Question: Is Man's Impact the Main Cause of Global Climate Shifts?

Human Activity Not Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change
Evidence suggests that human activity is not the primary cause of global climate change. Alternative explanations for climate change exist, which challenge the notion that humans are the main drivers. To establish human responsibility, one must prove causation beyond mere correlation. The burden of proof lies with those claiming human impact, as they must demonstrate that mankind is the "principal [and] leading" cause of climate change. If alternative causes can be shown to have a greater influence, or if humans are not a significant factor, the argument shifts.
For instance, 1,500-year climate cycles provide substantial evidence that current warming can be attributed to natural phenomena. Fred Singer, a physicist and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and Dennis Avery, an agricultural analyst, have found evidence supporting these cycles from North America to Asia. Ice core data from Greenland, sea sediment in Ireland, fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings, and mountain tree lines all indicate the presence of these cycles. Ignoring these cycles would disregard human history and the findings of numerous researchers.
The Vostok ice sample also reveals that the rise and fall of CO2 correlate with natural cycles, not human activity. Temperatures align with Ice Age minima and maxima, and a 420,000-year cycle of carbon emissions exists. Since human emissions represent a small fraction of total carbon output, the correlation between carbon and temperature cycles is not due to human actions.
Moreover, human emissions of carbon dioxide are not specifically to blame for climate change. Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeace member and ecologist, testified before Congress that "there is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years." Carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher during the Ice Ages and 500 million years ago, disproving that humans are a major cause of increased CO2 levels and that CO2 leads to warming.
The industrial revolution began in 1750, yet global temperatures only increased by 0.5 degrees Celsius from 1910 to 1940. This delay in temperature rise indicates that humans are not the primary cause of warming and supports the existence of climate cycles. During this time, temperatures were higher than today, yet CO2 levels were lower, casting doubt on the significance

Global Temparture and solar activity: And here is manmade co2 emmissions compared to natural co2 emmissions: CO2 emmissions are a byproduct of capitalism, which creates wealth and a higher quality of living for people around the globe, co2 emmissions also create more plantlife. So by arguing for reduced co2 emmissions my opponent is arguing for global poverty and deforestation.

Alright. I'm going to start by wishing whoever my opponent may be, good luck. There are many reasons Global Warming should not be so quickly acted against. The main base of my argument will beneficial. Yes, that does sound a bit crazy, but allow me to explain. The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times. This is also known as the Little Climate Optimum. Here, the world was much warmer, and civilizations thrived. Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth. And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit. Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere. I would be willing to cite my sources if the need arises. Prove me wrong.

First off, I admire the amount of organization you have done, it was very good and makes my job a lota easier :)Second lemme just say one thing: I'm not going to attack sources b/c you and I probably have a different definition of what a "reliable source" is, and so do people on opposite sides of this issue.Contention 1 refutation:I.iYou have not shown the potential amount of temperature that can be decreased by cosmic rays. The effects of these cosmic rays rely on the sun being less active now than it ever was in the Earth's history. However, that is not true. However, that is simply not true, the sun is MORE active than it ever has been over the past 8,000 years. [2].I.ii"[The paper [you are refering to]] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but itâ€™s a very important first step... While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change. [1]"Simply put, although your evidence allows the possibility of cosmic rays to cause the warming of the Earth (although you omit saying by how much and if it would match the trends we are seeing) it does not in any way prove or even attempt to prove that this is something that is happening at this very moment. Sure, even if once every 135 million years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy (which is a very odd statement considering the entire galaxy rotates at roughly the same speed and direction) you have not shown how this is something that is happening at this very moment.I.i.cI really only have one thing to say about this sub-sub point. You have not given specific numbers indicating how this increase in solar radiation hitting the earth would decrease. The warming I have indicated occured over the past 100 years, and really picked up around 1950 and continued to increase after 1990. So your study inadequately explains the global warming we have seen on the time scale and does not give specific numbers, i.e. it does not specify how much it is theorized to increase the earth's temperature by.I.ii"[S]cientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.[3]"In other words, you have successfully proven corrloation, but not causation. Pardon me, but just because some Russian scientist believes that this correlation is cause to blame the sun for global warming, that doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.II.i I refer you to my second contention source 4. The Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC found that if we eliminate CO2 output by humans from the equation, we cannot accurately dexcribe the temperatures we are seeing now. II.iiAlthough the medievel period was warmer in some parts of the world, it definitely was not a global event, or at least there is no evidence to support the idea that it was."There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years [5]."For reference: http://www.ipcc.ch...1) http://thinkprogress.org...2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...3) http://www.livescience.com...4) http://www.giss.nasa.gov...; http://grist.org...

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.

Okay then. I guess the winner is obvious to you all. At least, I hope that it is. Global warming does exist, but it is more than just the result of greedy, evil humans destroying the environment that tree-huggers believe.

