true, even though I had no burden to do so. Sources: [1] . http://www.princeton.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.gallup.com... [4] . http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com...

=Resolution=Read before acceptingSo I will argue that on balance, Gun Bans will not be very effective in the U.SMy opponent will argue on balance Gun Bans would be effectiveBOP is sharedNo K's'DefinititionsEffective - successful in producing a desired or intended resultGun Ban- So completely banning guns. Not just restrictions

Just for fun, I'm going to illustrate the dangers of a poorly worded resolution. Hispanic gangs that are racist against blacks exist and recruit thousands of members. It is highly unlikely that at least two members out of those thousands are not registered voters who voted for obama because of his race. It is even more unlikely that there are not at least two hispanic people somewhere in the united states who had racially motivated votes against Obama. The resolution does not require that a majority or a significant number of hispanics are motivated so, only that the number of those who do so is plural. Are you telling me that out of the millions of people in this country, no two have the following characteristics: are hispanic, voted for people other than barack obama, and voted in a racially motivated manner?

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.

Thanks. Peaceintheeast, are you going to present a case that there is bias in the media regarding the Palestinian Conflict? If not, there's nothing for me to refute and the judges should give the debate to me by default. I first need to clarify, though...my argument is intended to attack known bias in the media but I am unclear if your purpose is to argue that there should be bias in the media or that there is no bias in the media. I'm arguing that if you look at the totality of the coverage, including all media sources, that you cannot prove systematic bias in one direction (either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestinian). The NY Times front page story on the new Fatah/Hamas partnership even pointed out multiple times that Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization in many parts of the world. I've seen numerous articles that say that no Two State Solution will work if Hamas doesn't sign off on it, and Israel's treatment of Hamas as categorically a terrorist organization is harming the peace process. But honestly, I'm just assuming that you would argue that the coverage has been too pro-Israel. But I guess you could argue that it's been too pro-Palestinian, so I don't even know what bias I'm arguing against. C1) Time On the Time Magazine article: You make a good point in saying that publishing a poignant article provoked action on the part of the Israeli government. However, it proves that in this case, the media had a specific agenda, and if it had a particular agenda, then it can no longer claim to be communicating information but rather, opinion. My opponent never proves that Time Magazine had an agenda by publishing an article critical of Israel. If taking a position for one side or another means "having an agenda," then unbiased reporting would be really boring. My opponent's vision of unbiased reporting would consist of dry articles that are a straight recitation of facts. Articles are only interesting when the author advances and clear, concise, and convincing thesis. Unbiased reporting means giving authors on both sides of an issue access to publication, not refusing to take a stance. Imagine if you were trying to see how you felt about Solar Energy, and no one was allowed to talk in favor or against solar energy. It'd be very difficult to become educated on the topic. All articles would just read like the CIA World Factbook or an Almanac - just a list of facts and statistics. C2) Al Jazeera On the Al Jazeera point, if you look closely, you will see that Al Jazeera English does not publish the same material as Al Jazeera in Arabic. It would be much easier simply to translate articles from Arabic than to pay to have new articles written for the English-speaking audience. No one would watch Al Jazeera if it was a straight translation of Arabic. Subtitled movies don't fair well in the United States for the same reason - because it's boring to watch someone speaking in a language you don't understand, for an hour, and having to read subtitles. Al Jazeera: English advances the same agenda and perspective, while trying to appeal to an English-speaking audience, featuring people who speak English and understand local culture, as well as Mid-East culture. C3) Lobbyists Most people acknowledge that the flow of information is lobbyists to media, not media to lobbyists. Lobbyists create material, journalists sometimes use that material rather than doing original research (*cough* Fox News *cough*). So blame the pro-Israel lobby for being more effective at corralling public opinion than the pro-Palestinian lobby; don't blame the media, which actually counteracts AIPAC's agenda by publishing dissident voices. My opponent still has not proven that the coverage of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is biased.

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.

