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

This is an interesting approach to the debate. My opponent seems to relish in ‘debunking’ my points and is set on misconstruing my stance. It is a shame, because I was hoping to debate on matters of interest, rather than technicalities and nit picking. Anyway, I must act as such to defend my points from ad hominem critique. Why does my opponent state that the “usage of the word ‘moral’… [is] unnecessary”? Well I would hasten a guess that it lies with the reason that morality divides the argument into two clear-cut sides. Right and Wrong. I believe that the US was unjust and thus wrong in its actions. My opponent seems to be sitting on the fence, and is clearly unable to definitively state that the US was right. “…will not use semantics to debate them”. Discerning arguments semantically lies at the core of many debates. I have chosen the terms ‘unjust’ ‘moral’ etc. based on their explicit and innate meanings. I am also assuming that, as semantics also refers to derived meaning from logic, my opponent is attempting to avoid clear cut and logical reasoning. Now, back to the points. Lets stick to it. A)i) Apparently, I ‘neglect’ to state that “Timothy Wirth is the head of "the UN foundation”. I am assuming that my opponent is indicating that there would be an element of bias against the US regarding Wirth’s views. Wirth was also a US senator for a number of years. However, because he is head of the UN Foundation, his views must be biased, right? In an attempt to construe my opponent’s subsequent paragraph, he so confidently discounts his opinion by saying that it “will not likely hinder US business interests substantially long term”. I would like to ask my opponent to elaborate on this point further, because without evidence and support, I fear that he is simply arguing ad hominem. A)ii) My opponent’s accuses me of using ‘selective data points’, but clearly fails to grasp my underlying intentions when I used them. I was comparing two arbitrary points in time, and taking note of the net change in public opinion between the years. He claims to have ‘debunked’ my point, saying:“US public support for Israel remains consistent without ambiguity.” Hold on a second. I find it very interesting how (according to his source), in 1991 Israeli support was listed between 59-64%, while within a few years had dropped significantly to between 38-42% in the years 1993-6. That is, in general approximation, a decrease of 20%. It then proceeds to fluctuate from around 40-50% throughout the early 2000s. Is this “consistent without ambiguity”? If my opponent can find a single source that indicates that Israel received unambiguous and consistent public support, I would be most surprised. I think my opponents coarse and bigoted rebuttal fails to actually aid in the presentation of his view regarding the debates motion. B) This is interesting. My opponent now accuses me here of portraying the US as “bigoted/mean-spirited”. I do not mention or even suggest anything of the sort. I thought my opponent was going to avoid arguments based on semantics, yet he deliberately misconstrues my points? If you refer back to my ‘B’ section in Round 3, I criticize my opponents inferred slandering of the UNESCO body, where he indicates that they are to be held to blame, for spurring on the US’s decision to withhold funding. So here it is suggested that the US is absolved from any moral guilt because they were provoked by UNESCO’s actions. If this is the stance that my opponent chooses to take (and I am assuming that he does, because he has deliberately avoided any reasonable rebuttal towards my section ‘B’ in Round 3, however, given that he has one more chance to in Round 4, I would ask him to elaborate on his point made in Round 2), then we can safely say that ‘the US’s actions were unjust, but it’s okay, because UNESCO provoked them.’ Once again, ambiguous, ‘on the fence’ ad hominem. C) Yes, this is likely the case, as Palestine, (however my opponent deems it best to define), is an important recipient of UN based aid, and thus would not suffer greatly. But as I have been arguing throughout the debate, the immorality and unjustness of the US’s actions are to be noticed globally. I state in Round 2: “Palestine would represent a small proportion of the total aid and assistance provided”. I don’t feel the need to elaborate any further. And here we go again. “the US stands by its core values” I have expressed my views regarding this in prior arguments. “I hope my opponent offers an answer that presents a path to statehood with rights and security for Palestinians.” I encourage you to stick to the motion. If you want a viable answer, I suggest you read some interesting papers and books by N. Chomsky and N. Finkelstien. They both offer reasoned and logical solutions and approaches to tackling the ‘mess’. D) It is not being implied that the US broke any laws. Let me reaffirm this point. “<<<"the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority">>> It is indeed. The US, as it has done many times before, will defend its own interests among any global, voting majority.” So here we are acknowledging that the US has, in terms of foreign policy and global politics, distanced itself from its core values of liberty, democracy, equality etc. in preference for self-interest. Yet. “The US is a democracy that functions by the rule of law”. I’m afraid I was not clear enough. The contradiction I see is the element of hypocrisy: the advocating of democracy within the US, and throughout the globe, yet the blatant (and unchallenged) dismissal of such core values, to satisfy self-interest. I think that here we can see a contradiction. I am not accusing the US of breaking a law of such, especially when the laws (I refer to the ones mentioned earlier) have been tailored to suit the countries aims. I argue that it’s immoral and unjust, not that it’s technically or legally ‘wrong’. E) I used that map to illustrate the defined Palestinian region that I have chosen to use in this debate. I specifically stated that it ‘resembles’ Stage 3. One of the sources that you list claims to deconstruct the ‘propaganda’. I do not argue that some of the stages may indeed exaggerate and exacerbate the gravity of the Palestinian situation, but some are fair and accurate. I quote from the source (which in itself doesn’t seem to be devoid of bias): “this is an accurate representation of the partition plan”, and although the author bases his argument on the principle that the land was not Palestinian. Look at the authors map. The caption reads that: “All of the land Israel gave up was in the pursuit of peace”. But this is clear and obvious bias and misrepresentation. However, I am not too bothered about these technicalities, I only intended to illustrate for my opponent my definition of Palestine. One could debate on this point alone. In response to your final quote (a misleading one too!): “Palestinians drop plans to join other UN agencies.” I can only say this: Rather than copying the article’s title, why not fairly represent what’s being detailed within. The reasons for Palestine’s decision to drop admission attempts lie with the fact that the pros don’t out weigh the cons. Palestine sees that the US will continue to unjustly withhold funding from UN bodies, and as the significance of Palestinian membership to these said organizations is mainly symbolic, they have adopted a different approach. It is later stated that Palestine would “would instead focus its efforts on its bid for full U.N. recognition”. Where the US’s impact would not lead to financial consequences and repercussions on the UN bodies. I suggest you read the article. “I have negated all my opponent's points” Hardly, I think an element of arrogance comes across here. But whatever, one must fight fire with fire: my point still stands. The US acted unjustly in its decision.