Yes, I have said "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that"and the CO2 emission is nowhere the same now as they were back in 1945. However, what I was trying to prove was that even though there was a huge increase in the CO2 emission in 1945, the climate didn't increase which suggests to me that greenhouse effect might not be the case which proves global warming. I wouldn't call global warming the cause of the melting of the glaciers. I would use the term climate change. And yes you are right, that is not the only explanation.I have given you evidences in the next paragraph about the Inconvenient Truth and ClimateGate. In this argument, you have failed to give me another reason why you believe that global warming exists. In the next argument you make, please do include why you think global warming exists rather than just pointing out the mistakes I have made.

The planet is warming. There is too much scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. People who refuse to accept this are not listening to the facts, and are just being plainly ignorant.

Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming. The global temperature has increased over 0.6 degrees C in this time. (for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age.) There is a clear and obvious trend. http://en.wikipedia.org... Why is the world warming? The cause is almost certainly the greenhouse gasses, e.g. CO2, NO2 and CH4. CO2 was shown to be a greenhouse gas by John Tyndall in 1859. It's a very easy experiment. Shine heat into a volume of gas, see if it heats. Up until 100 years ago, CO2 was 280ppm of air. We burnt forest, coal and oil in vast quantities. Air now contains CO2 is now over 385ppm. http://en.wikipedia.org... We should not be surprised. We are essentially living in a bottle. Things happen for a reason. As Issac Newton demonstrated, an object either sits still, or continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The Earth's atmosphere also obeys the laws of physics. It changed in the past as grasses appeared and coal and oil were laid down, and it is responding to forces today. Our forces. (e.g. humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes http://en.wikipedia.org...) Warming is a bad thing. Life adapts to change, but the hot deserts of the world are never as productive as their wetter counterparts. Warmer oceans are far less productive. The World is less productive. Clearly, we don't want starvation that must result. Few of us are happy with being even slightly poorer. It's sensible to act when one has knowledge of a threat. We have this knowledge. We know the trend. We know that greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org... We know of few negating factors and many (many) positive reinforcing factors e.g. the melting of the highly reflective Arctic and the thawing of tundra that will release yet more greenhouse gas. This planet is our life-support-system. There is nothing more important to life as a whole. That's why we should take action against Global Warming.

Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic. This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... Scientists say global warming is real. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent stated: "Not only have the US temperatures been flat for the last 10-15 years, but a similar pattern is happening in Canada. The Canadian national annual, summer and winter temperature departures from the 1961-1990 averages have been flat for 10-14 years when measured on Excel linear trend and based on Environment Canada's own data. Comparing today's winter temperature departure with that of the period 1961-1990 can be misleading since the 1961-1990 period was low or cool phase of the planet's 60 year cycle and any comparison will always show warming not due to man generated global warming, but due to natural and regular changes (30 years of cooler weather followed by 30 years of warmer weather) in the planets climate pattern. It is like comparing summer temperatures with winter temperatures, the summer will always show warming." When my earlier argument came to this conclusion: This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward. In your argument you stated: "Not only have the US temperatures been flat for the last 10-15 years, but a similar pattern is happening in Canada." This is only one region of the world. I went onto this website(the one you gave to me) and I found this: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov... The trend(temperature) is going up. On this link: http://climate.rutgers.edu... There is an error in this image... If this year, 2012, is not even over yet how can it be on the graph? Another error with this argument is that we are not debating snow but we are debating temperature. This has no point to even argue about. This shows that the temperature is rising. Also it came off of the website that just said it was decreasing. This website has false information because of this. http://ec.gc.ca... Dictionary definition: Global Warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally (Generally: in most cases; usually) attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants This last argument also did not have a foundation. The definition did not say that global warming was caused by pollutents but it seems to be put together usually.