We can not simply blame someone for just an action! Rebuttals: 1. Hamas just simply protects their nation, and they are not using civilians as shield, but they are protecting them and protecting their rights!. 2. Who knows those hidden rockets were owned by Hamas? maybe its kept there for showing a bad image of Hamas to the world. 3. Israel is forgetting the humanity, and they simple kill innocent people by blaming they are terrorists and they are part of Hamas. Your point of WW2 is totally different from this scenario, because of the following reasons; a. Hitler who is known the most dangerous terrorist in the 1940s, he was doing it for reason which was personal or maybe for power, while Hamas is doing so to protect their nation and they do not want power! b. They were powerful in terms of military, economic, and other resources though they wanted to occupy more countries and role on them, while Hamas is not doing so! c. Can you analyze how Philistine is destroyed by Israel brutal attacks? If you are agree that people is dying for wrong, then why should Israel continue their attacks on Philistine? Everyone knows that by attacking, only innocent people is killed, they can not kill Hamas! if they think they have the power, why don't they kill Hamas personally, rather than continuing brutal attacks? Hamas is defending their nation and country, though they need to sacrifice their civilians, just to protect their rights! If Israel stops their attacks on Hamas im sure Hamas will also find a way to solve these issues. Keeping in view all the above reasons and descriptions, Israel must stop their attacks because their attacks are not morally justified!

Now, lets get into my final round rebuttals and conclusion. ". .. You see, it is the responsibility of my opponent to show a law from the qur'an which does not lead to peace and why. .. " ". .. at no time does he explain or give any sound logic as to how the verses do not establish peace. .. " ". .. The fact that he couldn't expound on the verses in which he quoted is evidence from his own words themself that there is no law in islam which does not establish peace. .. " ". .. every verse in which my opponent quoted are punishments for wrong doing. .. " And it goes on and on. .. ". .. I wonder what my opponent would consider be done to a person who rapes or steals or murders. Do you suggest we prescrible for them milk and cookies for their actions? .. ." and on. .. ". .. In short, my opponent failed to produce any law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace. .. " I strongly beg to differ. First of all, the quotes which I used in round two all directly point NOT at "wrong-doers", but at disbelievers. Herein lies the problems with this entire debate. My opponent is a Muslim. He will not go to an eternal pit of fire when he dies. However, according to the Qu'ran I will because I do not believe that Allah exists. Which is why I have continually stressed the definition of the word "PERFECT". If your laws do not improve the lives (and afterlives) of non-Muslims(ie. wrong-doers), that is a flaw. The second point I'd like to stress concerns my opponents repeated use of the word "establish". Does he know what this word means? Let me refresh his memory. .. Establish: "to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis" Let us forget the word "Perfect" for a minute. .. Just ask yourself: What is a better way to bring about peace, violence or non-violence? CLEARLY, it is non-violence. So if there is a better way of bringing about peace than violence(ie. fighting) how can it be the 'perfect way of establishing peace'. .. The same could also clearly said for maintaining peace. Violence is not the perfect way, I don't care how many times my opponent says it and I'm sure any reasonable person will agree with me. Misinterpret: "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly. " If something is subject to such gross misinterpretation as the Qu'ran, it is not perfect. I've stressed this point enough. My opponents second last paragraph in round three is again about fighting and peace. I have already addressed this. I'll reiterate in my conclusion. FINAL CONCLUSIONS: -The Qu'ran is subject to gross misinterpretation, thus it is not perfect. -The Qu'ran and the acts of the prophet Mohammad are full of violence and killing. Violence and killing are not peaceful. -Violence is not the PERFECT way of establishing OR maintaining peace. -The Qu'ran does not look kindly on non-Muslims, which I see as a flaw. If it has a flaw then it is not perfect. -Buddhism is much more peaceful than Islam. I feel over the course of this debate I have shown these five points to be very much true. I look forward to seeing my opponents final round arguments.

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!

