Isreal has a Right to Exist.

The DDO tutorial states; "Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions. " No where there does it say i have to accept anything. Indeed you are confusing my responsibilities with your own. You may "give context", but this doesnt make me honour bound to accept your deliberately manufactured context. I claimed, "It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders. " My opponent said "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. " That is actually incorrect. Your own timeline shows this. "the British government proposed the Transjordan memorandum, which split the Mandate for Palestine between the Jewish Palestine, and the Arab Palestine. Transjordan was to be semi independent, with the goal of eventually obtaining complete independence. " So they granted independence to a country by forcibly splitting it up into two peaces. This strongly implies that Palestine was not allowed to self govern previously, perhaps it was a British vassal. "On May 25, 1946, the British Granted independent to Trans-Jordan, making Jewish Palestine the only Palestine in the Mandate for Palestine. " "On November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed resolution 181, which the Arab community rejected and was never implemented. Resolution 181 was intended to split Palestine in 2 trust territories, 1 with an Arab state, and 1 with a Jewish state. The Arab community was outraged, and the plan was never implemented. " Outrage is such a weak word for mandatory secession enforced by an external country or group of countries. No wonder it didn't work. In response my opponent states: "But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. " And I remind my opponent, that delaying recognition of a country in the UN does not change the fact that this country exists. He then says "The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank. " But I remind him that as Israel was made from Palestinian territory but never formally recognised by Palestine it doesn't have the legitimacy to do any of those things. Believing this is an appeal to the authority of Israel. If you did not make this appeal to authority, then you could not believe Israel exists and most likely renders the whole affair as a civil war or partied given ascension by the UN, US, Britain or any other country that was involved in this attempt to defraud Palestine. Also, previously i left a video implying you were judge dread. Irrespective of the credibility of such a statement, it was an Ad hominem fallacy. But the fact that were unable to recognise that demonstrates that you have not learnt critical thinking. Which implies you are disputing something without actually understanding it.