before I start my argument I will quickly rebut two points of your opening. first on carbon dating and its accuracy. you have stated that it is 'very accurate for dates 15,000 years through present' there are problems throughout this statement. That carbon dates are still accurate in the modern times but because of the atomic bombs our recent ancestors have decided to drop the past thousand years have skewed the number of radioactive elements and thus carbon dating because carbon dating is based on the half-life of radioactive carbon-14 which is 5730 years and then measuring how much of the carbon is present. this causes our second problem with you statement as a margin of error will occur with such a technique which is +/- hundreds even thousands of years depending upon how old the sample is and the quality of the sample. So naturally from here I thought I would try to find the margin of error on the "academically accurate source" you listed. The link took me to a site that is clearly a source of academic excellence as I am bombarded with click baited thumbnails about Hollywood rumours and cat fights clearly where I want to look when finding unbias and clear evidence. On to my arguments The Earth as we know it is under humanities control we manipulate all the natural forces of evolution with our knowledge and free will when did we start to do this around 10 000 years ago the beginning of the Neolithic era this is when the last great ice age ended and the natural forces of evolution took a step back and humanity broke free expanding across the world creating what we call earth. so i and debating on the premise that yes the matter used to make us may have been ancient but everything before 10 000 years ago was under full control of nature and god as he created the world in which we could live it is only 10 000 years ago that he has finished his creation and given us our free will to colonise it. before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god. before the neolithic era, the world was still being formed it has had extinction after extinction as god resets his creation not approving with what he is creating for us he had used ice ages meteors volcanoes the works all to get the world into a place that he found acceptable for us to live and thrive in. since the Neolithic time we have taken over evolution in control and used our ability to collectively learn and communicate ideas to govern our own futures with free will given to us by god and this is the point where the earth was born. not how long what now makes up the earth existed but how old what we call the earth is. which by this account is 10 000 years old. I await your responce. References Carbon Dating - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... Neolithic period - https://www.britannica.com... era before the neolithic - http://www.livescience.com...


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

The two-state solution is the most viable path to peace. The notion that Israelis and Palestinians can coexist harmoniously in a single state, with mutual respect and adherence to democratic principles of inclusiveness, is unrealistic given the long-standing conflict between the two peoples. This conflict, spanning nearly a century, has made the idea of a one-state solution untenable. While such coexistence might be possible in the distant future, it is imprudent to pursue a one-state policy based on overly optimistic assumptions. Israeli President Shimon Peres has emphasized: “The creation of a single, multi-national country is a precarious path that does not promise peace but instead perpetuates the conflict. Lebanon, wracked by violence and instability, serves as a cautionary example of the potential pitfalls.”(1) This viewpoint is shared by leaders and officials globally: US special envoy George Mitchell has asserted, “We believe that the two-state solution, with two states living side by side in peace, is the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has also urged Israeli leaders to pursue the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I urge all those in positions of responsibility to pursue every avenue in the search for a just resolution of the ongoing conflict, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the deceased Libyan leader, acknowledged the necessity of a two-state solution for peace.(1) The two-state solution is widely regarded as the most conducive to peace because it respects the democratic aspirations of both peoples for sovereignty. As Peres stated, “The Jewish people yearn for peace in their historical homeland. The Palestinian people desire their own land, political autonomy, and self-determination. It is crucial that this pursuit is grounded in the potential for coexistence between Jews and Arabs, manifested in collaborative efforts in the economy, tourism, environment, and defense. This can only be achieved by granting each people their own state and borders, allowing their citizens to practice their faiths, nurture their cultures, speak their languages, and preserve their heritages.”(1) Therefore, the two-state solution is the most justified approach to peace and is superior to a one-state solution.

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

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

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

My opponent's finesse deserves applause,but the ultimate justification is flawed:Why is he in the right when he displacesin a world filled with uprooted races?By what criteria is the permissibility weighed?When the conflict arises, who receives aid?The aggressors, or the defenders in every case?If so, then any borders can be erased.So, where does the right arise?Is this land just a tournament prize?And, if it's an adornment for the strong,Then there's no question of right or wrong.History does not justify this occupation,There's nothing at the root, no ultimate causation.When the naked truth is that might makes right,Why debase and dismiss our fight?So long as our people remain barred from their landsas we are faced with bigotted reprimands,so long this state is based on ethnic majority,there will never be peace, healing, and amity.Peace can be accomplished through the destruction of a regime,which relies on ethnic identity as a central theme.Destruction of a people is not a goal.We seek the shattering of that people's control.We fight for an equal share of determination,in what ought to be a unified nation.

I'll begin by rebutting what you just said, then reaffirming my main premise. Yes, Israel is a country with Arabs, Jews, and Christians. Interestingly enough, the Zionist jews publically stated that "Gentiles were created by God to serve the Jewish people". Sounds awfully similar to the nazi aryan ideals of Mr. Adolf Hiter, who claimed that the Aryan race was supreme and thus persecuted and eliminated those who deemed to be racially impure. So, instead of saying I'm out of line for declaring Israel the 4th reich, look at the facts,which you conveniently ignored in my first argument. But I like what you said, "The Jews were given a homeland by God". First of all, that is no reason to send them 3 billion dollars of Taxpayer money, and is thus irrelevant, but secondly, was it not the Jews who uprooted the Palestinians who lived there for 2000 years previous to 1948? Yeah, I think some people would try to uproot them. Maybe its because there were native Arabs living there for more than 8 generations before 1948, and the Jews came and forced them out. The sooner you realize the facts, you will come to see that the only thing outrageous here is the fact that Israel is killing innocent people through our money. Moving on, I love how ignorant you are when you talk about issues like allies, nuclear proliferation, and the economy. Yes, Israel is a powerful ally in the middle east. The real question is: so what? We have other allies too, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. Why aren't they recieving 3 billion dollars in aid? You call me racist and discriminatory in that I believe we should withdraw foreign aid from Israel, but conversely wouldn't you agree that apportioning more funding to Israel than some of these neighboring countries is discriminatory? What makes Israel so special? Oh, it must be because Israel kills the most amount of innocent people! Right, okay. So, ur logic in calling me racist is flawed, and untill you can answer why Israel DESERVES to recieve that money, you're fighting an uphill battle. Next, you talk about the economy. 750 billion deficit spending? Son, do you even know what deficit spending is? We ought to deficit spend to create growth, jobs, and stability. 3 billion dollars every year isn't creating growth, jobs, or stability, rather its adding to the already tremendous debt of over 17 trillion dollars. We've pulled out of Iraq and are almost out of Afghanistan, there is no need for 3 billion dollars going to Israel. It's merely straining our economy. As unemployment holds steadily at 6,2%, any american would agree that is detrimental to the economy to spend so lavishly. TO add to this sentiment, I'd like to quote Israel's Prime minster Netayahu himself who said in front of the UN that "Israel doesn't need nation building, we're already built". Even their own prime minister doesn't want our aid, why give it? In addition, you are completely wrong when u call Israel capitalist, because they have a quasi-socialist type of economy. Finally, you bring up Iran and nuclear proliferation. Oh man, this is my favorite part, A 1970s US CIA report claimed that Israel had a fully prepared nuclear warhead arsenal. They were not a part of the NPT (nuclear non proliferation treaty)last I checked, and so Israel having these nukes is completely against International law. Iran, on the other hand, signed the NPT and is upholding to international inspections and law. In fact, ISRAEL is the only nuclear proliferater in the middle east. See, if you knew half of what you were actually talking about, you would know IRAN is trying to nuclearize in RESPONSE to Israel. Furthermore, Israel is adding to their nuclear arsenal and still refuses to adhere or even acknowledge their nuclear weapons programme. Yet, in your logic, we should just ignore Israel's illegal activity and blame Iran? Iran doesn't even have 1 NUCLEAR WARHEAD yet, and Israel has hundreds. In your logic, we should support, through aid, a country that refuses to adhere to international laws, and could be the start of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Fun idea, right? In conclusion, our money is basically being sent to racist, law breaking, ungrateful people who provide absolutely no benefit to the US. If you look at cost-benefit analysis of US aid to Israel, we're only getting hurt economically. Thus, I affirm

I will be arguing that the nation of Israel does in fact not belong to the Palestinians, who discounting Israeli Arabs, largely reside in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Con will be arguing the opposite, that the land of Israel does belong to the Palestinians and that they technically should have rightful ownership of it. Shared BoP. In order to determine who indeed has a stronger claim (Israel or Palestine), a historical basis is required for both of our arguments. Definitions: Belong1. to be owned by, be the property of, be the possession of, be in the ownership of, to be held by.2. to be bound to (a person, place, or club) by ties of affection, dependence,allegiance, or membership. I will also highlight that we are discussing "belonging" in the exclusive sense, in that Con will argue that Palestinians have a full historical connection to the land and that they should have full political sovereignty over it.

“Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.” - Winston Churchill Pro said: “I will go through the two kinds of Islamic wars and progress to the conclusion to this contention.” Rebuttal: Islam cannot be a religion of peace if we acknowledge a concept like “Islamic wars”. They are polar opposites. Pro said:” The first kind of Islamic war is for self-defense.” Rebuttal:” Any type of war is an anathema to peace. The two are polar opposites. Peace by means of war is called a “military occupation” or “genocidal extermination”. For example, the Nazi empire's official policy was that it must strike down it's enemies to preserve German purity. As per the German political doctrine, it also claimed to fight in self-defense to prevent racial corrosion. Nazi Germany was terribly oppressive toward it's enemies. Yet after it's defeat, the Soviet military occupation raped and murdered an astounding population of German citizens. As per the source:” At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports, with an estimated 10,000 women dying in the aftermath. Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.” [1] When my opponent stated that I seem “to think that fighting for your self-defense is not peaceful”, he was absolutelycorrect. I'm not debating the merits of self-defense, nor it's justification. I am asserting that it is violent. Islam, by this very same token is violent. Pro quoted: “[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.” Rebuttal: Allah ordains the use of violence in this text. We are not concerned with the reason, we are concerned with the method. Any act of war is not peaceful. Peace is axiomatic. If the United States invades Iraq to stop a dictator, it requires congressional approval to declare “war”, not “peace”. My opponent is seeking to draw a parallel between Justice and Peace. They are different virtues. Justice may employ war to meet it's satisfaction. Peace may not. Conclusion: My opponent has displayed a massive list of verses that are designed to convince you (the reader) that Muslims cannot engage in warfare without conditions. He asserts that these conditions justify the war. This entire list, nay, the Qur’an is it's entirety can be stricken from the list of “peaceful religions” by my opponents own definition. I do not need to discredit his scripture line by line. It condemns itself. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. - C. S. Lewishttp://www.bbc.co.uk... [1]