Rules: 1) Since I am Con, I do not have to prove that Israel will get nuked. I can if I want to, but the burden of proof is on Pro. 2) No spamming, trolling, flaming etc. 3) No off-topic. Definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...): Nuclear attack: Israel: a republic in SW Asia, on the Mediterranean: formed as a Jewish state May 1948. 5,534,672; 7984 sq. mi. (20,679 sq. km). Capital: Jerusalem. Since I feel like it, I will present evidence to prove that Israel will experience a nuclear attack. As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Now, the president whatever of Iran has said that: **"Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives."**, "Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added. (http://www.ynetnews.com...) Some people say that because of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Iran cannot do anything. They are wrong because: 1) Russia is an ally of Iran. Should USA or Israel nuke/invade Iran, Russia would be there to protect them or to nuke back Israel/USA. 2) Barack Obama, the president of the US, does not give a poop about Israel. So, 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. We have a country who wants to destroy Israel (and USA) and *will have nuclear weapons soon*. What is USA doing? Of course, every rational being would think that America would destroy the nuclear reactors in Iran. Nope. Today, President Barack Obama said (not exact words), "Why hate, let's be friends. We want to negotiate and establish a friendship." Israel ain't doing anything, either. Especially not after the elections, when the president of Israel is a pacifist. Let's summarize. 1. Iran (plus terrorists and other countries) want to annihilate Isreal from the surface of the Earth. 2. Iran will have fully functional nuclear missiles within a year or two. 3. Neither the USA nor Israel are doing anything. C1: Iran wants to burn Israel to the ground and will soon have nuclear missiles, therefore being capable of achieving their goal. No-one is doing a thing to prevent this, instead, Russia is an ally of Iran. I'd like to end with a quote from Mahmudjhin... the Iranian guy. "Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." This conquest is about to begin.


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

A two-state solution is the key to peace, the paramount consideration. Shimon Peres, in his article "One Region, Two States" published in the Washington Post on February 10, 2009, stated: "Critics contend that after the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel's midsection would be too slender, roughly six miles, to ensure the safety of its populace. [...] Indeed, six miles is insufficient to ensure absolute security, which only underscores our conviction that Israel's security is not solely contingent on territorial defense, but on peace. Peace offers an expansive horizon, even when the land is narrow."

Thanks for accepting.This is a contentious topic but I thought the discussion was very well-mannered in your previous debate. Despite the fact we may have to be critical of countries and organisations involved in the I/P conflict, I think we can do this in a manner that keeps on the right side of legitimate criticism.In regards to the topic at hand, my argument can be summarised as:- Israel is committing war crimes against the Palestinians- It is right to take action to stop war crimes against the Palestinians- Boycott is an effective economic strategy to end the war crimes and should be the method employed-- Therefore European countries should join the BDS and boycott IsraelWar CrimesIsrael has and is committing a series of human rights violations and war crimes against the Palestinians. That this is occurring is attested to by UN Reports [1], the International Court of Justice [2], human rights NGOs both inside[3] and outside[4] of Israel and even by the testimonies of Israeli soldiers themselves[5 - Youtube]. http://www.youtube.com...These collectively attest to :- The indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians- Imprisonment without trial- Torture of people arrested without trial- Illegal occupation- Illegal blockade- Use of men, women and children as human shields- Collective punishment against entire communities- Denial of basic service like medical careThat is some of the war crimes being comitted but is not exhaustive.That these war crimes are occurring is something that has one of the biggest consensuses in all of international politics, with the UN GA passing a resolution affirming the illegality of Israel's occupation each year by massive measures. The most recent one passed 94 votes to 7 [6]. Even of the 7 who voted against, it is largely a case of being politic and not wanting to bring it up rather than saying that it is wrong as the USA for instance still stands by it's SC resolutions which amount to the same like UNSC 242. [7]Why We Should CareThat people have universal human rights and are deserving of protection is a fundamental belief that is based in the core concepts of Western liberalism and enshrined in international law[8]. People are suffering greatly and not able to help themselves, so we should help.Indeed membership into the UN means agreement with the UN charter[9], committing members to (as per article 2) "ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter" and "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."As the war crimes committed are a use of force used in the continuation of an occupation which stops the political independence of Palestine, we are required to "fulfill in good faith the obligation ... in accordance with the present Charter" in accordance with our UN membership and commitment to these principles.Now some might think that because this is a two-sided conflict, because Palestinian Militants enact war crimes, that this is grounds for not taking action. I would argue against this for two key reasons1) There is no grounds for making war crimes permissible as Palestinians have inalienable rights[10] and the ban on war crimes is absolute[11]This could perhaps be summed up as "Two rights don't make a wrong". To put it in more depth, the rights of the Palestinians are inalienable and cannot be removed so simply. More than that, as put by Israeli Human Rights organisation B'Tselem in their report called Absolute Prohibition: The Torture and Ill-treatment of Palestinian Detainees [11]:"Like murder, rape, and slavery, torture is a form of absolute evil that justifies the imposition of an absolute prohibition, even if the prohibition clashes with other important values"Similar reasoning is present for all War Crimes. The Geneva Convention and similar documents do not allow war crimes to be committed if a state can find reasons to call the person (or nationality) they are performing the war crimes against bad dudes. Such allowances do not exist and would render the entire point of such prohibitions useless.Palestinian militants do commit war crimes, but this does not mean that no action should be taken in regards Israel - It means action should be taken in regards to Palestine as well as Israel. What exactly this action should be is outside the scope for this debate.2) The argument that Israeli war crimes are allowable based on Palestinian militant war crimes quickly becomes circular, as it follows that Palestinian militant war crimes should themselves be allowable based on the Israeli war crimes they are a response to.This then quickly turns into a race to find who can find the earliest abuse of one side against the other - that one original act that was not in response to any previous war crime - and this demeans the entire process by trying to rationalise the decades of bloodshed as somehow legitimate for one side or the other.Why economic boycotts should be usedEconomic boycotts lack the implicit harm of direct military involvement. I'm sure my opponent will agree that if action is going to be taken, it is far more preferable for it to be economic pressure rather than an invasion of Israel. As such this will be my shortest section.The key point is that boycotts and sanctions have been shown to work. The analogous boycott towards Apartheid South Africa was "pivotal in both changing attitudes towards South Africa and to the struggle to end apartheid"[12]. Just recently Iran made an agreement on it's nuclear development after the sanctions it were linked to its agreement[13].Indeed such sanctions are the norm for countries involved in major conflicts, from Syria[14] following the civil war and even to UNSC member Russia[15] following its involvement with Ukraine.Boycott is therefore consistent with the response that should be expected towards a country in Israel's situation and its current treatment is anomalous, with Israel receiving massive and disproportionate aid rather than boycotts for its war crimes. For instance: "Total U.S aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes"[16].I believe that taken together, these three arguements show that Europe should join BDS movement and boycott Israel. Vote PRO.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...

