Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.

Daily Debate #595: "Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Oscar Wilde.

The Israel partnership with the US is really about how Israel and the U.S. work together to counter threats like Iran's nuclear program, impacting both U.S. security and Israel's survival. It offers a different perspective on why Israel's role matters more than people think. What do you think? https://youtu.be/uRoWS5_4-EM

You're arguing the partnership is purely strategic necessity, but that's backwards. The US bankrolls Israel's military to the tune of $3.8 billion annually—not because Iran threatens America, but because the lobby has Washington's ear. If it were really about mutual defense against external threats, we'd see equal reciprocity. Instead, it's a blank check for one side. Why does strategic partnership always mean unconditional American funding?

I understand why it can look one-sided, but U.S. aid to Israel is primarily military support that strengthens both countries' security and stability in the region. Israel is a key democratic ally that shares our values, and investing in that partnership helps protect American interests and deter shared threats. The focus is on supporting a nation that stands with us against terrorism and extremism, not on domestic policies. The partnership is strategic because it shares intelligence that prevents global terror attacks and develops defense technologies that protect U.S. forces and allies, which ultimately helps keep Americans safe.

You're confabulating strategy with ideology. If the partnership were purely about shared threats, it wouldn't survive Israel's policies—occupation, settlement expansion, blockades. Those create the instability you claim to oppose. Meanwhile, the US vetoes UN resolutions protecting Palestinian civilians while funding the military doing it. That's not counterterrorism, that's choosing sides in a conflict. Where's the strategic benefit in bankrolling actions that radicalize the very populations you say you're fighting? How does that actually make Americans safer?

The money isn't going to Israel as a favor - it's an investment in keeping a volatile region from blowing up in ways that hit Americans directly. When Israel pushes back on Iran and its proxies, it's managing a threat that would otherwise demand far more from us in troops and treasure.

That's circular logic. You're saying we fund Israel to avoid trouble, but Israeli actions—settlements, strikes on Iranian sites—provoke exactly the escalation you claim to prevent. Iran didn't threaten the US until we backed coups and sanctions. You've got cause and effect backwards. If Israel's the solution, why does the region keep burning? One investment preventing catastrophe, or one creating it?