Thanks to my opponent for his reply.CON seems to focus solely on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes, the first of my three points, and does not reject my arguments that if they are happening then we should care and if we care then the appropriate method is through economic boycott and sanctions like BDS.In this round I will therefore solely focus on the issue of whether Israel commits war crimes and human rights abuses.Does Israel Kill Indiscriminately?Two fundamental basis of International Military Law (IML) are discrimination and proportionality[1]. When either of these are not met the killing can be called indiscriminate. Simply put armed forces are required to recognise the difference between civilians and military and to ensure that any incidental civilian casualties are proportional to a legitimate military goal. or to put it another way, incidentally killing one civilian while trying to kill twenty terrorists is a tragedy - incidentally killing twenty civilians while trying to kill one terrorist is a war crime.CON argues that because the IDF says they cannot attack a target if it endangers innocents, they must not be able to. In the face of the bias inherent in using a a source with a vested interest in not being found guilty of war crimes, the much stronger and more neutral sources I cited in R1 and the mere existence of an IML presupposing that states cannot be trusted to judge themselves guilty or not of war crimes, I find this argument very lacking.Further, by reference to evidence we can see CON's claims are false.For instance Israel has been willing to fire heavy munitions into civilian homes and even level entire neighbourhoods both killing residents and pushing those who survive into a life of homeless poverty[2]. The first link includes quotes to Israeli soldiers own testimonies on this, so it is hard to refute.The UN Report On Protective Edge[3] also includes examples of them killing families of 20 odd civilians with precision weaponry for no valid reason.If Israel doesn't indiscriminantly kill civilians, what happened to the 22 members of the al-Daya family that were killed? What about the use of indiscriminate fletchette ammunition (which inherently makes it a war crime on par with Palestinian militant group's missiles) to kill five mourners at the Abd al-Dayem funeral? The 15 civilians killed at the al-Maqadmah mosque? The killing of all 8 members of the Al Hajj family? The 9 dead, 3 women (One of them pregnant) and 6 children, on the attack on the Al Qassas family? The 19 killed, 11 of which were children including an 8 month old baby, when a 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb was dropped on the Al Najjar household? The 19 killed in the attack on the Abu Jabr house in a refugee camp?Human ShieldsCON states the IDF does not use human shields but his only evidence is his personal testimony that the Israel police cars are inconsistent with that. I beleive this can be disregarded because:1) The Jeep is that of the Israeli Border Police (IBP) that operate in Palestine, not the police that CON would see within Israel and be familiar with.2) That picture is from 2004 [4]. Based on his profile, CON would have been approx 3 y.o. at this point in time and I think it is reasonable to assume he wouldn't have developed an indepth knowledge of the vehicles used by different police branches at this age.3) It is consistent with other unrelated pictures of IBP vehicles.[5]4) In 2004 the IDF was using people as human shields by Israel's own admission. It was only on 2005 that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that human shields (or the "neighbour procedure" as it is euphemistically known) was illegal with Israeli defence officials claiming that "the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years"[6]. I will present the case momentarily that they continue to use people as human shields afterwards even though it now violated their own laws as well as international ones, but this shows CON's argument for why they weren't using human shields can't possibly be true.5) There is compelling evidence to show that Israel is still using human shields. The Youtube link I included in R1 is from NGO Breaking the Silence, where IDF soldiers have spoken out about the culture of human rights abuses and war crimes. He explicitly states that they sued human shields and he is not the only IDF witness[7][8].Other systematic approaches looking at the evidence have concurred. For instance the UN report I cite in R1[9] examines this in detail throughout paragraphs 1032 to 1106. Although to dense to quote their reasoning and the individual evidence they use to come to the conclusion (it relies on evidence from Palestinians AND Israelis however) they conclude:"1105. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of the Rome Statute."6) Even Israel admits there are still occasions when people use human shields[10], that example being from a few years ago when soldiers ordered a child to open a package they thought might be boobytrapped so the child would get hurt in the event of this being the case rather than them.Although Israel only very rarely recognises when soldiers commit human rights abuses (this example being a rare time they do)[11] and the punishment was very lax, it shows that your argument of "Israel never uses human shields" is even more pro-Israel than Israel's official position.This is followed by an argument that Hamas uses human shields. Part of my argument in R1 raised the issue that human rights abuses and war crimes are not allowed if someone commits them to you first. Con has not challenged this so I think this argument is irrelevant.Further, neither argument fits the definition of a human shield as presented in international law:"493: The Mission finds it useful to clarify what is meant, from a legal perspective, by using civilians or a civilian population as a human shield. Parties to a conflict are not permitted to use a civilian population or individual civilians in order to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. It is not in dispute that both Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces were fighting within an area populated by civilians. Fighting within civilian areas is not, by itself, sufficient for a finding that a party is using the civilian population living in the area of the fighting as a human shield. As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required. "[9]Even the IDF admits that merely taking part in military action in proximity to civilians does not in and of itself justify the classification of "human shields. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, and former Head of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General, explained in a conference at the University of Haifa: "In a scenario like the Gaza Strip you cannot expect the other side or demand the other side to act only from empty areas, to go out of all the populated areas, fire only from there or from the beach area when no people are there, it's not something that is expected. Therefore to say that the fact that they are operating from populated areas, in itself is a war crime or is in breach of the law of armed conflict, is not a plausible argument"[3] Simply put, the expectation that Hamas should march out into barren areas like 17th century line infantry is frankly bizarre and inconsistent with IML. Urban warfare is almost as old as human civilisation and it is not inherently wrong or criminal. Soldiers specifically shielding themselves with civilians is and this is something that so far we only know that Israel is guilty of.Israel is good because of XCon provides several reasons why Israel should be viewed as good. As none of them contest my R1 argument that the prohibition against war crimes is absolute and there are no reasonable excuses for them, I beleive it is irrelevant. However in the short space left, I'd like to show how they're still misrepresentations.Israel does provide some services to Palestine, but the rationale for this is not benevolent. Israel has been economically blockading and damaging Palestine for a long time[12], keeping them from developing their economy and keeping them dependent on Israel. this allows Israel to use it's power to coerce Israel - for instance by shutting off those vital services it supplies[13] in contravention of IML[14].Similarly Israel's warning to Palestinian civilians to evacuate entire neighbourhoods before they attack is Israel's rationale for then declaring entire areas terrorist zones - allowing IDF to shoot kill any civilians with no heed for the basic principle of distinction.[3]Lastly in regards to administrative detention, the unsupported claim that they are all terrorists do not hold up. In fact "Israel has administratively detained Palestinians for their political opinions and non-violent political activity."[15][1] http://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] https://goo.gl...[15] http://goo.gl...

