NationStates Jolt Archive

So lets try this, I saw a similar Bush-Kerry debate thing so thought "why not try this?"

We're looking for an Pro-Israel debater. (i've sent a TG to a nation who I think would be good)
And of course, an Anti-Israel debater.
Is there a single person on NS, if in the world who knows about the situation but has no opinion, or can at least be objective?

No points will be accepted unless they are backed up with sources. Feel free to add your own rules. Lets try and keep it civilized if possible ok? No insults, just debating. So, Anti Israel and Mod anyone?

Thank you!

Well, any takers?
I would have assumed that there would be a crowd of people willing to take the rip out of Israel. Ah well:)

Israel bad Palastinians good. (there you Israeli pig :) )

Israel bad Palastinians good. (there you Israeli pig :) )
ok, anyone with any knowledge or debating skill?

People who don't have much knowledge on the subject dismiss it with a "both are equally screwed up" which is not true. Yes, both are screwed up, I'm not saying Israel is perfect, but there is a distinct difference(s).

1. Israel is a democracy. Like it or not, it is what it is. The PLO is a terrorist organization.

2. Palestinian terrorists hide behind innocents and aim to murder innocent Israelis. The Israeli military aims to get TERRORISTS, not civilians. Now, many innocents are slaughtered on both sides, and more on the Palestinian side if I am correct. That is less a fault of Israel and more of the terrorists.

3. While Palestinians are the homeless of the Middle East that doesn't make their terrorists justified in what they do. The Palestinians are homeless because they chose to leave Israel in 1948 when all of it's bordering countries attacked the new country. Arab countries encouraged this, but still did not let the Palestinians into their own countries.

4. Britain really screwed up with the Balfour Declaration and the Husayn-McMahon correspondence but the fact is murder is not right; in any situation.

5. What Sadat did with Egypt (trading peace for land) was a great start UNTIL HE WAS MURDERED BY HIS OWN MILITARY. If the Palestinians want their land back why don't they just do the same thing Sadat did? BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT ISRAEL THERE AT ALL.

Never mind Right-Wing America.. he's compensating for his lack of debate skills, like you already noticed :p


I would love to take on any pro-Israeli.. but I really don't have the time and effort at this crucial stage of my life. Come back next March.. then we'll talk..

<Insert stuff here>

Ya see??.. It's arguments.. or should I say fallacies.. like these that really raise my blood pressure.. That's why I will try to avoid looking at this thread during this stage of my life.

[edit] The Pro-Israel guy is Qah-Joh, no? :)

I'll moderate

I'll moderate
you reckon you can stay objective? If so, then be my guest.
And Greenmanbry, what makes you think its QahJoh? For all you know, I might have sent myself a TG!

<snip>
Please, there are 2 other debates currently raging. This one hasn't started yet.

And Greenmanbry, what makes you think its QahJoh? For all you know, I might have sent myself a TG!
Hang on there, go ahead and ask Greenmanbry stuff, but remember it's you against Indiru.

And Greenmanbry, you are no longer eligible for debating Sanctaphrax since Indiru is already doing that

Well, any takers?
I would have assumed that there would be a crowd of people willing to take the rip out of Israel. Ah well:)
I m always a taker....only one little thing...I dont need any moderators (im old enough do defend myself)...nor do i want them (I wont recognize their intervention)

having said that...Im here...come and get me.

Never mind Right-Wing America.. he's compensating for his lack of debate skills, like you already noticed :p


I would love to take on any pro-Israeli.. but I really don't have the time and effort at this crucial stage of my life. Come back next March.. then we'll talk..

Sarcasm my friends its a beautiful thing.

having said that...Im here...come and get me.Meaning...If you want a piece of me...Im here....Bring it on [/*macho talking ztuff*]

...Im here....Life is short, things to do, places to go...
*pulls red paint can* and *signs some Grafitty*
"OCEAN WAS HERE"

Ya see??.. It's arguments.. or should I say fallacies.. like these that really raise my blood pressure.. That's why I will try to avoid looking at this thread during this stage of my life.

[edit] The Pro-Israel guy is Qah-Joh, no? :)

What did I say that was a fallacy?

You guys are getting off topic!

*the almighty thread Mod Superpower07 warns you to get back on topic!*

You guys are getting off topic!

