The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel

Even though my opponent never outright wrote that new terms were being adopted my opponent indeed did adopt new terms. Similary a signatory can create a mutual agreement with another party and after signed request new terms without directly saying these are new terms, in fact if a signatory did want new terms, it'd be more likely the signatory would not expressively state new terms are being requested to hid the fact he is requesting new terms. I had been hoping Pro would at least on one round avoid basing his arguments on an israel-centric viewpoint. However majority of his arguments if not pretty much all are centered around israelite people and very little if no regard for other people. He has simply brushed off American homeless who are without jobs or Americans who are struggling to pay their daily expenses as minor. He has also brushed off American suffering under terrorist attacks due to continued American support for israel with 9/11 being the prime example. He also says the countries around israel will benefit from israel's continued alliance with USA simply because they are inferior to israel in western terms even though this is hardly the truth. Since my opponent has a general Israelite-centric view I will try to give voters an insight on multiple views of the issue. American view My opponent likes to disregard american unemployment, starvation, lack of basic needs, econmic crashes, and everyday struggles as something that should be put down for Israel's good. It is also noteworthy my opponent ignores US economic struggles with an ever increasing debt and unemployment etc in his final round. This is understandable as it's hard to argue tax money and unemployment for the sake of weapon funding for 'peace' is the same as charity. It is easy to argue charity is worth military buildup but it's hard to argue taxpayer money and unemployment is worth military buildup so it seems once 'charity' is American pain and suffering then it gets dropped out. My opponent also tries to downplay 9/11 as a thing of the past while ignoring a continuous stream of terrorist attacks in the USA. As one can clearly see 9/11 is proof that the alliance is a current threat to the USA as 9/11 was not the last terrorist attack and more will continue so long as US maintains its alliance. As can be seen by the bottom highlight it is indicated it's not a thing of the past and of course my opponent is yet to prove terrorism in the US is a thing of the past US alliance with Israel will not generate more terrorist attacks in the USA. As can be seen this has never actually been refuted by my opponent as my opponent never proved that terrorist groups won't continue to terrorize the USA. He only says today isn't 9/11 therefore it's in the past and he deliberately ignores the fact it's just an example of how America's continued support for Israel will cause innocent USA citizens to be continually terrorized. He therefore turned an example supporting an arguement(continued support causes terrorist attack in USA) into the argument itself and has dropped out the real argument which the example was used to support. This is understandable as it is in his best interest to drop out the fact that USA support for israel will continue to terrorize USA citizens by swithcing example with argument itself. Again this shows Israelite-centric view and completely disregards future USA suffering for terrorist attackers due to the continuation of the alliance. I will readdress my earliest argument that USA supportin Israel today does not supports today's American policies. As seens it's in direct violation of laws to be supportin Israel the way it is. My opponet never addresses the severe violation of USA interests be supporting israel because he simply disregards it as minor racism. I will now address how USA supporting Israel infact hurts israelites! ! It turns out US funding actually increases the burden of israelite civilians and makes them more prone to suffering rather than benefitting. It also has turned Israel into a spoiled child. As can be seen increased military funding makes more children schooless less elders taken care of and more funding to forcefully draft children into combat. Middle Eastern Point of ViewMy opponent's only claim about how Middle East benefits is Israel somehow being around Middle East makes Middle East more democratic and better rather than more violent and more unrest. In fact Israel seems more like the tyrant and Middle Eastern nations are lesser so the tyrant because so we see that Israel is clearly the most abusive country in the Middle East region because it's the only one that legalizes torture. Israel legalizing torture and torturing its neighbors as many would imagine would clearly make those countries undoubtly want to adopt torture policies and in turn become themselves even less democratic. My opponet tries to mention my example of Hamas as the argument itself rather than an example of the bigger picture. My point was either misunderstodd or deliberately misinterpretted in which he took a specific example supporting a point( Israel is worse than Middle Eastern nations) and made that the point itself and disregarded the point it was supporting. He is argueing a nonexistant opponent and is failing to actually address my main arguments. 'Peace'My opponent would like to claim supporting the alliance is 'promoting peace' but this is hardly the case. as one can imagine how can providing weapons-tools of warfare and destruction- be promoting peace? This just causes everywhere to start building up more and more weapons with more weapons to spare. My opponent once again uses an example ONLY meant to support a point as the actual argument itself with the China example being warped into an actual argument itself. In fact I clearly state which shows china is merely an example and not the acutal argument itself as other nations might sympathsize as well. My opponent's suggestion that somehow a large scale war will occur would show lack of common sense of the part of all nations. As I already addressed common logic of nations in another round I will have no need to readdress it here. If my opponent can argue that USA continuing aid can continue to support peace then surely USA would be able to peacefully disband Israel. If it couldn't peacefully disband Israel which my opponent seems to suggest then logically it would be incapable of providing any 'peace' whatsoever through funding Israel. ConclusionMy opponent addresses a very one sided Israelite Centric argument and downplays all other nations and peoples involved. As anyone can see my arguments clearly consider more than one party in this political debate while his seem to only address Israel and other nation concerns are neligble in his arguments. It also seems he is debating an imaginary opponent by warping my arguments into something completely different and making those warped versions of the argument part of his imaginary opponent's argument while tryig to avoid his real opponent's arguments. So far there has been no attempt to refute the asseration that my arguments are being warped into something they completely aren't which implies my opponent is fully aware of it and is trying to avoid bringing this up. It's also noteworthy his arguments seem to follow an earlier thinking I would imagine most non white supremacist readers would have regarded as flawed. He is following a 'White mans burden' argument in which white man must tame the world because white man is superior and only white man matters. In fact his argument that of Israel spreading human rights was like the British justification for colonizing Africa because britain was at the age of enlightment and banned slavery while africa didn't. When Britain colonized africa they exploited africans through blackmailing and other abuses just like israel does to palestinians today. He also contends that zionist imperialism is maintaining peace which was similar to British justification for sending in more money from colonizing states to increase military action against African partisans. He also maintains that Israel maintains peace much like the British declared their colonization of India maintained peace between muslims and Hindu. In fact when the British left peace was made by creating independent Pakistan and India. So as voters can see what type of 'philosophoical' roots my opponent addresses was analogus to the philosophical roots that justified British imperialism with the reality in both the Middle East situation and African situation being very different from the imperialist philosophy.