The Resolution Thanks to Pro for an interesting and timely topic.Pro gives the full resolution as "Democratic governments do not derive their authority from democracy, but from inflicting the most terror upon a population than any other organization within the same geographic region." We need to understand what is meant by "terror" in the context of the resolution. The debate title gives it as "use of terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines:terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://www.merriam-webster.com...terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands terror> http://www.merriam-webster.com...There are other definitions of terror, Including "a state of intense fear"Pro then claims, "In order to host "democratic elections", an organization must monopolize the right to host elections within their geographic region. This cannot be achieved without initially resorting to the unsanctioned use of violence."To defeat the resolution I must show that it a terrorist assertion of power is not necessary for instituting democracy. History shows at least three non-violent paths to democracy.1. Fair elections by mutual consentPro wrongly equates any asserted authority with terrorism. It is vanishingly rare when two opposing parties want to hold free elections that they resort to violence to determine who will hold the election. In fact, it seems logically impossible. If A wants a fair election and B wants a free election, there is no reason to resort to violence o determine who holds the election. A and B will cooperate. It's only when one side does not want democracy that violence would be used to seize power and then hold an unfair or rigged election. It is not true that the power to hold elections must be monopolized. If both sides want democracy hey will cooperate to bring the elections.In democratic countries there are typically two or more opposing political parties. According to the resolution, one of the parties must terrorize the others in order to seize the power hold elections. That is not the case. Both cooperate in setting up and administering a fair system. For example, in the United States the parties appoint poll watchers who inspect the polling pace and the ballot process to ensure that the agreed-upon rules are obeyed. If the rules are claimed to be violated, the mater is brought to an independent judiciary who resolves the issue. Nothing that could be construed as terrorism takes place.2. Unelected regimes choosing free electionsPro is concerned about emerging democracy and cites the example of upcoming elections in Egypt. Pro claims, "only a legitimate authority can host a legitimate election in which politicians are legitimately elected into power." That's not true. An unelected regime may chose to host a free election. There are many examples of this I will cite three:Military rule in Chile gave way to democracy in process in which power was relinquished incrementally, first by allowing an Assembly to be elected and a Constitution to be instituted, and ultimately full democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org... External as well as internal political forces were at work pressuring the military to surrender power, but they did so without any process of terrorism. The previous dictator, Pinochet, had ruled with a reign of terror, but the subsequent transition from military rule to democracy was peaceful. Taiwan is another example of dictatorial rule giving way peacefully to democracy. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty years, until democratic reforms were mandated during the final year of authoritarian rule under Chiang Ching-kuo. The reforms were promulgated under Chiang's successor, Lee Teng-hui, which culminated in the first ever direct presidential election in 1996. , http://en.wikipedia.org...Spain is yet another example of a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. "The willingness of Spain’s political leaders to compromise, plus a growing level of economic development, allowed Spain to near-seamlessly evolve from Franco’s dictatorial state to a democratic monarchy." http://www.e-ir.info... It did take some time, during which a series of elections marked the transition to full democracy. 3. External monitoring of electionsAnother method is to use an outside organization to supervise the transition to democracy. Of course, the unelected regime may choose not to set up a fair system, but contrary to the resolution, they clearly may choose to do so. The United Nations Department of Political Affairs, through its Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), aids the transition to democracy. http://www.un.org...For example, the United Nations provided supervision of fair elections in Cambodia.A major step towards normalization occurred with the elections of May 1993. Twenty parties took part in the elections. UNTAC oversaw the electoral campaign and registration of voters, as well as the elections. Over 4.2 million people -- nearly 90 per cent of the registered voters -- cast their ballots to elect a Constituent Assembly. The head of UNTAC declared the elections free and fair. In September, the Constitution was proclaimed and an new government, led by two prime ministers, was inaugurated. http://www.un.org...There is the start of the UN monitoring elections in Libya, though whether it succeeds remains to be seen. http://www.un.org...Election monitoring has also been provided by the Organization of American States, the British Commonwealth, and the Council of Europe. http://tinyurl.com... These organizations monitored many transitions to democracy, including in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia.The United States as monitored elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. SummaryIt's possible that attempts to transition from unelected government to democracy may fail in Egypt or elsewhere, Failure means that some organized force does not want democracy, either the regime in power or one of the emerging political factions. That's not inevitable, and it's clearly false that organizing of elections requires "terror." I have given three peaceful means by which it is possible to accomplish the transition to democracy. I have cited many examples of peaceful transition to democracy being accomplished.The resolution is negated.

