Isreal has a Right to Exist.

Rules; 1) No using the buzz word Zionism, or Zionist; if you have to, describe it instead of using Would you care to agree with me on a definition for "Zionism" considering you say it has been "distorted". 2) No race baiting Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. 3) No Moral arguments; we are talking about Legal Rights, not personal feelings. "This debate is about Legality" This debate is about whatever I SAY its about. If I can prove you wrong using something not enshrined in law, then that does not render it forfeit. Logic outclasses law in the logic field. This is why all arguments are conducted by logic. "Morality is a opinion, and varies from person to person." The definition of morality is quite clear. It pertains to an ethical behaviour. Working out who is right is simply done by working out who is the most ethical comparatively. This is the method by which all arguments are won, it is called verisimilitude. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Moral arguments are meaningless, unless supported by law." http://www.youtube.com... Appeal to authority fallacy. See video, lol. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk... 4) Don't just say they broke international law, you must name the law they broke instead of fishing, with a broad statement. "You have to name what law they broke. For example If I said "the UK broke international law during the war of 1812" my opponent would have to guess at which law is being referring to, and could not directly respond to the allegations." Appeal to authority. The law was broken, only by those who perceived it as law. "The Definitions, is to make clear the international Laws." Something which you failed to do btw, If you read my analysis of the laws. "It is in no way "bias", or "authority fallacy"; the definitions come directly from the international law, hence it is not a perceived authority, it is an actual authority." "no it isnt" is not a valid argument, because I just say, yes it is times infinity, and you can check the source. All your saying there is that you perceive international law to be an actual authority. For me to be legally bound under international law to recognise its authority, you would need to find a law which states this. Considering no such law exists yet, I think we can forgo your fallacious actual authority argument. But not so fast. The word authority allegedly comes from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command. So please tell me, precisely which part of your ‘advice' is ‘actual advice'. We're not done yet. •the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a common-law jurisdiction, and, •equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and, •a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society which has been given the force of law, and, •a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, So, even if it was a mandatory law, I could simply withhold consent, and under common law, I could not be forced. This is why we don't have slavery and we do have democracy. The US is a common law jurisdiction btw. "I also listed every definition for the words not pertaining to law, even the ones that do not apply to the situation in order to avoid fallacy." I notice you didn't give any sources for those. "I will not dispute this further since your accepting of the debate was an acceptance of the set rules, and guidelines." This argument seems to have become about your unwillingness to accept that appeal to authority really is a fallacy because it is the basis for most of your evidence and your argument. I should win this argument mainly because I haven't yet committed any fallacies as far as I am aware. Indeed, im pretty confident that I don't even need to say much more. As it is abundantly clear that your premise is fallacious. Here is my continued analysis of the definitions. Crimes Against Humanity (As Defined by the the Nuremberg Principles VI) •Acts that are done or are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Such acts include; Basing definitions on other definitions which inevitable appeal to authority. oMurdering civilians So… murdering people is a war crime… murdering civilians is a crime against humanity? I'd really like to see what their definition of people is. Most likely they say this because if you are waging war, you are most likely a government or army, and therefore those you wage war against are people or persons under your jurisdiction. Where does this leave corporal punishment? War crime or crime against humanity? oExtermination of any civilian population See above. How is murder different from extermination different from war? oDeportation of civilians. oInhumane acts done against any civilian population. This is a circular argument, crimes against humanity is supposed to detail inhumane acts. oPolitical persecutions. Wow. So killing saddam and binladen were crimes against humanity? oRacial persecutions. Tick. oReligious persecutions. Tick. Surly the best distinction between weather or not something is a war crime or a crime against wider humanity is weather it is done under the auspices of war, or powers granted under a war act. Otherwise its quite simple to describe destruction. Law of Self-Determination (As Defined by the UN's ICCPR) •All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Wouldn't it be lovely if we actually could do that. For example, if my political status was racist, my economic status vagrant or tax resistor and my cultural development; violent, then I would soon be discriminated against by authority and so called intelligent people, also, basically anyone who appeals to popularity. •The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. What do they think administration means? In the context of non self governing, how can someone be self determining?!?!?!? Murder (As Defined by Princeton) I don't know who pincceton is, but I'd guess he was a lawyer. 1.unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being Oh I see now, so its ok to kill a person, not a human being, unless its lawful in that area at that time, but its not ok to kill a civilian because that means you're a soldier?!? Its an a appeal to authority fallacy. Well, instead why don't we just admit that someday, someone has to die. From a biological standpoint its most likely that man or woman is being predated by another group, or that they have been killed in self defence because they are predators. Other than that, they have either died naturally or had their death hastened by predators. 2.kill intentionally and with premeditation So, what constitutes a lawful, accidental, unintentional killing? Plunder (As Defined by Princeton) 1.loot 2.sack What? Ransack? 3.steal goods 4.destroy and strip of its possession I can't tell if we are starting a debate or if your testing if I'm stupid enough to accept these definitions. Having not been a signatory of the convention for the Definition of Aggression, and having the forethought not to recognise any authority or representatives, such as the UN, when I was just a twinkle in my fathers eye, I have the benefit of being unbiased as to the mistakes of previous generations. If i get around do it, i'll post the "Wanton (As Defined by Princeton)" section, when theres space.