Round 1: ecoparity vs Snarf - "Israel has a Justifiable Defense"

The topic for this debate is "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right Too."

"ecoparity" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"Snarf" will be arguing the "Con" position.


Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

"Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right To."

I would like to thank the management of Abovetopsecret.com for providing this forum and the moderators for their time and efforts in managing this series of debates. I'd also like to thank my opponent for representing what I'm sure must be a difficult position on this subject.

I will be arguing the "Pro" position for the debate subject: "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right To."

I would like to begin by defining the framework of my position.

1. For the first part of the debate subject, "Israel will defend itself" I am arguing that Israel will perform "defensive" actions in the future. Since predicting the future is outside the scope of the debate I will submit and hope my opponent will also concede that it is an assumption based on prior actions and the statements made by every leader of the country since it's founding to that effect as well as deep, cultural beliefs held by the Jewish people as a result of the Holocaust.

2. That for purposes of this debate I will assume the Nation of Israel's right to self defense is a logical extension of the individual right of self defense. I will also assume the term "self defense" to be the strict definition of the scope of this debate as applicable to acts of aggression performed by Israel.

3. That for purposes of this debate the definition of "self defense" will be limited to actions performed in reaction to the actions of individuals, a group or government body which threaten the health and safety of Israeli citizens and/or the property of its citizens or Nation.

4. That the use of "preemptive" action by the Israeli government is considered to be "self defense" only when the absence of such action would allow an individual, group or government to threaten the health and safety of Israeli citizens or the property of its citizens and/ or Nation.

5. Lastly, that aggression against individuals, groups or governments performed in the absence of a threat,(past or future) to Israeli citizens or property is not considered to be "self defense" and as such is outside the scope of this debate.

I would like to ask my opponent the following questions:

1. Do individuals have a basic right of self defense?

2. Does the concept of an individual right of self defense transfer to a lawful group entity such as a nation and/ or government?

3. Do you believe people have the right to live without the fear of injury or death caused by the intentional actions or policies of others?

4. If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense?

5. Should the right of self defense be defined as specific remedies to be made use of by the person defending themselves?

Thank you.

I'd like to start out by saying Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this contest. These sorts of events are a wonderful escape from the day to day realities that we all call the real world

That being said - i'll start my post by answering my opponent’s questions:

1. Do individuals have a basic right of self defense?

Yes. I believe everyone does.

2. Does the concept of an individual right of self defense transfer to a lawful group entity such as a nation and/ or government?

Yes, A country is comprised of individuals. So to deny a Government body the right to self defense is to also deny its citizens that right.

3. Do you believe people have the right to live without the fear of injury or death caused by the intentional actions or policies of others?

Yes.

4. If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense?

This is a touchy subject, as civil rights laws will usually come into play, because this is a sort of "Which came first, the criminal or the crime" type of situation. But personally – I feel you need to draw the line on a case by case basis. I do not believe this is a universal rule that one can follow when determining rather or not someone else’s intentions are truly malicious, or if that person is blowing off steam.
If you were out mowing your lawn, and someone walked by your house and handed you a note that said “One day, I will rob your home” – would it be appropriate for you to shoot this would-be intruder before the person has actually done anything intrusive? Well, in a court of law, a judge would say absolutely not, it is not appropriate. You committed a crime to stop a crime that you have really no proof would ever have taken place. You certainly should be on alert, but any preemptive action on your part would be unjustifiable.
On the other hand, if someone is caught breaking into your house, now you have justifiable means to defend yourself and your home at all costs.

5. Should the right of self defense be defined as specific remedies to be made use of by the person defending themselves?

No.

Now for my opening statements – I’d like to clarify something, if I may? The topic of this debate is "Israel Will Defend Themselves And Guess What? They Have The Right Too.". But I feel that this question is too biased in its appearance. What I mean is that I don’t believe anyone is arguing rather or not Israel has a right to defend its self if attacked. Certainly, nobody I’ve heard discussing this matter, has ever suggested that Israel should just take a beating and smile about it.

Instead – I’d like to refer to the name of this thread in order to bring about the spirit of this debate:
Does Israel have a Justifiable defense? And to that extent – No. They do not.

