Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Israel - Arafat (SilentPoet vs. Epaphras_faith)

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    447
    E-faith wins because silentpoet was late

    just kidding

    e-faith wins because silentpoet's arguments suck.

    kidding again.

    but i do negate (vote for e-faith). Here's why.

    Round comes down the backlash argument/mitigation of terrorism args. Both debaters seem to position the debate around the importance of human life. E-faith's big arg is that israel eliminating arafat would end up causing more problems than it solved, by sparking terrorism and removing world support. Silentpoets largest response is that this doesn't mean Israel doesn't have THE RIGHT to remove arafat, but this is ineffectual because E-faith points out he isnt disputing the legality (or at least doesn't think its pertinent), just saying its a bad choice. This leaves silentpoet in a tough position. He doesn't disprove or even attack e-faith's assertion that removing arafat would lead to more terror/deaths. His only surviving response is that Arafat needs to be removed simply because he's a terrorist, which outweighs the fact that removing him will cause more deaths.
    In all, I think that with both debaters framing the debate around human life, at the point where e-faith wins "more life" he wins the round. This is even clearer though, because he gives an alternate method of solvency for removing Arafat (the UN). This means he can get both life and no arafat. This is enough to negate.

    Good job to both. Silentpoet, i believe u won a round when ure opponent attacked based on issues that didnt impact back to the rez. You fell into the same trap here with the emphasis on Israel's RIGHT to take out Arafat. E-faith took it out very quickly, but u plugged away, and by the time you switched tactics, it was too late.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

    Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    447
    Oh, one more thing. the 9 post format is a bit long, no? and by the end no new args or issues were being evoked. a 5 or 7 post format seems a bit more reasonable. I could have made the same decesion with the same RFD after 5 posts.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

    Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Dsadevil,

    Thanks for judging.

    Epaphras_faith,

    Thanks for the debate and congratulations.
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Dsadevil,

    He doesn't disprove or even attack e-faith's assertion that removing arafat would lead to more terror/deaths. His only surviving response is that Arafat needs to be removed simply because he's a terrorist, which outweighs the fact that removing him will cause more deaths.
    I stated repeatedly that not removing Arafat will result in the loss of more life than removing him would.

    See:

    The first whole part of Post #6
    The beginning of Post #8

    And

    2. A backlash?

    With the removal of any terrorist leader comes the angering of terrorists and thus a terrorist retaliation. So therefore of course Israel to expect counter attacks (suicide bombings), but extra steps can be taken to insure the least amount of casualties in the days following his removal.
    Two possible steps are:
    People sticking close to home and avoiding any kind of crowd.
    An increase in soldiers on the borders of Palestinian areas.
    Thus there are little to no casualties.
    But even if there were a substantial amount (20 Ė 100), isnít that much better than the thousands that will die if Arafat continues to stay in power? Yes of course it is!
    - Post #15
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Southwest USA
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks to you both. It was an enjoyable debate. I did have problems continuing after the 7th post. We had already entered rebuttal at that point and the 8th post seemed redundant and unnecessary.

    I think 7 shortens it a bit and gives opportunity for correct rebuttal.

    SP: I did enjoy the formal debate and will endeavour to keep myself more formal in the informal debates.

    Great Debate!!

    Now we should send it to Arafat and Sharon and Bush!
    epaphras_faith

    He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Dsadevil,

    I'm sorry but I feel I must really voice my disapproval of your judgement and your explination of it.

    Both debaters seem to position the debate around the importance of human life. E-faith's big arg is that israel eliminating arafat would end up causing more problems than it solved, by sparking terrorism and removing world support. Silentpoets largest response is that this doesn't mean Israel doesn't have THE RIGHT to remove arafat, but this is ineffectual because E-faith points out he isnt disputing the legality
    This is false. I point out more than a few times that if Arafat continues to remain in power it WILL result in more deaths.

    This leaves silentpoet in a tough position. He doesn't disprove or even attack e-faith's assertion that removing arafat would lead to more terror/deaths.
    I did say that removing Araft would cause a backlash, but that in the long run in would save more lives.

    His only surviving response is that Arafat needs to be removed simply because he's a terrorist, which outweighs the fact that removing him will cause more deaths
    No its not. Perhaps I didn't illustrate it enough:

    SilentPoet:"The next few hundred (or even thousand) of people who are going to die because of people with links to Arafat do not have time for the international community to act."

    SilentPoet: "The obvious conclusion being that Israelís only choice is to remove Arafat one way or the other. If they do not it is only a matter of time that Arafat (with millions upon millions of dollars) is able to amount and supply terrorist organizations with more powerful bombs that would be capable of killing thousands of Israeli civilians. Israel cannot afford such a risk and inevitably."

    SilentPoet: "You didn't seem to understand my point. Every minute that Israel does not act continues to put their citizens in danger. That gives Arafat another minute to complete his goal of the killing of Israel's civilians. That gives him another minute to authorize a shipment of arms, capable of killing thousands if not millions of civilians."

    SilentPoet: "I understand the lack of support for such a move by Israel and its imminet backlash that it would result in, but not removing Arafat would result in far more casualties."

