Israel is on the short end of the stick

Thanks, juvanya, for your response. As I had anticipated, I really received ZERO substantial argumentation from the Con side of the debate, and I will demonstrate why. ---Content--- o Refutations/Defense of Pro Case o Overview o Sources --------------- o Refutations/Defense of Pro Case 1. Any human being born with a capacity for logic will see the flaws in the argument. First, I will concede that, yes, there are in fact "kind" soldiers available in the IDF. Individual kind soldiers, to my opponent's dismay, do not represent the oppressive Israeli establishment. The two videos provided are just red herring, and distract you from the foul scent that is Israel (to engage in the metaphorical joust). Moreover, after claiming that Israel "actively provide medical aid to Arabs in need" (spelling/grammar?), my opponent provides no source but two potentially staged scenes to back up his clearly false assertions. On a side note, the last time I checked on how debates work, videos don't count as refutations. 2. To begin with, the argument can be dropped, from rules 2 and 6- the entire refutation is an ad hominem against the UN; all of which I can avoid by providing an alternative source. Essentially, the claim is that the UN is biased against Israel. So, I'll provide someone who isn't so overly Muslim, to please my opponent (by the way, "57" Islamic nations seems absurd, seeing as there are only 48 who are Muslim-majority nations ON EARTH http://en.wikipedia.org...). Amnesty International anyone [1]? How about JATO [2]? Just click the Information/Resources link on the left sidebar. At the end of the day, the point remains unrefuted. Extend it into round 3. 3. Simply put, my opponent tries to weasel his way out of the Goldstone by claiming that it was "shoddy research and trash". The problem is, Goldstone is a JEWISH JUDGE! You couldn't get any LESS biased than that. Again, even as an ad hominem in disguise, we can look to other reports that have internationally confirmed that Israel, as a nation, is one of the largest crimes ever committed against humanity. It is hard to understand how the Jewish people, who suffered something as horrendous as the holocaust, can turn around and do what they're doing. See [3 - 5] a. I don't even know what to say, this is so ridiculous. To begin, this argument can be dropped by rules 3 and 6. It is unfortunate, but my opponent agreed to these rules, and then failed to provide historical references to verify Hamas' "violent seizure of Gaza" from Israel, which was already Palestinian land anyways. For the real history, see [6 - 8]. Regarding the bans; it seems my opponent views Israel as the Palestinian overlord. Who are they to deny Palestine chocolate, or concrete? Ha! And it's luck for me that I can read Arabic, ey? Source 5 that my opponent provided is a picture of a bustling market... IN JERUSALEM! Which is under Israeli control, am I wrong? Nonetheless, even as a Palestinian market, it is FAR removed from the poorly supplied Gaza. Regarding the flotilla, my opponent seems to deny the Israeli violence. I gave a first hand account from the ship; here are a few more, since sources alone appear to embody refutation. See [10 - 12] Also, the source my opponent provides, his #11, only supports my case, reposted here http://tinyurl.com... I like how, after reading through several of his sources, they only support my side of the argument. Proof of laziness? Or simply lack of evidence? It seems ample in support of pro... b. It's really funny what happens here. My opponent provides pictures of Jews suffering in the Holocaust; then, he blames the death of Palestinians on Hamas rockets. Finally, he provides a blatantly zionist website to condemn all civilians as terrorists. He also provides a video which he obviously didn't watch; the human shield video. All it shows is a cohesive effort by an unidentified group of people (but clearly, Palestinian, as they speak in Arabic) firing at an Israeli helicopter, which is later shown to apparently be firing missiles. I'm not sure what to do here, it seems like my opponent was high when he responded to this segment. At the end of the day, he does concede that he "cannot justify them"; extend. 4. If my opponent was a little smarter with his characters, he wouldn't have put up sources and videos that supported my side, and would have used those characters to refute this argument. He requested to recap on this in the comments section; I propose that he do a better job on the other points instead, which can all be extended. o Overview Really, I've come out with no legitimate refutation from my opponent. He does nothing to link back to the utilitarian standard which I clearly and explicitly emphasized multiple times in the last round; I guess I'll continue doing the work, in the form of a summary. Organization~ A. All arguments, holistically B. Individual arguments C. Conclusion --------------------------------> All in relation to utilitarian standard A. All arguments, holistically We see that Israel is denying aid, ending lives, and cornering a resource-less group of people; it is a victimization that is clear and easy to see. All my opponent does is deny the sources as biased, which I have solved for by providing alternate sources to the UN. Thus, we see that Israel's crimes against humanity are, in fact, verifiable, and obvious violations of human rights. A clear cut incompatibility with utilitarianism. B. Individual arguments. 1. We end up having my opponent totally neglect the maltreatment of women and children, by providing ONE example of kindness. In each individual case, the IDF is literally committing double homicide, or more, in the case of twins or triplets. 2. The violations remain standing; UN resolutions, and other reports, illustrate the monstrosity that is Israel. 3. The Goldberg report is only further bulwarking of previous arguments; also largely unrefuted. a. Addressed- blockades by Israel are denial of humanitarian aid to Gaza. b. Concession by pro- they cannot be justified. See observation 2. 4. Dropped by pro, lack of characters. C. Conclusion My opponent has failed to justify Israel's violence and reckless regard for humanity (not surprisingly). As we move deeper into the debate, I request that he pay better attention to the rules provided at the start of the debate, and to the content of his sources; I also urge arguments to be made HERE, not THROUGH sources. To sum it up, a proverb goes "A man chased away with a club will return. A man chased away with words, will not." I hope to expose the truth verbally, so the evil will never return to us again. The resolution is affirmed, I urge a Pro ballot. o Sources [1] http://www.amnesty.org... [2] http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org... [3] http://www.globalissues.org... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2007)#US_and_Israeli_Involvement (the entire section) [7] http://electronicintifada.net... (at least look through the pictures, if you don't read at the VERY LEAST the first 3 paragraphs) [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.mideastweb.org... On Hamas; it is militant, yes, but a political organization nonetheless, caused by reactionaries to Israeli violence only. [10] http://www.undispatch.com... [11] http://www.nytimes.com... [12] http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com... (flotilla; proves IDF seizes ALL video and edits it in their favor)