Before we can truly explore why the answer is “no” we need to define a few variables in this argument.
It has been said before that opinions are great because they can never be proven or disproven. Everyone who has an opinion can be right, and for the same opinion, they can be wrong. So it is within that thought that I must conclude that we seek only to find out rather or not Israel’s Defense is legally Justifiable. Is Israel truly defending its self…or is the whole thing one big façade for something much deeper?

Defense : resistance against attack; protection: Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city. dictionary.reference.com...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source
Or in other words – if someone is attacking you with a baseball bat, your defense could be stabbing the person with a sharp knife in order to get away.
But…What if you were the origin of the baseball bat assault? What if one, or many, of your action(s) resulted in the onslaught from this person that you perceive to be your attacker? Do you have a legal right to defense? Naturally – you will defend yourself if needed, its human nature. But would it hold up in court?
If your actions were of ill-intent to begin with, and your victim responded by attacking you, would your argument of defense be considered defense, or would it just be a second attack?

Well, I argue that it is the latter. A second attack. And it is upon arriving at that conclusion that we find that the Israeli government is not just merely defending its self, but is instead responsible for much of the violence that it’s citizens must endure.
So, what was Israel’s initial attack? To sum it up in one word: Occupation. Imagine if a complete stranger were to kick down your front door, hold a gun to your face, throw you, and your family, into the street, and make claim that your ex-house now belongs to them.
What would be your reaction? Most people may say “Call the Police”. But, what if the police agree with the man that took your home, and refuse to help you? Well, I think most reasonable people would agree that your only option at this point is forceful retrieval of your property. But if you use violent ways to regain what is rightfully yours – and the man gets your arrested for attacking him – are you truly in the wrong? And this is what we see in the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.
How would you feel?
I believe Anger just doesn’t quite describe the emotion.

Now, in closing, I’d like to ask my opponent a few questions:

1.) Would you define the creation of the nation of Israel as a forceful occupation of Palestinian territory?
2.) If you would say no – could you please offer a brief explanation as to why?
3.) If you were to say yes – then could you please offer us any actions taken by the Israeli government to try and mend the wounds created to the Palestinian people by the forceful occupation of Israel (Were they granted any kinds of reparations? etc…)
4.) Would you define defensive measures as attacking someone on their turf, or merely defending your turf from an attack?




One of your questions asked If someone asserts the desire or intent to harm or kill another, at what point is preemptive action considered lawful self defense? In my answer I gave the example of the man walking up to you while you’re mowing your yard, and handing you a note. For the purposes of my question – let us assume that this man has Red Hair. So my question is:

5.) Would you say it is appropriate to seek out preemptive strike against all people with Red Hair, simply because the man who threatened your home had red hair?

First I'll answer my opponent's questions:

1.) Would you define the creation of the nation of Israel as a forceful occupation of Palestinian territory?

No.

2.) If you would say no – could you please offer a brief explanation as to why?

There was no Palestinian government in control of the territory. The area was controlled by the British at the time of the establishment of modern day Israel.

3.) If you were to say yes – then could you please offer us any actions taken by the Israeli government to try and mend the wounds created to the Palestinian people by the forceful occupation of Israel (Were they granted any kinds of reparations? etc…)

n/a

4.) Would you define defensive measures as attacking someone on their turf, or merely defending your turf from an attack?

Speaking in terms of modern warfare it could be either. Modern weapons have long range so the attack on a missile launcher located outside your nation's borders which is being used to launch missiles into your territory would still be considered self defense. A nation might pursue weapons of mass destruction such as nukes or chemical weapons and based on previous actions the removal of the facilities used to build such weapons might be seen as self defense also.

5.) Would you say it is appropriate to seek out preemptive strike against all people with Red Hair, simply because the man who threatened your home had red hair?

Of course not. People with red hair holding a weapon pointed at me and threatening to use it would be, however.


Since my opponent has raised the Palestinian / Israeli conflict I will explain why Israel is still within their natural right of self defense despite the often complex argument:

Regardless of our more intellectual or emotional preferences, the borders of nations in our World are remnants of wars. Nations are defined by the ability for governments to hold and defend the territories they sit upon. Territory controlled by nations is often the result of conquest or what remains of larger holdings the nation lost in war. Treaties after war define much of our modern day national borders.

