I ask my opponent to forfeit round two as i had trouble with my internet connection and could not get my argument out in time. If by opponent does not do it, i ask him to put my argument up in his as i will paste it in this comment below
Preamble
Definition
To give clarity to my opponent and the voters, what I mean by Israel is the government/state (“country”), that goes by Israel. I am not mentioning the “human beings” unless they are leaders and represent the state of Israel, by governing it. And because you need land and sovereignty of the land to be able to have a government, I am also debating Israel’s claim to the land. And to not make it any more confusing for my dear opponent Ragnar, by land I mean the region in the southern Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River .
Burden of proof
I see that Ragnar is using the same tactics of the Israeli government to misguide and create falsehood about a topic to be able to make a point. I will apply the REAL literacy to the debate, as my opponent is trying to confuse you by making up statement/claims that I have not made.
I never mentioned that the people of Israel have no human rights, and nor do I agree with that statement. Rather I said that “Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing” And I made that claim to make the argument that Israel (The government), existence is disrupting and affecting the individual right of the Palestinians.
Tense
My opponent is trying to dirty little trick and to find “loopholes” in this debate and that’s why he is resulting to use this foolish argument. To rebuttal to this argument I say; To be able to prove that Israel has no right to exist in modern times, one must also analyze the foundation that it was built on. But to go along with this argument; the same arguments that are used to delegitimize Israel’s foundation can also be applied to discredit them in modern times, as the laws are still the same.
Rebuttals to Ragnar’s case
Human rights
As my opponent has misunderstood the debate topic and my arguments, “that the people of Israel are outside the bounds of human rights” Con still has not explained the made any valid arguments to defend Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians
And to reply to cons false statements that Arabs are treated like any the Israeli citizens with no systematical oppression in their way by using discredited sources. I rebuttal this by using a more credited source the Human Rights Watch where they say “The Israeli government continued to enforce severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians’ human rights; restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip; and facilitate the unlawful transfer of Israeli citizens to settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
The term “right to exist”
Cons ridiculous argument here can clearly be put in the words “ if you don’t like it u can leave” which is still not a argument to the legitimize to the Israel state so con still needs to give an argument to this. And to the claim that “Further if by Israel he means the land... It does not force people to live there, they may come and go without it offering any direct interference. It’s mindless dirt they chose to put under their feet.” I redirected con to the last source I put up there
Ragnar does not need to do this, as it is on me and my bad time planning if voters want to read my argument it is below.
I ask my opponent to forfeit round two as i had trouble with my internet connection and could not get my argument out in time. If by opponent does not do it, i ask him to put my argument up in his as i will paste it in this comment below
Preamble
Definition
To give clarity to my opponent and the voters, what I mean by Israel is the government/state (“country”), that goes by Israel. I am not mentioning the “human beings” unless they are leaders and represent the state of Israel, by governing it. And because you need land and sovereignty of the land to be able to have a government, I am also debating Israel’s claim to the land. And to not make it any more confusing for my dear opponent Ragnar, by land I mean the region in the southern Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River .
Burden of proof
I see that Ragnar is using the same tactics of the Israeli government to misguide and create falsehood about a topic to be able to make a point. I will apply the REAL literacy to the debate, as my opponent is trying to confuse you by making up statement/claims that I have not made.
I never mentioned that the people of Israel have no human rights, and nor do I agree with that statement. Rather I said that “Israel is obstructing the rights of the Palestinians by merely existing” And I made that claim to make the argument that Israel (The government), existence is disrupting and affecting the individual right of the Palestinians.
Tense
My opponent is trying to dirty little trick and to find “loopholes” in this debate and that’s why he is resulting to use this foolish argument. To rebuttal to this argument I say; To be able to prove that Israel has no right to exist in modern times, one must also analyze the foundation that it was built on. But to go along with this argument; the same arguments that are used to delegitimize Israel’s foundation can also be applied to discredit them in modern times, as the laws are still the same.
Rebuttals to Ragnar’s case
Human rights
As my opponent has misunderstood the debate topic and my arguments, “that the people of Israel are outside the bounds of human rights” Con still has not explained the made any valid arguments to defend Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians
And to reply to cons false statements that Arabs are treated like any the Israeli citizens with no systematical oppression in their way by using discredited sources. I rebuttal this by using a more credited source the Human Rights Watch where they say “The Israeli government continued to enforce severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians’ human rights; restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip; and facilitate the unlawful transfer of Israeli citizens to settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
The term “right to exist”
Cons ridiculous argument here can clearly be put in the words “ if you don’t like it u can leave” which is still not a argument to the legitimize to the Israel state so con still needs to give an argument to this. And to the claim that “Further if by Israel he means the land... It does not force people to live there, they may come and go without it offering any direct interference. It’s mindless dirt they chose to put under their feet.” I redirected con to the last source I put up there
source
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
2. https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/03/15/why-israel-has-no-right-to-exist/
3. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine