The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.

I'd like to apologize to my opponent. In an effort to respond to as much as possible, while presenting reasons that the US did not act unjustly, there is much that I am forced to delete from my responses to fit the debate restrictions. Due to this, it's possible there are areas in which my points may be unclear, perceived as a slight to my opponent, or where I may be forced to simplify an idea. I'll attempt to remedy that in this final round. I would also like to thank my opponent for the debate as I have very much enjoyed debating this topic with him and would enjoy debating again in the future on another, should he be willing. Since my opponent insists on the term 'moral', I shall continue to respond to it by request. To make this point, I need to ask, is something generally considered immoral ever justified? Is something generally considered to be wrong, ever possible to be right within a context? To answer those questions one can't look at the result of one action to judge. Instead, as with all cases where my opponent insists on evaluating the morality of actions, we must look at motivations. It is only through the motivations that justify whether an action can be considered ‘moral'. There is no doubt to my position, (in this debate) as my opponent asserts. I have made clear my position that actions by the US are right because they are motivated to counter the actions of motivations that are not right. My opponent can refer to wrong motivations as immoral if he insists, it is simply redundant, or points to an individual's personal beliefs, values and nothing more. I'd also like to point out that it is the responsibility of my opponent to prove his case that the US is unjust, of which he has the burden of proof. It would be sufficient for me to simply cast doubt upon his assertions, thereby creating enough doubt via the resolution. Rather than simply doing this, I am presenting an alternate point of view in which the US is not only ‘not unjust', but is motivated to prevent actions it perceives to be motivated by something ‘wrong'. In this way, I am not merely debunking my opponent's points, but doing so in an effort to provide a greater context in which the US is indeed justified. For the sake of space, I am going to engage the important withstanding contentions in one missive. A) The US is justified B) The political motivations of this vote are unjust, justifying US action And (C) as the conclusion. C) The dubiousness of some my opponent's arguments reflect the similar reasoning for doubts the US has in supporting dubious motivations. A&B) Regarding this vote of whether or not Palestine should be recognized in UNESCO, my opponent has pointed out that it's symbolic, while still leaving these ‘symbolic motivations' unexplained. The Palestinians have gained nothing. They have earned no rights, and earned no security. If the goal is rather to attain ‘Palestine' itself, these actions have provided no such path to that end in general, or any my opponent has explained. If such things were the motivation, more reasonable actions could take place. Being that UNESCO is an organization for science and education, (something entirely within the hands of Palestine domestically, and yet untended properly) this event has no practical meaning or result. (Though globally, (and perhaps by design and motivation) paints the US/Israel with such words supplied by my opponent as, "the ambition of a Machiavel and the tactlessness of a revenge seeking bigot") This is an easy stance for the US therefore, (it isn't motivated by world opinion) and one in which can hopefully be reflected by its action in future international arenas. That is: The US will not bow to the popular opinions of a world (that shares few of its values) for a short-term gain leading to a continuation of a conflict with greater consequences for the future. The greater consequences?: The unfortunate status quo of ‘lack of freedom, rights and security for Palestinians', legally codified without any of the institutions necessary to counter the continued lack of rights and security for Palestinians. That my opponent can endorse such a path and consider it ‘moral', once again reflects the subjectivity of the word. So what were the actions motivated by? They would appear to be motivated as a symbolic gesture to allay the nationalistic enthusiasm the Palestinian President had instilled while saying statehood for Palestinians was imminent. (He later realized "full UN recognition" politically impossible) So what did it achieve? Well it forced the US to defund UNESCO for the sake of a popularity contest. (Is this moral?) Throughout this debate I have tried to get my opponent to cite clearly what the motivations are, yet he does not. There were many opportunities for my opponent to rebut my statements questioning the validity of these actions, and yet he couldn't. He avoids answering any of the questions I repeatedly ask throughout this debate. How does this lead to Palestinian statehood? How do Palestinians gain rights and security from this? etc. (I had offered this so that we could evaluate motivation). It is clear why my opponent doesn't attempt to respond to these questions: Because he can't without bringing into question whether the vote itself was ‘moral and just'. By the end of the debate we agree it is symbolic (But to what end?) and now knowing the actions of the US have been successful, it has negated my opponents points regarding risks to US interests, having preserved them from further (and future) risk, by standing resolutely. C) I apologize for engaging in the tangential point of defining Palestine. However the greater point is that nothing in the arena of this discussion should be taken for granted. My opponent put up an (not sourced) image of maps often (and specifically) intended to be misleading, and did similarly with the sourcing of his polling data. When we are pointing to data which can easily be linked to a source, and the lack of which can be construed as an attempt to mislead, it can't go ignored in a debate. As I said earlier, I am not accusing my opponent of doing this intentionally. If he is unable to properly link his sources and is presenting data similarly to how it is presented to him, I would be unable to assume his motivations (and call him immoral). Nonetheless the manifestation is clear. My opponent insists on pointing to the data again, to the point of it nearly becoming insulting. To justify this he says: "I was comparing two arbitrary points in time". Looking at the table we can see [results: SEP 1982] is not arbitrary. It is chosen because it represents a statistical anomaly and is intended to intentionally mislead (propagandize). If my opponent wanted to prove opinion trends, he could simply look at the results per decade (as opposed to ONE month reinforcing his view), which prove his source is undeniably incorrect and intended to misinform. (At the bottom of the table provided by ‘The Jewish Virtual Library', verified by the polling company responsible for it, linked in the previous round.) 80's: 45.76 – 14.59 00's: 51.46 – 14.67 The ‘constantly changing' US view my opponent purports on this issue results in a .08% increase of support for Palestinians over 3 decades, with nearly 6% increase for Israel. (I will not supply further data and sources that my opponent requests (though it is available). He incorrectly attributes this data to me in his last round, but these polls were by HIS standard, as it was HE who cited them. I ONLY added the source and context) And so I am left with this question: Can a view that requires dubious labels, intentionally misleading data, and a conscious effort to ignore the greater motivations and context, be indicative of what is supposedly, ‘moral and just'? It shouldn't be, and it isn't. I may not have a sufficient number of words to undoubtedly establish ‘truth', but I have more than enough to show deceit.