The "chicken and egg" debate is central to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and is subject to a great deal of controversy yet there are a few inescapable facts:

1. "Palestinians" take the name of their "group" from the historic name of the area which is predominantly made up of modern day Israel and Jordan with some extension into other areas. There is no historic nation or kingdom of "Palestine", the majority of people who call themselves "Palestinians" are indistinguishable from other Arabs with no cultural or even genetic differences. Most of them are actually Arab natives of nations like Syria, Egypt and Jordan. The first recognition of any type of "Palestinian" group was made by the British just prior to WW1 while they held control of the area known as "Palestine" and was part of the process of dividing the territory into Arab and Jewish nations.

The Jewish people on the other hand have a distinct culture and genetic heritage tracing back over three thousand years to the biblical Israel which was located in that region. War ended the existence of that Nation but if the "Palestinians" claim just being there is enough then the Jewish people have as long as if not a longer standing claim to the region in that regard.

2. The establishment of the modern Nation of Israel began with the British mandate when the British were still in control of the region. The land was divided into Jewish and Palestinian nations, Israel for the Jews and Jordan for the Arabs, (Palestinians). Under this agreement Jordan was given the majority of the land area.

3. Besides the "rule of force" which has been the historic means of determining National boundaries, the recognition of those boundaries by other Nations is key. In 1947 the United Nations voted in majority to recognize the State of Israel. Some Arab nations refused this recognition and announced they would go to war over it. As we all know, the wars of 1948 and afterwards have all been won by the Israelis.

In conclusion, Israel holds the land, has defended it in war and has the recognition of a majority of the World's governments. This gives them the right of self defense of their territory. Other nations may rise once again to challenge it but that does not negate the right of Israel to defend their nation.

Questions:
1. Does a guest in a home have the right to defend themselves against an intruder?

2. If we are to reorganize the World's nations according to prior claim such as giving control of America back to the Native Americans, for example - at what point in history / how far back to we go to determine ownership rights?

3. Let's imagine the previous owner of my home was evicted by the state for tax problems. This previous owner does not agree with the state's decision. If he decides to come back and forcibly remove me from the home do I not have the right to defend myself?

I'll start by answering my opponents questions:

1. Does a guest in a home have the right to defend themselves against an intruder?

My opinion is yes, they do. I'm not sure how law see's it, but i would assume that a court would agree with me?

If we are to reorganize the World's nations according to prior claim such as giving control of America back to the Native Americans, for example - at what point in history / how far back to we go to determine ownership rights?

If, by some unforeseeable set of events, we were to partake in something like this - i would say we would have to release all ownership of all land and say nobody can truly own land. Because someone owned the land before Native Americans, and someone else before them, etc.

3. Let's imagine the previous owner of my home was evicted by the state for tax problems. This previous owner does not agree with the state's decision. If he decides to come back and forcibly remove me from the home do I not have the right to defend myself?

Yes. You do. That home owner signed an agreement when he or she became a home owner with the understand that failure to pay taxes will result of forfeiture of property. In this case - there is no violent take over and expulsion of residence. Nobody is kicking him out of his home simply because of his skin color or religion.





My opponent would have us believe that the Jewish people have a right to Israel because:

The Jewish people on the other hand have a distinct culture and genetic heritage tracing back over three thousand years to the biblical Israel which was located in that region.

source


But it is in this line of thinking that we truly see the other side of the coin in the Israel debate, and there is no "light way" of putting it, so to say it bluntly, Israel believes they have a "right to the throne" so to speak, simply because they believe that they as superior to anyone with a non-Jewish heritage.


But who owns Israel is for another debate. This is about rather or not Israel is justifiable in their defense.
Again - no they are not.

Rather or not Jews own the country - is it still right to force someone out of their homes simply because they are not Jewish?

How about in 1948 - shortly after suffering a very unique plot of extermination of their own at the hands of Nazi Germany - the Jewish powers of Israel forced out 750,000 Arabs from Israel, never to return home again. (source)


And these families that were forever changed because of this religious bigotry are supposed to just set and take it?

See, the difference between these folks being forced out of their home, and your example of someone not paying their taxes, is that the Arab inhabitants of Israel never agreed to a Jewish only law. They never agreed that Jews have a right to the "promised land". The guy, in your example however, did. He agreed that if he doesn't pay - he loses.

So retaliation is imminent. And since further progressive occupation of Israel into modern day Palestinian terrorist is still happening - i would expect that retaliation from Arab people will continue to happen as well.


Does Israel have a right to defend its self? Yes. Absolutely. Are the currently justified in doing so?

Absolutely not- you cannot justify aggression when you, yourself, are the one provoking the attack.


Now i'd like to sum up with a few questions for my worthy opponent


1.) Can you reference a law that gives the Jewish people the right to force 750,000 Arab inhabitants out of their land?

2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?


3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?

I request a 24 hour extension for my turn so we can both enjoy the holiday.

Thank You.

1.) Can you reference a law that gives the Jewish people the right to force 750,000 Arab inhabitants out of their land?

No, I don't believe there is one but I disagree that the Jewish people forced the Arabs to leave. There are several Arab sources which corroborate the historical fact that the refugees left mainly because Arab leaders instructed them to in preparation for the coming 1948 war. Some left on their own in order to avoid the shooting and a very low number were expelled by Israel for being being combatants.

Source

2.) If you cannot - would you be able to explain what makes them justified in doing so?

Even if they had, which I disagree as being factual - the ownership and control of the land in a time of War would have given them the right even as reprehensible as we might feel it would be after the fact. The US imprisoned people of Japanese origin during WW2. After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled ethnic Germans who had been Czech citizens living in the Sudetenland, because they proved to be a threat to the national existence of Czechoslovakia. We may not agree with those actions and history may proven them to be wrong but we cannot argue that these nations did not have the "right" to do so.


3.) If Israel was innocent in it's actions, then would you know of any reason they may wish to cover up their tracks by banning literature stating that The Jewish people themselves took place in Ethnic Cleansing against the Arab people ?

The issue you raise is one over terminology. A history book in Israel schools was to present both sides of the Israel / Palestinian debate and the author used the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the Arab myth of the expulsion of the Palestinians. Though the UN recently agreed that this term means "expelling people of a certain race from a territory" the popular conception is that this means to murder people of a certain race based largely on the events in the Bosnian / Serb conflict. By choosing to use that phrase the author is attempting to create an emotional reaction by exaggeration. The local authority approving the textbooks use in schools wants the phrase changed to something less intellectually "dishonest".

I believe my opponent has made a few errors in logic which I will try to clarify:

The Jews feel they have a "right" to a national home in that region because of the previous existence of a Jewish kingdom, not because they feel they are "superior".

The territory in question was divided by the British, not Israel. The League of nations agreed to the "British Mandate" which separated the territory into a Jewish area and a much larger Arab area. The central issue in all this is that the Arabs want to live in the Jewish area where they would instantly make the Jews a minority in their own nation. Clearly, the combination of these two cultures into a single state would never result in peace - the Arabs want to live under Muslim law and tradition, something which could and would be enacted by force of majority on the Jews.

Israel has given back territory which was taken during the Arab declared wars and the result has been for rocket attacks to have been launched on Israel from those areas. The use of terrorism by those on the "Palestinian" side of the issue is long and well documented as well.

Questions:
1. If the British were to decide to re-take the US as a British territory, do the Americans have a justifiable right of self defense?

Well, i hope everyone had a great holiday! I sure feel 10 pounds of turkey fatter

I'll start with my opponents question:

1. If the British were to decide to re-take the US as a British territory, do the Americans have a justifiable right of self defense?

The short answer: Yes. Americans would.

You see - the argument i'm making is that Israel is provoking the Palestinians into attacking them by aggressively moving further and further into Palestinian territory. If Mexico were to start expanding its military into Texas, don't you think the USA would start bombing Mexico?


But again- i don't believe this argument is about who killed who to keep what land. I believe it's about oppression and retaliation. For every action - there's a reaction.

Think of two stereotypical brothers in any-where USA. The older brother is typically the protagonist, who will instigate a reaction from the younger sibling so to justify bullying the younger sibling.

This is no different. This is a religious war. And if history can teach anything - it can teach that Religious wars know no Morals. They know no boundaries.

Just in recent days we are provided with a striking example of this aggressive expansion by the Israeli's - once and all proving and solidifying the fact that Israel is instigating a reaction from the Palestinians.

