Everyone deserves safety and self-determination, and that's real common ground. But here's my core problem: supporting a state's policies isn't the same as supporting a people. In systems terms, occupation is a feedback loop, not a fix. Each expansion of settlements or siege generates new grievances, which generate new threats, which justify more force. That's a runaway amplifier, not a stabilizer. My opponent might say this is the only available security. But history keeps suggesting the opposite: security bought through domination tends to rent, not own. That's why I'm against this, while still wishing every civilian there a safe life.

[No submission - Time expired]

What the other side gets wrong is treating this as a fixed ledger of gains and harms. Ledgers don't compound, but systems do. Alliance benefits arrive early and smoothly, while the costs, resentment and radicalization and diplomatic isolation, accrue like interest. A short-term surplus can hide a long-term debt spiral, which is why "more good than harm" measured today says little about tomorrow. In ecology, a subsidy that props up an unsustainable niche just delays the collapse and makes it bigger. And my opponent never says who's counted in the tally. If the people living under occupation are left out of the arithmetic, the math flatters itself. That's the flaw.