*the almighty thread Mod Superpower07 warns you to get back on topic!*
we haven't started yet.
Greenmanbry, QahJoh was indeed the person I TGed so lets see what he says. Anti-Israel anyone?

. . .

We're looking for an Pro-Israel debater. (i've sent a TG to a nation who I think would be good)

. . .



I'm still checking... I guess it hasn't reached me yet. :(



:D

I'm still checking... I guess it hasn't reached me yet. :(
:D
Oh, did I send it to the wrong nation? Oh well, we'll see what that nation says, I can't be bothered to send another one!;)

People who don't have much knowledge on the subject dismiss it with a "both are equally screwed up" which is not true. Yes, both are screwed up, I'm not saying Israel is perfect, but there is a distinct difference(s).

1. Israel is a democracy. Like it or not, it is what it is. The PLO is a terrorist organization.

2. Palestinian terrorists hide behind innocents and aim to murder innocent Israelis. The Israeli military aims to get TERRORISTS, not civilians. Now, many innocents are slaughtered on both sides, and more on the Palestinian side if I am correct. That is less a fault of Israel and more of the terrorists.

3. While Palestinians are the homeless of the Middle East that doesn't make their terrorists justified in what they do. The Palestinians are homeless because they chose to leave Israel in 1948 when all of it's bordering countries attacked the new country. Arab countries encouraged this, but still did not let the Palestinians into their own countries.

4. Britain really screwed up with the Balfour Declaration and the Husayn-McMahon correspondence but the fact is murder is not right; in any situation.

5. What Sadat did with Egypt (trading peace for land) was a great start UNTIL HE WAS MURDERED BY HIS OWN MILITARY. If the Palestinians want their land back why don't they just do the same thing Sadat did? BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT ISRAEL THERE AT ALL.
Israel might be a democracy, but also a democracy can be wrong. Jews should know that.
And Israel does not begin with 1948, it begins with "Der Judenstaat" by Herzl and it goes on with the nationalist and racist Zionist World Congress. From then it was clear what the (European) Jews wanted: to claim the Levant and remove those who already lived there. And they finally achieved exactly that, first through the remarkably unfair division plan for Palestine and then through military success. The worst thing about Israel, of course is the thelogical and pseudo-historic "reasons" they use to justify the necessity to have a state for the Jews.

The Arabs, namely the Palestinians, have every right not to WANT ISRAEL THERE AT ALL. Why should they?

NO!!!
Ankher, if you want to debate the anti-Israel position, then by all means do so. But the debate hasn't started, we need an anti-Israel and to see what QahJoh says. So no debating, there are 2 other threads at the moment, I recommend Israel: Good or Bad?

Both of you please delete your posts.

Both of you please delete your posts.

Done. I'll do anti-Israel if you like.

Done. I'll do anti-Israel if you like.
If nobody else claims it then its yours. QahJoh has announced that he can only start on Saturday.

The biggest fuel on the fire of the Israeli-Palestine conflict are the powers outside of that contested territory. On the one hand you have the Americans pumping unconditional billions of dollars to back the Israeli military and make it possible for them to keep up such a high level of oppression (this funding can’t be touched as long as politicians are afraid of the backlash from the Jewish ethnic vote in the US). On the other hand the Palestinians are being used by every Arab Gov and group with a chip on their shoulder as fodder against Israel and the US interests there. Israel’s neighbours have long made use of the Palestinians as political leverage, but have no real interest in actually doing anything constructive to help them.

The Bruce

Has it started yet?

No, QahJoh can only start on saturday. And we're waiting to see if anyone else wants to be the anti.
AND STOP POSTING YOUR OPINIONS!!!

Oh, before posting opinions you could post facts...

Oh, before posting opinions you could post facts...
nothing, only the nations pro, anti and mod can post their opinions, facts or anything else. Do you want the job of anti or not? If not, then please stop posting here.

The debate will be pointless.
One side bringing back recent history, the over bringing back less recent history, and so forth until they reach times nobody remember about.

The debate will be pointless.
One side bringing back recent history, the over bringing back less recent history, and so forth until they reach times nobody remember about.
seriously, NS people can't see a thread and say "this is nothing to do with me" can they? Don't post.

Since I am moderator, has this debate began?

seriously, NS people can't see a thread and say "this is nothing to do with me" can they? Don't post.