The United States should continue to support the nation-state of Israel, and should continue to supply military aid to the country. Support for Israel in terms of military is more than the debate between Israel/Palestine. This conflict looks back to the end of the Holocaust, and the perception of support for a defeated and attacked people as a whole. There was a conflict with the sense that Israelis, and specifically the Jews who primarily encompass what Israel's population is today were are the end of the Holocaust fearful for return to any home due to the vast amounts of anti-semitism that swooped through Europe and other parts of the world. With this in mind, there were only so many supporters of the Jewish people at the end of the Holocaust. Western allies such as Great Britain, France and the United States in particular were some of the only left who were in support of building up and protecting a devastated people (www.ushmm.org). With the spread of anti-Jewish figures in the Eastern World, there was a need for the United States to begin to support Israel more heavily. In 1945 Harry Truman got involved with the protection of the new state of Israel (Green, "Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?" The Atlantic). And even into today, there are more than plenty of reasons for continued military support. With the threat of continued nuclear attack, there is an importance of having a nuclear ally in the Middle East to aid in the cut-off war happening overall. Plus, the support from the United States is taking the load off Israel, allowing them the true time to work on building themselves stronger over time. Thusly supporting a stronger military in the long-run (Green, "Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?" The Atlantic).

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.

You have made a very convincing case for why world peace is extremely unlikely, but have barely even touched your true burden of proof: to prove that it is impossible.You say ego drives some people to want things and commit evil acts to obtain them. I agree, ego can do this. But as you've said, "some people will kill for [glory, power, and material items]" not all people. Ego can cause someone to commit evil, but it does not necessarily and essentially have to do this in every person.With only one round left, you must prove that world peace somehow violates a physical or logical law, and would therefore be impossible to exist in reality.

He started his arguments by quoting Thomas Jefferson as follows: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent," and "Every Generation needs a new revolution". The former American President could appear, to some people, to contradict himself in these two statements, if they were to be quoted in historical isolation. Although the average American would probably place the two quotes in the context of their own national history and think of the uprising that led to their former colonial masters being overthrown, and thus consider a revolution a good thing, a Russian may think of their own revolution, which led to a tyrannical regime being installed in their country and would be unlikely to view a popular uprising in such a positive light. Furthermore, one man's meat is another man's poison. Take the current situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories, for instance. The Palestinian people have formed armed militias that have risen up in an effort to liberate their land from the military forces that occupy it. To many people, especially in the Middle East, these gunmen are thought of as freedom fighters, yet the Israelis and their allies in the West describe them as terrorists. Let's say that the Palestinian uprising was successful in overthrowing their tyrannical Israeli rulers (and since the occupation is illegal under international law, it cannot be considered anything else). In this case a revolution would be a good thing, at least from the point the Arab population that has been oppressed and persecuted for so long. To Israelis, however, especially those who live in illegal settlements on Palestinian land, the revolution would not be such a good thing. Now, in Europe, where a patchwork of nations with long and turbulent histories coexist alongside one another, there are some countries, such as France, whose society evolved to be what it is today as the result of a revolution, and there are others, such as Britain, whose society has never experienced a revolution, yet who seem to plod along at least as nicely as their Continental cousins. So, we can see that a revolution may, or may not, facilitate the evolution of society, but it certainly cannot be said that such an insurgency is a necessity.

Much is being made of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. The president and other proponents argue that the right to build the community center is protected under the constitution. This is a perfectly valid, reasonable argument, and I agree with it entirely. As a result of the debate over this issue, supporters of the mosque have stressed that Islam as a religion, and the millions of Muslims that follow it, should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 or any subsequent attempts. Again, a true statement. Those who support the construction of the mosque argue that the nation should embrace 'religious tolerance', that we should view all religions as being equal, and none should be explicitly discriminated against or restricted from having the same rights guaranteed to other religions. However, religious tolerance is not a viable solution to the problems that religion itself imposes on society. I will argue that religious tolerance is not only impossible, but immoral. --------------- This will be a five round debate. The first round will be used solely to establish background and state opinions without elaboration on arguments. The second to fourth rounds will contain arguments and rebuttals. The fifth and final round will be used for closing statements and summary.

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.

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.

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.