    This is even clearer though, because he gives an alternate method of solvency for removing Arafat (the UN). This means he can get both life and no arafat. This is enough to negate.
    The alternative method as I pointed out would most likely never happen or if it were to happen it would take years, years which the next 1,000 people sitting down to eat dinner at a cafe cannot afford:

    SilentPoet: "It is not likely that the world will ever support the removal of Arafat and it is certain that Arafat will try his best to accomplish the killing of the most possible civilians.
    I assure you no sane country would wait or could wait for the world to agree with the removal of such a person."

    SilentPoet: "The UN? The same UN that allowed Iraqís civilians to stay in torture chambers? The same UN that passed a General Assembly resolution forbidding the removal of Arafat? With Franceís growing Muslim population and veto power in the UN, along with Russia, and Germany; the idea of the UN removing Arafat is hard to imagine. Even if it was possible it would take years and years for such a thing to happen. In the mean time you have thousands of Israeli men, women, and children being murdered and as a result casualties on the Palestinians side as an affect of Israelís retaliation."

    SilentPoet: "My point being: Israel cannot afford to wait for the international community or Palestinians to take action against Arafat. Something like this would probably never occur and even if it did would take many years to process through. That gives Arafat the rest of his life to continue to support terrorists and terrorism. Another month waiting may very well mean mass casualties."

    and by the time you switched tactics, it was too late.
    What?
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    447
    but all the points u made were warentless. Repeating over and over that arafat will continue to cause deathes isn't a warrented statement. He gave analysis regarding COMPARATIVE BENEFITS. You just made assertions on the death issue.

    "The obvious conclusion being that Israelís only choice is to remove Arafat one way or the other. If they do not it is only a matter of time that Arafat (with millions upon millions of dollars) is able to amount and supply terrorist organizations with more powerful bombs that would be capable of killing thousands of Israeli civilians. Israel cannot afford such a risk and inevitably"
    --where on earth is the warrent in that (given in round)?

    In all, e-faith one the issue b/c he did a better job weighing it out and warrenting his claims. You addressed the issue (although I still hold too little and too late), but lost it. The claims weren't warrented, the comparative benefits went neg, and the alternative method of solvency (UN) still has some merit because it at least provides a neg outlet even if the lives argument was a wash (which it wasn't).

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

    Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    but all the points u made were warentless. Repeating over and over that arafat will continue to cause deathes isn't a warrented statement. He gave analysis regarding COMPARATIVE BENEFITS. You just made assertions on the death issue
    "warentless"?
    Arafat will do as a terrorist does and continue to kill. Over the recent 3 year intifada (uprising) there have been over 1,000 Israeli civilian casualties (most being civilians).
    Is he suddenly just going to stop?

    No of course not.

    Its not an assertion it is a more than logical conclusion.

    --where on earth is the warrent in that (given in round)?
    Using past instances (Arafat stealing millions from aid) and the ship filled with explosives that was intercepted (On the way to Israel) it is acceptable to assume that Arafat will continue to fund and advocate terrorism.
    If the terrorists are ever able to get or create more effective ways of killing (such as 9/11 terrorists were) that will mean a larger amount of casualties.
    With someone pouring millions into terrorism it is only a matter of time before it happens. And as I've said Israel cannot wait for that to happen.

    In all, e-faith one the issue b/c he did a better job weighing it out and warrenting his claims.
    Which are? And how did he warrent them?
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    447
    keeping in mind, sp, that I agree with you in real life (I think he should be removed), I know the warrents that exist. But you didn't give them IN ROUND. You can't expect me to just create them for you, that's unfair to E-faith (as he might say "arguing the round for you"). I can only vote off what's presented to me, and the warrents weren't presented in-round.

    As for e-faith's args RE: backlash:
    "The issue of support deterring ISRAEL from doing anything is because of the backlash. Syria has already expressed its willingness to attack Israel in response to attacks made by Israel in Syrian territory
    1)http://www.drudgereportarchives.com...5004_flash4.htm
    2) http://www.drudgereportarchives.com...rchFor%3Disrael "

    Regarding comparative benefits, he says this (as a response to your claim that folks dont have time to wait for the int'l community to act)
    "The thousands that will die in a war when you remove Arafat, then his successor and his successor and so on. The war will be with the palestinian people and their supporters. Yes, Israel will win. But the cost will be thousands of lives, mostly palestinian, but certainly israelis an syrians, and iranians, and egyptians, and saudi arabians, and perhaps americans or australians. And still the suicide bombings will continue. Nothing will have changed. except for the worse."

    War casualties>terrorism casualties, which aren't ended. Hence, more life lost.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

    Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    I can only vote off what's presented to me, and the warrents weren't presented in-round.
    What specific warrents do you mean?

    I did say that essentailly that Arafat is a terrorist and will continue to kill:

    SilentPoet:"It is not likely that the world will ever support the removal of Arafat and it is certain that Arafat will try his best to accomplish the killing of the most possible civilians."

    SilentPoet:"Keeping Arafat in power keeps him with power. What does he want to do with this power? He wants to use it to help murder Jews.
    Keeping him in his current position, continues to give him such power and thus results in the killing of innocent civilians."