Maybe you should be the one to stop posting. NS players are mostly sick and tired of some little nation called israel(its barely the size of the state of New Jersey) Maybe people should be worried about the rise of dictatorships in eastern europe or the massacres that are going on in the congo or even North Korea(all of which affect the world much greater than israels "rightous" war)

Maybe you should be the one to stop posting. NS players are mostly sick and tired of some little nation called israel(its barely the size of the state of New Jersey) Maybe people should be worried about the rise of dictatorships in eastern europe or the massacres that are going on in the congo or even North Korea(all of which affect the world much greater than israels "rightous" war)

If that's the case, we can only hope that such concerned citizens make a point of creating threads about THOSE places, rather, than, say, continually bashing Israel.

Care to take the plunge?

Since I am moderator, has this debate began?
Why not. Here's whats going to happen, (comment if you don't like it).
1) Superpower07 will pose questions, and each side will answer the question. Superpower will remain objective right?
2) All points MUST be backed up with a source. If it isn't then your answer is disqualified.
3) Each side gets one answer only.
4) You must answer the question, not commenting on the other persons answer if you're second. This is to make it fairer.
5 Anything else?

Why not. Here's whats going to happen, (comment if you don't like it).
1) Superpower07 will pose questions, and each side will answer the question. Superpower will remain objective right?
2) All points MUST be backed up with a source. If it isn't then your answer is disqualified.
3) Each side gets one answer only.
4) You must answer the question, not commenting on the other persons answer if you're second. This is to make it fairer.
5 Anything else?

1. There is a problem:debaters usually disagree on the creditibility of each source. I'll ask you two questions to try to clarify my idea:
How can anyone compare a terror state presented propaganda to freedom fighter's creditible source?
How can anyone compare a terror organization's propaganda to truthful proven israeli source?

sometimes, debaters with different opinions delegitimise sources that present facts (or opinions...) they don't like. How can one prove his source is creditible?

2. I think debaters should, after answering the questions, refer to the other side's opinion. Since this is not television or radio , I think you can allow this debate more open. If you're still not convinced, maybe you will allow each of the debaters to ask one question for themselves.

3. The debate should be about a definite issue. "Israel - good or bad?" is not clear enough a debate. I, for example, criticise my country's historical goverments for the construction of the settlements. It didn't bother me to think that Israel has a legitimacy to exist. I think you should decide exactly what the debate is about.

1. There is a problem:debaters usually disagree on the creditibility of each source. I'll ask you two questions to try to clarify my idea:
How can anyone compare a terror state presented propaganda to freedom fighter's creditible source?
How can anyone compare a terror organization's propaganda to truthful proven israeli source?

sometimes, debaters with different opinions delegitimise sources that present facts (or opinions...) they don't like. How can one prove his source is creditible?

2. I think debaters should, after answering the questions, refer to the other side's opinion. Since this is not television or radio , I think you can allow this debate more open. If you're still not convinced, maybe you will allow each of the debaters to ask one question for themselves.

3. The debate should be about a definite issue. "Israel - good or bad?" is not clear enough a debate. I, for example, criticise my country's historical goverments for the construction of the settlements. It didn't bother me to think that Israel has a legitimacy to exist. I think you should decide exactly what the debate is about.
Thanks for the feedback. The source can't be a known Pro-Palestinian (Al-Jazeera) or pro-Israel (Maariv). White supremist websites such as stormfront aren't recommended either.
I'm open to suggestions about the debate topic. I don't want however, do we have a legitimate claim to the land. That normally leads to history and religion debates i.e Canaan and the debate is about modern-day Israel. What about something along the lines of "Israel's solution to terror, is it the right approach and if not, what would you do to change it?"
So what you're suggesting is one person answers, the second person answers the first persons answer and so on ad infinitem?

Ok, Question 1:

Which side has made the greater effort to create peace between the Israelis and Palestinians? (advocate your respective side)

Ok, Question 1:

Which side has made the greater effort to create peace between the Israelis and Palestinians? (advocate your respective side)

Israel. They did offer the Palestinians thier own land.

Israel. They did offer the Palestinians thier own land.

This is not a free-for-all. Please leave answering to the designated debaters.