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.

Good job; you proved the information depicted in your profile is probably false. Yet you've done nothing at all to prove that the information in the resolution is probably true. The only evidence we have to go on is that you've lied about your personal information before; that's it, nothing else.


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

Only a single, unified state can provide a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Echoing the wisdom of Albert Einstein, who advocated for 'sympathetic cooperation' between the 'two great Semitic peoples' and the need to transcend the mindset that created the conflict, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians are exploring the potential for a bi-national state. Inspired by Einstein's friend, philosopher Martin Buber, who proposed a state of 'joint sovereignty' with 'complete equality of rights' for both peoples, based on their shared love for the land, some Palestinian leaders have publicly endorsed this vision. In 2005, Sari Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and other progressive Palestinian activists, declared their commitment to equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic state, expressing confidence in a shared future of peace with their Israeli counterparts. However, a two-state solution is fraught with peril, for it would likely perpetuate conflict. Firstly, a Palestinian state could serve as a haven for terrorism, as evidenced by the aftermath of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, where Hamas, the elected government, prioritized attacks on Israel over the welfare of its people. Secondly, a two-state solution would leave Israel dangerously narrow and vulnerable, particularly at points where the West Bank intrudes into Israeli territory, creating risks of division during war. Given these challenges, a two-state solution cannot ensure genuine peace, whereas a single, cooperative state founded on equality and shared rights holds the promise of a more just and lasting resolution.

The first thing we have to look at is the resolution. The resolution states there could be a possibility that Obama is satan. Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. [1]Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.[2]So for this to be a possible there must be a chance that it could be possible. For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that satan exists is possible. There is no empirical evidence to show that he does not. Most people can only logically assume that he does not exist. This does not mean that it is true, it means that there is a high probability that he may not exist. So we can acknowledge that satan could exist, because there is no way to show that him existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence. Luke 10:18 - "And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning falling from the heavens" [3]Note when Jesus spoke these words it was in Aramaic, which is regarded as one of the oldest versions of Hebrew. Now lighting in the Hebrew language translates to Baraq this also means to cast forth, or cast forward. [4]The next key note is heavens, or as this translates from Hebrew "High Place". High place or heavens in Hebrew translates to O Bamah. [4]when you break that down literally Baraq U Bamah in Hebrew would translate to lighting from the heavens or lighting from a high place. Also when we look at that verse it would translate toI saw Satan as Baraq U Bamah (Barack Obama)There is a possibility even if a slim one that Satan could be Barack Obama. Hide your Kids, Hide your Wives, he is going to make you dine in hell tonight. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] The bible[4] http://translation2.paralink.com...