    War casualties>terrorism casualties, which aren't ended. Hence, more life lost.
    I clearly refuted the "war" argument and thus not removing Arafat doesn't avoid war, because I clearly showed war will not happen if Arafat is removed.

    Yes its slightly possible, but even more possible (as I indicated in my debate) is Arafat getting shipment of weapons capable of killing 10,000 civilians.
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Southwest USA
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentPoet
    What specific warrents do you mean?

    I did say that essentailly that Arafat is a terrorist and will continue to kill:

    SilentPoet:"It is not likely that the world will ever support the removal of Arafat and it is certain that Arafat will try his best to accomplish the killing of the most possible civilians."

    SilentPoet:"Keeping Arafat in power keeps him with power. What does he want to do with this power? He wants to use it to help murder Jews.
    Keeping him in his current position, continues to give him such power and thus results in the killing of innocent civilians."



    I clearly refuted the "war" argument and thus not removing Arafat doesn't avoid war, because I clearly showed war will not happen if Arafat is removed.

    Yes its slightly possible, but even more possible (as I indicated in my debate) is Arafat getting shipment of weapons capable of killing 10,000 civilians.
    Poet, if I may, The issue was not solely the war but the fact of a successor to Arafat. You never stated why you thought Arafat's successor would be better. My point was not just that war was a possibility but also that you don't solve the problem. It continues and is exacerbated by the removal of Arafat. It is all part and parcel of the same argument. I think your argument about war was well defended.

    If the terrorist attacks would end with the removal of Arafat, then perhaps the argument that the possibility of war is remote would have had more weight. But since I argued that the terrorist acts would continue and that it would actually increase with Arafat's successors, the possibility of war takes on new weight.

    I am not attempting to reargue the point but am trying to point out debate dynamics. AMD and I have both done competitive debate and have judged competitive debate. When looking at an argument one has to weigh the components intentionally for the judges. The one who lays out the connections clearly will likely win the argument (generally speaking). NOt that you didn't do well, just that you missed a connection or two. That is the crux of debating. Looking for those missed arguments or the missed connections and exploiting them.
    epaphras_faith

    He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Thank you both for specifying the judge's decision.

    Despite that I disagree with the decision and I am still strong in my beleif that Arafat should be removed, I am going to drop the issue.

    Thanks again Epaphras_faith for debating and thanks to DSA for judging.

    To those who participated or have viewed this debate,

    What can I do to be more persuassive in my arguments? (Not directly relating to this topic, but in my general debating "style")

    Thanks....
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Southwest USA
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentPoet
    Thank you both for specifying the judge's decision.

    Despite that I disagree with the decision and I am still strong in my beleif that Arafat should be removed, I am going to drop the issue.

    Thanks again Epaphras_faith for debating and thanks to DSA for judging.

    To those who participated or have viewed this debate,

    What can I do to be more persuassive in my arguments? (Not directly relating to this topic, but in my general debating "style")

    Thanks....
    It truly was enjoyable. I look forward to the next debate. I do hope you choose to join a debate team at your school. You really are quite good. I think you would find a lot of satisfaction and fun.
    epaphras_faith

    He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Thank you for the comments. You were also good and made me think about various implications removing Arafat would have. I am probably going to join one next year. I plan to join some extra cirriculum activities for college.

    Do you have any ideas for my question:


    What can I do to be more persuassive in my arguments? (Not directly relating to this topic, but in my general debating "style")
    The search for truth exists on the faulty assumptions that the truth exists, and that you can find it.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    - Proud Israel supporter -


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Southwest USA
    Posts
    3,234
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentPoet
    Thank you for the comments. You were also good and made me think about various implications removing Arafat would have. I am probably going to join one next year. I plan to join some extra cirriculum activities for college.

    Do you have any ideas for my question:
    1) Structure your arguments in outline form. Use Roman numerals, letters, numbers etc. (Don't use too much detail). They provide markers for your opponents and the judge and make identifying missed arguments easier for you.

    2) If you are uncertain to the meaning of an opponent, test it with an argument that is simple and somewhat nebulous. This invites attack as an easy target and gets your opponent to clarify his position to the point that you can likely pick a hole in the argument.

    3) Test your arguments on yourself. See if you can poke holes in it. If you can, bet your opponent can.

    4) Some arguments are rouses. They seemingly require you to respond in detail and with evidence when no evidence was offered to begin with. You wind up accepting the burden of proof when you shouldn't. You can simply state the opponent hasn't proven it. Make some simple pre-emptory statements with small amounts of evidence and then force them to hit it. If they don't you win the argument. If they do they will waste valuable time attempting to do what they should have done in the first place. However, if you get bogged down in it you will likely miss the vital argument that has weaker support but is possibly more verbose and looks harder to defeat.

    5) Cover every argument every time. Give the judge some criteria to as to what the decision is based on. (In our case it was lives). It could be lives, money, societal decay, what have you.

    Those ought to get you firmly planted and probably kicking the pants off anyone on the site, given your already advanced state of ability.
    epaphras_faith

    He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. (Jim Elliot)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •