It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. Do individuals have a basic right of self defense?
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.
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?
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?
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?
1. Does a guest in a home have the right to defend themselves against an intruder?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.