Antisemitism can be justified by Torah

Note that providing "contradictions" or rather "rebuttals" is simply part of a debate--perhaps Pro should have chosen more rounds in order to refute further arguments. Likewise, before I outline my rebuttals, I'd like to clarify that Pro's resolution and (beginning) of opening argument are not directly the same thing. He may believe in essence that they have the same meaning but in literal and definitional terms they do not. I'll state once again that "justification" and "warning" are two different words with two different meanings. If the Torah was to justify anti-Semitism, it would require that it outlines valid examples of why "expressions of hatred" or "discrimination against individual Jews" or "orgainized violent attacks by mobs, state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities" are justified in reasoning and action. A verse from Parshah Bereishit 12:3 (Genesis) easily refutes such a suggestion: “I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”. Here we have an example of G-ds loyality towards Abram and his people--and in fact endorses the "blessing" of Jews. On the contrary to encouraging anti-Semitism or any forms of hatred towards the Jews--it is completely discouraged. Once more it should be highlighted that prophecy is not the same as justification. In round one I outline the dictionary definition of justification--so one can clearly see it has a different meaning. Moreover, the: "Antisemitism is something which God warned Jews in Torah and can be justified by Torah or Torah's verses" is Pro's comment and not mine. I specifically state that the two terms are different in meaning. Rebuttals "I agree with Con. In the previous round I stated the "Origins of Jews" in which it's mentioned that "The Israelites were a Semitic people". If God warned Jews in their book of authority about Anti-Semitism then it is restricted to them. Now let's analyse the meaning of Semitic".As I provided a dictionary definition of the term "anti-semitic" in round one, it's largely unnecessary to present another Wikipedia definition and delve into the historical and geographical context of the term. This neither defending your argument or outlining reasons as to why anti-Semitism is justified by the Torah. "But Anti-Semitic notions were towards Jews and not Arabs. So attempts to define Jews as a race cannot possibly relate to Anti-Semitic notions if one considers the exact text book definitions".The point was to establish that "anti-Semitism"--the term and the movement--was an attempt to define the Jews as a race. This was supported when I stated that the term of "anti-Semitism" was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1873. This lead to the subsequent movement of anti-Semitism (I.E the Nazi Regime) which absolutely did consider the Jews as an (inferior) ethnic creed. In this case, attempts to define the Jews as a race absolutely do relate to anti-Semitic notions. For another example, the Nuremberg race laws are classified as "anti-Semitic". "Whether it was "religious" or "ethnic" either way Jews were massacred by a very large number. The motive behind the killings has no relevance because evidently Goddidn't tell hitler or others who shared anti-semitic notions to commit such an act".This was an example to convey that much anti-Semitism has been based not entirely on religious affliation but the perceived racial identity of the Jewish people. In addition, this was also to show that hatred directed towards the Jews is not excluseivly related to G-d or as you stated in round one: "The Jews failing the purpose" to G-d. Any person that believes in G-d (whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic etc.) or otherwise, would agree that sometimes things happen that are beyond our understanding--the Holocaust was one of those. The majority of Jewish people hold the firm opinion that it was not an act of G-d or any form of punishment from him--such as you're implying--but the cruel and completely unjustifiable act of man. The implication that the Holocaust is somehow justification for alleged "failure of purpose" is an insult to the many Jewish people that kept the Torah and maintained their belief in G-d during this horrific period. Moreover, in no way did the Holocaust spell the end for the Jewish people. On the contrary to destroying the Jews--which was the aim--large numbers of Jewish people returned to Israel, which at the time was 80% barren, to make a strong and prosperous nation. If the Jews had really "failed their purpose", they would have never returned to Israel as it is predicted in the Torah. For the first time in 2000 years the Jewish people finally had their own country and could finally establish sovereign governance over the holy land. This confirms that the covenant with G-d has been fully maintained by both sides. Examples of this covenant are found here:Yesha'yahu 49:13 (Isaiah) "Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains! For the L-RD comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones". Yechezkel 34:13 (Ezekiel) "I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land". Yirmiyahu 32:44 (Jeremiah) "Fields will be bought for silver, and deeds will be signed, sealed and witnessed in the territory of Binyamim, in villages around Jerusalem, in the towns of Judah and in the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the Negev, because I will restore their fortunes, declares the L-RD". Yesha'yahu 66:8 (Isaiah) "Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children."Yesha'yahu 43:21 (Isaiah) "The people which I formed for Myself, that they might tell of My praise."Yesha'yahu 35:1 (Isaiah) "The wilderness and the parched land shall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose."Yesha'yahu 35:2 (Isaiah) "It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice, even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon; they shall see the glory of the L-RD, the excellency of our G-d. Futher Rebuttals"Con misunderstood my claim". Indeed the claim was not misunderstood. I was merely stating that the verse did not come true--therefore the platform of being sold in Egypt for a second time was not provided by the Jewish people. "As it's evident that I never mentioned that Jews were sold as slaves for the second time. I said "God promises Jews a second time, a second bondage for them.". God promised Jews the land of canaan and the prophecy was fulfilled even now Jews are living in Israel. Similarly, I believe that Jews believe in their lord, so they can't deny God's promise. It didn't happen yet doesn't necessarily means it will never happen, if Jews don't fulfill their purpose." Here you have actually contradicted your initial argument. In conclusion of round one, you state: "Jews have failed their purpose" yet here you use the term: "If the Jews don't fail their purpose". Which indicates that you're not decided on whether the Jews have or have not actually failed their purpose. In both arguments, you have changed from the Jews (definitively) failing their purpose to it being a possibility of them failing their purpose--or not failing their purpose. Which is, as stated, a contradiction. As for a second bondage in Egypt, this verse was outlined over 3000 years ago-yet has still not occurred. The point was that this means that the Jewish people have not set the precedent for a second period of slavery within Egypt. I.E-- The fact that it has not happened proves that the Jews have not given just cause for it to happen. Once more your second example specifically states: "based on questionable numbers" and not does outline any Egyptian form of slavery. The statement of: "killed or sold into slavery" also proves that the facts are not definitive. "Anyway even if these events don't resemble the prophecy. It will happen maybe in future indeed as God promised to them, that is if Jews believe in their book of authority." In order for the examples to be valid they have to resemble the prophecy, otherwise they bare no relevance to the debate. The fact it there is no recorded examples of the prophecy coming true according to context it is stated in within Devarim 28:68. "Which suggests clearly that Jews were exclusively chosen for a "purpose"."The contention was not the Jews were not chosen for a "purpose"--but that within the "purpose", are also reasons why G-d saw the Jews as fit for fullfilling this duty. Obviously the Jews (prior to receiving the Torah) had proven capability towards G-d. After all, to be "chosen" requires some form of ability. "It would be a perversion of the idea of election if it were turned into an argument in support of unequal treatment for the non-elect. But their special status was conditioned upon obeying God, standing for truth and establishing peace and justice on earth, "kingdom of priests and a holy nation". Within my response I stated nothing about "unequal treatment for the non-elect". Once again, I was simply looking at the full context of "chosen" and exactly what it entails. Naturally the Jews are expected to obey G-d in being chosen--as Jewish people have and continue to do just that. In no way did I imply or attempt at peversion of the meaning of "chosen". I was simply assessing reasons as to why the Jews would be chosen and how they must have proven something in order to be chosen. The requirements upon being chosen are of course obvious within the covenant. In conclusion of round two you also use Luke, which is Christian New Testament scripture and not part of the Torah. (1.) http://www.mechon-mamre.org...(2.) http://www.mechon-mamre.org...