Israel is on the short end of the stick

Thanks. As we enter the final round of debate, I'd like to remind everyone that, per the rules assigned in round 1, this round will be purely for summary; no refutation of any claims made whatsoever can be made. For that reason, no sources can be mentioned for arguments (I do have a source, only for a picture), no new arguments presented, and no new ideas suggested. ===SUMMARY=== ---Content--- o Of the arguments o Of the debate o Conclusion --------------- o Of the arguments Largely, many of the arguments made in the debate came to a standstill. We were not able to resolve certain conflicts such as the flotilla, but nonetheless, a common trend is easily discerned. Juvanya, like all zionists and pro-Israel advocates, tend to sway in manners such as to avoid the wind knocking them over. They deny claims made against them by questioning the integrity of the questioner. What we ended up with on condemnation of Israel looks something like this: Me: The UN criticizes Israel of a, b, and c crimes. Juvanya: The UN hates Israel. Me: Amnesty International, among other organizations and people, agree that the UN hate Israel. Juvanya: Amnesty International is stupid and any "other organization and people" can just say things. Me: Why are any of your Israeli sources more credible? Juvanya: The UN hates Israel too much, so we have to trust Israel. Basically, I'm left with nowhere to go. If any claim I put forth is excreted upon by absolutely ridiculous claims, the debate has become an abusive battleground of rock throwing versus tanks, which is a largely accurate depiction of the conflict. http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Seeing as that's the case, I'm left with no option but to let the voters decide because the ultimatum isn't in my hands. o Of the debate Just as I said above, the arguments holistically speaking were unfairly skewed. As regarding the utilitarian standard, it took all 3 rounds of debate until it was finally addressed (with absolutely NO causal link). In round 1, my opponent said "States and collectives naturally violate human rights, this cannot be denied, but my argument will say that Israel has one of the, if not THE, cleanest records in the world. Further, I will be arguing that Israel is fully justified in its actions throughout its history." He failed to uphold the burden that he assigned himself, which leaves him in a poor situation going into the final round. I will reiterate, not once did Juvanya "justify" Israel's actions; all he did was throw libel and slander out in all 360 degrees of a circle at all the opponents of his zionist state. Moreover, we're left with one crucial argument that was never addressed once; the very first argument presented, regarding Israeli treatment of soldiers at security checkpoints. Pregnant women were left to give birth on their own in the middle of a floor; the statistics we're already provided. The only refutation offered was an example of ONE IDF worker who happened to have a heart amidst the black hole that sucks all the life out of Palestinians; namely, Israel. Continuing, don't be fooled: my opponent may have had the last word on addressing claims, but that doesn't mean his claims became any more valid just because he got the final word on them. I can't talk about them specifically, but don't believe that I couldn't have debunked every single sentence he put together. Also, I refer the readers back to the rules to judge arguments; they may become crucial in one case or another. The most important thing I want to refer everyone to is an obituary, that was provided in an earlier round. Despite all the claims made by my opponent, I have EXPLICIT DOCUMENTATION of the INDIVIDUAL DEATHS that occurred at the cold-blooded hands of Israeli forces. There is no denying evidence, regardless how much zionist propaganda is spewed around. o Conclusion Left with my final words, about 3,500 characters, and class in 20 minutes, I will leave the voters with a few points. 1. My claims went largely unrefuted, but the sources of my claims were attacked unfairly, leaving me allegedly baseless. I digress. 2. My opponent's claims were not only refuted, but his sources were clearly un-neutral, as was illustrated by the Star of David in every corner, followed by Hebrew writings. 3. Gestures made by the UN and other nations were urges to "stop" the violence in many cases, not direct condemnations of Jewish Israel-hood. They were ignored; this is crucial. 4. The overwhelming majority of evidence points against Israel, from the middle and the opposing side of the conflict, and even Jews themselves such as Judge Goldstone, intellectuals/professors Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. 5. Utilitarianism- the weighing mechanism of this round- was never applied by my opponent to any argument; while I tailored it to nearly every claim and substantiated my reasoning in doing so, Juvanya yelled "UTILITARIANISM" extremely loudly in his final two sentences and hoped that that would cover for him. It doesn't. 6. (As a reminder to Juvanya) NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST CLAIMS CAN BE MADE. The round comes down to observational analysis, which I hope is followed as genuinely by my opponent as was by me. I have no say in the result of this debate, but I do have some influence on the voters mind. All I want to leave is a question to ponder. Why is it that Israel's only true military partner is the US, which is dominated by a Jewish lobby known as APAC (the most powerful lobby in the country) while nearly EVERY other country on the face of the earth condemns Israel for its actions?