Israel. They did offer the Palestinians thier own land.
You are not a party in this debate - I am sorry but please refrain from posting

Oh I'm sorry... are these the designated participants?

Oh I'm sorry... are these the designated participants?
I don't think so . . . Sanctaphrax is the pro-Israeli debator here.

I will repeat the question:

Which side has made the greater effort to create peace between the Israelis and Palestinians? (advocate your respective side)

The source can't be a known Pro-Palestinian... or pro-Israel That leaves out Big American Media Corps....and all Midle East media....

Good luck finding Independent (English) Sources...UK? Australia? India? :cool:

I don't think so . . . Sanctaphrax is the pro-Israeli debator here.
No i'm not, QahJoh is. He can only start tommorow, I assume that Ankher is the anti-Israel or did he decide not to be?

That leaves out Big American Media Corps....and all Midle East media....

Good luck finding Independent (English) Sources...UK? Australia? India? :cool:
Middle East media is pro-Israel, did you even think before making that obscenely stupid statement? The Middle East hates Israel.:headbang:
I mean either Palestinian or Israeli news agencies, or agencies with strong ties to one of the aforementioned (i.e Al-Jazeera). And the Americans are notoriously anti-Israel, even Fox.

The source can't be a known Pro-Palestinian...or pro-Israel That leaves out Big American Media Corps....and all Middle East media....
Middle East media is pro-Israel, did you even think before making that obscenely stupid statement? The Middle East hates Israel.:headbang:

When did I say That "Middle East media is pro-Israel" ????

Let me say it again...Maybe If you read twice...maybe you understand...maybe

"That leaves out Big American Media Corps....and all Middle East media..."

STOP YOUR DAMN POSTS! YOU'RE SCREWING THIS UP!..

It will begin when QahJoh gets here on SATURDAY.. So stop posting for God's sake!

STOP YOUR DAMN POSTS! YOU'RE SCREWING THIS UP!..

It will begin when QahJoh gets here on SATURDAY.. So stop posting for God's sake!
Thank you Greenmanbry, incidently, do you want to be Anti-Israel?

Thank you Greenmanbry, incidently, do you want to be Anti-Israel?

I would love to take on any pro-Israeli.. but I really don't have the time and effort at this crucial stage of my life. Come back next March.. then we'll talk..

As much as I love bashing Israel (as you already know ;) ), I can not afford to raise my blood pressure levels right now. (Yes, I suffer from high blood pressure and I have a ranging temper and grey hair.. and I'm only a teenager *whimper* )

As much as I love bashing Israel (as you already know ;) ), I can not afford to raise my blood pressure levels right now. (Yes, I suffer from high blood pressure and I have a ranging temper and grey hair.. and I'm only a teenager *whimper* )
Yeah I know, ah well, so we're still looking for an anti-Israel debater. Grey hair, meh better than my dad, he has no hair!

Actually, now that you mention it, I don't really have the time for this, either. I've been spending too much time on the Internet as it is. The idea of spending hours on an Israel debate in the next few days seems like a lot more energy and time than I have to spare.

I wish a lot of luck to whatever debaters you line up for this, though, and look forward to seeing it unfold.

Ok, we'll need a new pro-Israel debator

I am pro-Israel, but a bad debater.

Fine, it looks like i'm up!
who's the anti?

Thanks for the feedback. The source can't be a known Pro-Palestinian (Al-Jazeera) or pro-Israel (Maariv). White supremist websites such as stormfront aren't recommended either.
I'm open to suggestions about the debate topic. I don't want however, do we have a legitimate claim to the land. That normally leads to history and religion debates i.e Canaan and the debate is about modern-day Israel. What about something along the lines of "Israel's solution to terror, is it the right approach and if not, what would you do to change it?"
So what you're suggesting is one person answers, the second person answers the first persons answer and so on ad infinitem?
my suggestion is to let each side post remarks on the other side's answer, without having the other side respod. The main idea of the remarks would be to undermine certain arguements and to strip them from rhetorics. That way, the debate will be tied to facts and logical proves, and less to emotions and symbols (which are a great thing, but not for a debate). It will force the debaters to present good arguements.

I think you should sharpen the topic a bit, as the Israeli goverment's approach to terror was never defined as a solution, but as an attempt to minimize terror's influence. After edit: Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. It's not an attempt to end terror, but to contain it.