The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 86247
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




- No trolling or semantics.
- No swears or racial slurs.
- Forfeiting means an automatic loss, unless deemed okay by both sides.
- If you break the rules of each round (as specified below), automatic conduct violation.
- No google doc links.

Order of rounds:
R1: Acceptance and definitions.
R2: Maximum 2 arguments, no rebuttals.
R3: Maximum 2 arguments and rebuttals are allowed.
R4: ONLY rebuttals and conclusions. Con may not refute what I have said in R4, because I don"t have a chance to do so for your R4 either.

The military coalition we will refer to in this case is specifically the American led-effort proposed by President Obama, who laid out his plans to the public in the September of 2014. To make the above even less ambiguous, we will define "participate in" as active participation via the deployment of offensive military assets.

ISIS is referred to the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

America is defined as well, I assume you will know what the United States is


I agree to the definitions given.
Debate Round No. 1


Good morning BigStokes, and welcome to this debate. I thank you for being my opponent in this complicated and rapidly evolving topic, and I hope we can have a friendly, and competitive debate. Thank you. I will now begin my opening speech.

As you know, the circumstances surrounding ISIS are highly complex and rapidly evolving. ISIS has gained incredible notoriety in the media as of late, and for good reason. Beginning from early 2014, this radical fundamentalist group began to make surprising territorial gains.

In the process of doing so, ISIS militants have secured hundreds of millions from banks, and continue to regularly extort money from the population. A combination of oil smuggling, drug trafficking and human trafficking provides ISIS with an additional 3 million dollars daily, essentially rendering ISIS the most financially successful jihadist group in history. Using this money they purchase arms, conduct elaborate propaganda campaigns, increase their ranks and train thousands of fanatic soldiers. In the territories that they control they have perpetrated human rights violations on an unprecedented scale. Consider the following list: ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass executions, extortion, torture, kidnappings, rape, sexual slavery, slavery, beheading of prisoners, and other medieval horrors we"d rather not describe in detail.

Their stated goal is to create an Islamic fundamentalist state, which they intend to achieve through force and intimidation.

From the above, ISIS is more or less the greatest threat to world security since the beginning of the 21st century. Thus far the solution has primarily consisted of air strikes. Elaborating more on the military support the and the objective of the coalition, it may be useful to quote to following:

"Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy [IS] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. Specifically, its ability either to engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open." (Purpose of air strikes) - Barack Obama

NOW: I will seek to justify the necessity of a military response against ISIS, and the need for a swift and immediate response against the organisation"s doings. Let us examine all the solutions which we currently have available.

To begin, humanitarian aid is not possible. Why? Firstly. It is impossible to administer humanitarian aid in a situation as severe as the one we are currently experiencing, given that there is nothing to stop ISIS from capturing the resources given, and then re-administering them for its own purposes. ISIS could use the materials for its own fighters, or worse, to draw sympathy from the population and pull additional volunteers into its ranks. Therefore, we cannot send the aid to those who most need it without some kind of protection or escort, meaning that we must have military aid as well in doing so!

Another argument that could be stated is that we could provide supplies and equipment to our allies. This is unreasonable especially given the fact that each country"s ability to conduct air strikes is limited. We cannot rely on others assuming that they will be able to solve the issue for us, given some amount of munitions and supplies. America is one of few countries with an air force advanced enough to contribute in a meaningful manner, and considering the situation at hand, we are going to need all the air support we can muster in order to contain and eventually beat back ISIS. So for what reason is America is keep out of this? If we"re going to get rid of ISIS at all, which everyone agrees must happen at some point, then we must provide a military solution. The problem is, after all, military in nature. The Iraqi Armed Forces can hold their position against ISIS fighters, but without foreign air support they are unlikely to make any major advance against them.

The third argument is we could do nothing. This is by far the most deadly option. ISIS has explicitly identified America and its allies as enemies to be annihilated, even before America took any active role against ISIS. They will not accommodate for reason or negotiation. They are unwavering in their determination to create their fundamentalist state, and have enthusiastically employed brutal bouts of violence again and again to achieve their goals. They will not cease to target America merely because we do not participate in the coalition, and they certainly will not cease in their rampaging fight across northern Iraq and Syria. Keep in mind, ISIS is objectively speaking the most successful jihadist group on record. If we are willing to take no action even against them, then what is there in this world that will stir us out of our seats? To do nothing is to allow the situation to continue unchecked, giving it the potential to explode beyond manageable proportions.