Thank you for the challenge. I will be organizing my arguments by using groups of arguments. Each of which will be a new reason to reject the resolution. =========================================================== ARGUMENT ONE - The direct interpretation of the Bible is inaccurate. Accepting the premise of this argument means that it is illogical to use the Bible as a source for predicting the future therefore countering the resolution. (If you do not accept this argument, then the remainder of my arguments should still sufficiently reject the resolution.) A. "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. (James 5:14-15)." ---Prayer does not cause disease and the only study done on the matter actually shows that prayer decreases the likelihood for medical success (If you want the study I will find it). B. "Diseases are not caused by demons, unless medicine is exorcism. -A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32) -A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22) -A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18) -A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13) -A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11)." ---This contradicts current evidence that physical microorganisms cause disease… not demons. C. "And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. (2 Samuel 7:10-11)" ---This is completely a false assessment since the Israelites lost their land several times and are constantly under fire from people committing evil deeds. [SOURCE] http://www.coppit.org... D. Exodus is unlikely to have happened. [SOURCE] http://www.aish.com... E. Therefore, who is to even know if an antichrist will ever exist? =========================================================== ARGUMENT TWO - If the accuracy of the Bible is legitimized by the judges, then it is unlikely that Obama is the figure known as the antichrist. A. "We are told quite a bit about this coming world leader, Satan's counterfeit messiah, who will someday soon rise in power... -He will rise to power first over 3 and then 10 nations -He will bring 'peace', yet conquer through treaties and war -He will be very, very popular around the world -He will not regard "the desire of women" -He will likely be charismatic and physically attractive ... like King Saul -He will receive what appears to be a fatal wound to the head -He will appear to be resurrected from the dead -His right eye may be blinded and his arm completely withered -He will enforce a "peace" plan or resolution (covenant) upon nation Israel -He may help to get the new Jewish Temple built in Jerusalem -He will appear to perform miracles ("lying signs and wonders") -He will require that everybody on Earth receive a mark or identification on their forehead or hand and nobody will legally be able to buy or sell without it -He will stand in a new Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and declare he is "God" -Unspeakable terror and war will then engulf Earth for exactly 3ï¿½ years (1260 days) -He will direct the slaughter of millions of Christians and Jews who come to know the Lord -He will lead the armies of the world into Israel . . . Armageddon." ---Some of these can be done in the future, but some of them are straight up ridiculous. Does Obama have SOME relations to the biblical prediction? Sure… but he does not have all of them, nor does he even have a majority of them. [SOURCE] http://www.theprophecies.com... B. The Bible also talks about how the antichrist will lead an group of horsemen. Obama has yet to lead an army of horses and this is simply unrealistic in this era. =========================================================== ARGUMENT THREE - It is more likely that Prince Charles is the Antichrist. A. "When the Book of Revelation told us to, "Calculate the number of the Beast, for the number is that of a man and his number is 666", it literally gave us his name. Onomastics is the study of names. Any onomastics book will show that Charles means "man". It means "man" or "manly". The words "Charles" and "man" can be used interchangeably in that verse without affecting the meaning at all. That verse literally reads, "...for the number is that of a Charles..."" B. "That verse also says, "And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority." The dragon is "symbolic" to others, but not to Prince Charles. He has a red dragon on his coat of arms. It comes from the flag of Wales, and it is in his title, Prince of Wales, that Charles is heir-apparent to the throne of Great Britain." C. "The Bible refers to the Antichrist as a "despicable person" who has not yet received a kingship. Prince Charles is not well respected by his own people (even more so after the Diana 'car crash'). He has been through many messy public scandals, and there have been rumours of homosexuality, adultery (proven), occult practices and spiritual worship-and he has not yet received his kingship!" D. "Riddle of the Seven Kings, (the 3rd riddle): In the Book of Revelation, Chapter 17, Verses 10-11, it says, "There are seven kings. Five were, one is and one is to be. The Beast is the eighth and of the seven." There were seven emperors of the Holy Roman Empire named Charles, (check the World Book Encyclopaedia). Prince Charles' lineage chart shows that he is descended, through his father, from the fifth emperor of the Holy Roman Empire named Charles, of the House of Hapsburg. Prince Charles is the eighth and, (by his lineage), he is also of the seventh." E. "Prince Charles' coat of arms and crest was designed for him by the British College of Heraldry, using a system of guidelines over 500 years old. It contains all the Biblical symbols of the Antichrist. It has a dog supported by a roaring lion and a unicorn, (called a wild beast with a straight horn, or a wild oxen). Psalms 22:19-21 describes these animals, with a prayer for deliverance. The composite beast of Revelation 13:2, with the head of a lion, body of a leopard and feet of a bear is symbolic for other people--but not for Prince Charles. It is on his Coat of Arms. It represents the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. These are the animal symbols for France, the leopard; Germany, the Bear; and England, the lion. These nations represented the western arm of the Holy Roman Empire." F. Note that none of these apply to Barak Obama. [SOURCE] http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... =========================================================== Let's discuss his opening arguments a little bit: ILLINOIS LOTTERY NUMBERS 1) Of the MILLIONS of numbers randomly produced around the world each day, it is not surprising that at least one of them would come up with 666 or something else suspicious. Why, however, were 666 and 7779 placed in Pick 1 and Pick 2 (rather than 3 and 4)? 2) Is something that should be waived as a coincidence be seen as a warning? If God wanted to warn us, don't you think it would be done in a more noticeable way? If God did not want to warn us, then this is simply a coincidence. 3) A decade from now, I assure you that we won't be looking back at this regretting that we didn't see the Illinois lottery as key to preventing mass chaos in our world. 4) Prince Charles is linked to 666 in a more legitimate way. ---The rest of his arguments are a bunch of conspiracy theories. These type