Israel's decision to erect hundreds of new housing units in the West Bank have dismayed in the United States and the United Nations. On Tuesday, Tel Aviv announced plans to build 900 new homes in Gilo, one of a dozen Israeli settlements in the illegally annexed East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), seized by the Israeli army along with the rest of the occupied West Bank during the six-day war in 1967.

source

So here we see proof of illegal occupation...aggressive expansion, and child-like antagonizing behavior.

Israel claims they want Peace with the Palestinians - multiple times, publicly even...but how can forceful takeover of Palestinian homes be evidence of good intentions?

How can one not feel blood thirsty rage when in the face of death and persecution? Who can blame someone for retaliation when they were kicked out of their homes, or forced to watch a loved one day at the hands of the Israeli government? All in the name of whose God is better.


Peace talks is a nothing more than a facade for the nation of Israel. They will not stop until they have purged all non-Jewish people from their sight, and yet, they have a civil defense for all of this because, after all, who can argue with a Jewish person when talking about oppression? The Jews suffered tremendous oppression in World War 2 at the hands of Hitler. So, that being said, this is why i find it shockingly surprising that just a few years later, they could find it justifiable to turn around and, for no reason what so ever, physically and aggressively force hundreds of thousands of Arabs from "their land".


I remember a commercial on TV a long, long time ago. It was one of those "TOTALLY FOR KIDS" commercials that talked about bullies in school. I see this video as being very representative of the argument i'm making in this debate. (You can see the video here. I do not use this video as a source, just as a way to tell a point of view. I hope that this is an acceptable action? There were no Debate Forum mods online for me to ask.)

You see, "Brad", is much like Israel, and those around him are the Palestinians. Brad (Israel) likes to throw his ego around and see who he can knock over. He likes to show off to the girls in school (other foreign leaders) to see who he can attract...but in the end, he's just making a fool of himself...and why? Because he's not making an attempt to get along with anyone, but making every attempt to make everyone fear him, because Brad (Israel) feels that fear equals respect.

But as we can see from Palestinian backlash (Or in this case of this video, the comments from Brads classmates) - it doesn't equal respect. It equals resentment. And resentment turns into anger, and if pushed for long enough, in the right places, anger turns into violence.

Closing Statement

I feel I can best relate my position with a brief story:

My Father was an Infantry Sergeant during the Vietnam War. By his second and third tour of duty a large number of new soldiers sent in country were "peaceniks", men who had been drafted and went along with assignment in the Army but who sympathized with the Viet Cong and arrived with the intention not to shoot at or kill the enemy. My Father's method of handling this was to tell them, "I don't care if you love the VC and won't harm a hair on their little heads, that's fine. All I expect you to do is follow my orders and keep your weapon ready for action. When the shooting begins you can aim low or aim high if you want to but you will at least act like a member of the squad by pointing your weapon in the same direction as the rest of us and sending bullets down range".

He told me he handled the situation that way because if these men survived their first battle, after seeing first hand how badly the enemy wanted to kill them and would try to do so, the natural instinct of self preservation would kick in and they would defend themselves. By the second or third battle, again if they were still alive by then - they would not only defend themselves but would have figured out the best way to do so was to kill everyone shooting at them as quickly as possible. Any ideals about "peace and love" would be long gone at that point.

In a war, the person who can stand defenseless and accept death without defending his or herself when they have the means to do so is a very rare individual, indeed. The chicken and egg question, who is right / who is wrong no longer matters at that point. When faced with an enemy who is trying to kill you, most people will defend themselves, this is their right as living creatures who value their existence just as much as we value ours.

That individual right of self defense applies universally, regardless of if the person in question is Israeli or Palestinian.

Both sides of this issue have played the part of aggressor and defender and though I might personally feel the Israelis have been on the defensive side of the equation more often we live in a practical World. This means we eventually have to accept certain things as being no matter how we might feel about them.

Israel is an established nation. They hold the territory and short of complete and total annihilation will not be going anywhere. Events of history have placed them there and established it as their home. Any person has a justifiable right to defend their home, the Israelis when they are attacked in their homes and the Palestinians when they are attacked in theirs.

Both parties have the right of self defense and both parties are justified in doing so. In the future Israel will defend itself and they, just like everyone else, are justified in doing so.

I'd like to thank Snarf for taking on a difficult position in this debate and the judges / moderators for making this possible.

Thank You

with apologies i must request my 24 hour extension....im still gathering material for a closing statement worthy of ATS debate forums


Thank you for your understanding.

