Aid to Israel shouldn’t occur until there is a ceasefire

If I was you, I'd look at this problem and see if LogicalDebater01 is "nitpicking" and if "it" is "a minor legibility issue" or not.. and "it" hadn't made the argument only incomprehensible, it made the argument a failure. Having the will in any way to vote for me is not what I aim for here, what I aim for is seeing the issues within the debate.

And perhaps you had no such difficulty because you haven't found one to have in this debate.

You’re still nitpicking a minor legibility issue. Sure, had it made the argument incomprehensible I’d have voted for you, but I had no such difficulties.

If I also break down the reason in such terms or ways of explaining, I'd do it at this instance..

To also clarify what my reason meant in a way, I could establish an example.

Say.. this example "A car is a vehicle" or "A cars is a vehicle".. not to confuse the plot, I'll use "A car is a vehicle"

This example also supports my reason I believe, Now for.. "A car is a vehicle":
We can imagine a world where A car is not a vehicle.. (but in our world a car is a vehicle)

The world where A car is not a vehicle.. simply disproves the sentence " A car is a vehicle"..
Because in that world.. A car is a vehicle is known to be-- in objectivity logically fallacious.. and is not factual.

And this is.. in a way-- identical to parts of the explanation.

Now for me to explain this situation to you, I will clarify a few thing or somewhat a certain amount of things that are included in this comment in order not to cause any misunderstanding or any confusion-- I will clarify some things to you..

In simple terms, I believe the term "A people" is grammatically correct, I myself have personal issues with the usage of the term (that are also used by people), not the term "A people", and I myself as an individual have personal issues with certain usages within the English language especially the certain usages that are used by people -- due to having thoughts about the general misuse of certain usages of the English language.

I can assure you, the reason that I have provided is either completely relevant or relevant when it comes to the real world.. or when it comes within the real world.. especially the application of my reason in the real world.

In addition, let me include that this matter is not only a matter of "reading" and that "reading" isn't the only cognitive ability in consideration that should be included in this matter.. you need to consider the significance of the other cognitive abilities that you should also be using here because it is entirely relevant.

I hope that this explanation is useful.

-> the argument itself he has given is a failure.
I agree, just not for the reason you argued. You argued that the sentence structure was off, but I as a reader had no significant difficulty understanding it. Had you caught that it failed to touch in the issue of aid, then you would have easily won.

-> Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
It’s actually a common phrasing. And again, even taking it on face value that it’s a bad sentence structure, that would still be nitpicking legibility instead of challenging the ideas therein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People#:~:text=A%20people%20is%20any%20plurality,of%20people%20of%20a%20polity.

You call this "petty nitpicking"? I call the argument a childish mistake.. if the problem is small then why can't the person itself handle the small thing? Is he incapable of handling such a small thing? Is he too disabled for such a small thing? How common is this childish mistake anyways? Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?

Regardless of what the rules say, there is also a type of logic that falls within this website.. and this type is also constant and infallible when it comes to also being a constant..

Whether if the rules deny the type of logic itself or do not deny the type of logic itself.. the logic would still be there, undisputed and sustained.
You simply have to cope.

I don't think you understand.. the argument itself he has given is a failure.

Cool story bro, but it failed to undermine the opposing case.

At best you could say you should have been award legibility, but the rules for that explicitly spell out it’s not awarded for petty nitpicking
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#legibility-formerly-spelling-and-grammar

If each voter's reasoning is not flawed in the accordance of relevancy, then I will be happy to hear the counteract for "flawed reasoning" and I will also be happy to have someone to refute me.

Note that your words within sentences and your sentences are directly determining your arguments.. any flaws just simply means that your argument is not completely defined (poorly defined) and as a result of your mistake or error in your sentences.. your argument would instantly be flawed. Why? Because you're describing a mistake or error in your sentences.. you're not describing what you should've meant to write(for example, a subject about cars.. and you continue with.. "A cars is a vehicle" .. that is where you're describing a mistake and not a thing relevant to the subject about cars) . This isn't entirely grammatical, it's also logically fallacious... and this message can be reconciled with "savant" flawed reasoning in the "votes" of this section of the page or whatever.

"No case from either side until the final round…
Pro calls Israel hypocritical for being Nazi-like, and says they’re actively creating the next generation of enemies (intuitively, genocide would prevent that).
Con replies with grammar-Nazidom, and accuses pro of gosh-galloping leaving him unable to respond to all the arguments.
I feel neither actually touches the precise topic of aid, reducing the debate down to anti-Israel vs pro-Israel.
I am not seeing any Gish gallop, merely a weak assertion which could have been easily challenged in any number of ways."

Your reasoning is flawed. Everything within the debate is connected, my arguments are constantly relevant to the debate and the arguments within the debate.

"Pro forfeits a good chunk of this debate, but they do give an argument criticizing Israel in the final round whereas Con does not give an argument relevant to the resolution."

Your reasoning is flawed. Though I do not intend to care much nor do I intend to care much to explain to you how it is flawed, unless if you could see it. (as long as your reasoning had not been written thoughtlessly necessary to the debate)

There should be no aid at all. Israel and the Zionists have morally corrupted the West on this issue. Annually, $3 billion is going to the Israeli Army. Human Rights group say that Israels settlements and occupation in the West Bank is illegal and all agree that Israeli occupation of West Bank is like Apartheid. Already, 9K Gazans have died and estimate ms say that 40% are children. Would you want to be funding a nation like this?