If America divides into two or more nations, particularly by political views and moral beliefs, it will run more efficiently. For example, if one assumes that the Northeastern and northern midwest regions join together and forms Nation A, the southeast to Texas forms Nation B, and everything else splits up their own ways both Nations A and B would be more productive. The states of Nation B would be primarly republican and would adopt laws and regulations accordingly. The states of Nation A would be primarily democrat and would adopt laws and regulations accordingly. If this were to happen, everyone, the vast majority anyway, would get what they want with gay rights; gun control, or lack there of; taxes; industry; military; and more. I understand that additional political parties would form in each nation and would have moderate differences and there will still be minor debates and disagreements. I understand that many may believe that a nation ran by only one political party may to extremes. I also understand that America is being torn apart by the bipartisan ship of today. I also understand that the government cannot make a decision. If my opponent, whoever he or she may be, shall disagree, say so and tell me why. He or she may use facts or just sensible opinions on the matter. I know what I believe and want to be challenged.

Wow, I’m not going to lie; that was hard to read. I would like to respectfully request that PRO use paragraphs. God Protects Israel PRO has yet to demonstrate his claim that Israel is protected by a deity. At best, PRO has shown that an unlikely thing has occurred (the continued existence of Israel), however, this is not evidence of divine intervention. In fact, it can be argued that the continued existence of Israel is due, at least in part, to aid it receives from the US [1], Canada [2], the UK [3], as well as many other groups [4][5][6]. Sources: [1] http://fas.org... [2] http://www.jpost.com... [3] https://www.change.org... [4] http://www.cufi.org... [5] http://www.shamash.org... [6] http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org...

Con will argue that political divisions in America are detrimental and should be abandoned for for a non-partisan system. Pro may argue that the Democratic and Republican parties are beneficial. Rules:First round not acceptance, though final round is a 500 character max closing statement. This is so each side gets 3 full rounds to debate.No semanticsNo trolling Reminder: Other governments should not be referenced in this debate; no other country has a comparable mentality. This goes for both sides.

I will be arguing the position that Israel is justified in a strike against Iran's nuclear program. Con will be arguing that Israel is not justified in such an act. This is for lannan13's winter tournament. I hope for a great debate.

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.

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.

Initial Talking Points: Democratic and Republican parties have become more polarized in recent history. It has been a common trend for a political party to dominate the House of Representatives or the Senate, and quickly pass laws simply because they occupy a majority of the seats in the House or the Senate. This creates some issues. 1. A 2/3 vote presents a more accurate representation of what society really wants. Any Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote, why shouldn't the same concept be applied to passing all laws? 2. The constant flip flopping between parties holding the majority in the Senate or House creates an environment of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses may become more hesitant to grow or invest money as new laws/regulations may have a negative impact on business. 3. It is not uncommon for a political party to completely repeal a previous parties law implementation. 4. This concept would actually encourage law makers to work together. Republicans would have to convince Democrats and vice versa. When both parties work together in this manner, the United States could see some positive results. Both parties will have to find a common ground. 5. Society constantly changes, therefore we need a constant to ensure that a government body does not change to quickly. A 2/3 vote should be required to pass a law, and a 2/3 vote should be required to repeal it. Once again, it is important that this country has a sense of stability. The cooperation between the political parties can also unite the people in this country more. Do any of you also notice the rift that is growing between the Republican and Democratic party? A 2/3 vote carries numerous benefits, and it would a more practical concept.

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?