Closing Argument:

If the judges deem it appropriate, i would like to center my closing argument around a few sentences from the closing argument of my great opponent

In a war, the person who can stand defenseless and accept death without defending his or herself when they have the means to do so is a very rare individual, indeed. The chicken and egg question, who is right / who is wrong no longer matters at that point. When faced with an enemy who is trying to kill you, most people will defend themselves, this is their right as living creatures who value their existence just as much as we value ours.

Who is right and who is wrong does not matter, i agree, simply because "right and wrong" are decided by who has more power...not morals or principals.

When faced with an enemy who is trying to exterminate you, most people WILL retaliate. Fight or Flight.

They value their own existence as much as we value ours.

Perhaps that is why the Palestinians are fighting back against the aggressive and unjust occupation by Israel.

We're off to the judges.

Judges comments...

Round 1: ecoparity vs Snarf - "Israel has a Justifiable Defense"

I must confess that I read this debate 3 times.. Once for pure enjoyment and twice to judge it. I am simply amazed at the talent shown in this debate; some of the senior debaters better watch out for these two.

My one complaint with this debate is there just wasn't enough to satisfy me; I wanted more. I wish the posts had been far longer as the reading was enjoyable and the writing first class. But on with the judgment.

I can really find no specifics to criticize either opponent for, with the exception of Snarf's closing. It simply was too short and, in this judges opinion, a poor closing to a fine debate.

Overall ecoparity was able to formulate his debate with passion and intellect, as did his opponent, but eco just flat out was more convincing.

The fact that neither opponent depended on very many source links, was FANTASTIC!!!! Finally I got to read a real debate and not a reference article.. BRAVO to them both for that..

Snarf really fought this hard, but sadly one must lose and one must win. Snarf's argument at times seemed more like an emotional reaction, than factual presentation.. BUT just barely..

Slim lead by ecoparity

ecoparity wins...


Some of the older crew better watch out for either of these guys.

ecoparity vs. snarf


Good opening debate. Ecoparity sets out immediately to drive the direction of the debate. He uses his first set of Socratic Questions effectively to outline his side. Snarf reacted well in answering the questions and used the last one to set up his own side. Ecoparity may have went to far with the scope of his definition in trying to include preemptive strike as self defence. Snarf used this weakness well throughout the debate.

Both fighters gave up points when refuted but quickly filled those holes with new angles.I was very surprised that snarf didn't jump on the "How far back do we go to determine ownership of land?" question.The way ecoparity was framing it could have been turned to show the Jews used just this method in the founding of Israel after WW2. He did allude to Mexico and Texas but could have done more.

It was a hard debate to judge. I was impressed by both fighters. Both made strong cases and rebutted their opponents argument well.The whole thing was a pleasure to read. They both dealt with a touchy subject quiet well.

In the end, I felt ecoparity had the better overall argument and gets the win. Great debate by both fighters though.

ecoparity wins and moves to the 2nd round.



This thread is now open to comments from other "fighters".

reply to post by chissler


Congrats to Eco!

Wow - that was an extremely difficult topic to argue against

Thank you to the judges for the inspiring comments. I look forward to a future debate tournament and wish Eco the best of luck in Round 2!!!

I'd like to thank Snarf and hope there will be some kind of wild card function added to the tourny, he had a rough side on this subject and had our roles been reversed I honestly don't know that I would have been able to win. I'd like to see him continue on and debate again.

I liked that he and I both seemed to share the same philosophy on source references - saving them for direct conflict of position or a challenge to a given assertion (which did not arise in this case as he and I were both finding the same sources, I believe).

This subject is an extremely difficult one to find unbiased sources for as well. I felt like I had to be very careful to avoid using any which could be challenged on those grounds which forced me to reign in a couple of times. One of the few "rules" I assume to be present in formal debates is not to step too far away from your opponents positions in the tradition of legal testimony should be "limited to the bare essentials required to answer the question". I think both of us wanted to play things as safely as possible in this first outing (at least I did).

I'm hoping the next round won't begin until after the 12th when I return to civilization and I'm looking forward to it though I have to admit feeling very sober looking at some of the more experienced fighters.

Thanks to everyone and especially Snarf, I feel like I've made a friend on ATS despite the setting of our "meeting".