I REPEAT: The mere existence of ISIS in any major capacity means that no progress can be made in the area to pave the way for lasting stability. What we understand at the moment is ISIS" severity, and with this understanding we must address the situation immediately. In order to establish a reasonable equilibrium we must address problems one at a time! As long as ISIS remains in power we will have an active danger, so for anything to happen, it itself must first go.

It is for these reasons that America Should continue to lead the military coalition against the radical ISIS fundamentalists.


Ah yes, good morning to you as well, I"d imagine you"ve probably done some research on my profile to figure out who exactly I am by now which I wouldn"t blame you. I"m fairly new to but not to debate, I Debate in the National Forensics League as a US Student. I"m just as interested in this topic as you so I"d hope to keep it friendly. Now with my negative constructive.

The United States should spend the next few years to work on self-development:
Ever since World War 1 the United States has felt the obligation to support and police the world, practically doing the mission the United Nations set out to do. First we need to understand that the United States is not UNICEF and the entire world is not ruled by African warlords capturing children to serve in a civil war. If the United States wants to help in international affairs it should be done through the United Nations this way it could protect US assets and be done as a collective whole. Unlike World War 1 however this war on terror hasn"t boosted our economy, if anything it"s done the exact opposite. You cannot declare war on an idea, as John F. Kennedy said "A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on", I believe that if we want to stop the rise of ISIS we need to work on it from a more domestic standpoint rather than an offensive and international standpoint. I"ll pitch a few ideas and allow you and the public to rebut and comment on them. Let"s face it, the United States like every other country will cease to ever be perfect, but the United States has a ton of problems going on domestically that need to be worked on. The United States still has failed to secure its southern border, still in debt, still has tension between citizens and may be on the verge of another civil war, there"s a lot going on right now... Granted I"m not saying the United States shouldn"t get involved but we should do it through ways that can benefit us, bring our troops back home, focus more domestically, support the aid through the United Nations or other groups. The United States should only get involved militaristically when things back home are alright or there"s a massive attack on US Soil (9/11).What will be the most beneficial for our citizens, economy, and allies, that"s what this boils down to.
Idea 1: Send aid through supporting international groups such as NATO or the United Nations and do it in such a fashion to protect our assets.

Idea 2: Don"t get involved (This will clash with your third argument but I"ll wait until the next round to begin rebuts)

Idea 3: Work on educating citizens to prevent them from joining ISIS, work towards cutting off the finical assets of ISIS through the intelligence community
Debate Round No. 2


I as side affirmative firmly believe that this resolution will and must stand. I has already explained in great detail the extremist group that is the Islamic State, and the need for military action. I will be talking mainly about why America should participate in this military action. Before I go onto my constructive points, I would like to refute everything said thus far by the opposition.

I would like to first point out that due to my first speech where I outlines possible ways to resolve this issue. Although I cannot fully argue those points as I have not heard your side of the argument so I will hold on rebuttals on those points until I have heard your side of the argument.

I would like to pose these questions as you confront those arguments though. My questions would be:
"How do you propose you defend large scale humanitarian aid?"
"How can you guarantee that the humanitarian aid will get to the people who need it?"
"How can you ensure that the humanitarian aid will have a meaningful long-term impact when it is only intended as a very short-term solution?"

The United Nations does not have exactly the best track record on fighting ISIS attacks. Considering the recent attacks on the Canadian parliament, and multiple attacks on Paris soil, and the United Nations have not forcefully interceded, it is rightful that the United States and other countries intercede to protect their interests and their citizens.

I would next like to ask the question, how do you propose national economic development when ISIS exists? This is impossible. To make the point I would like to point out that since ISIS is attacking civilians and blowing up national landmarks and working buildings.

Now onto my constructive points. There are many reasons as to why America should be participating in the fight against IS. Firstly, we are already backed by overwhelming support by the public. A recent poll done by "The Hill" on November 20th, stated that 73% of those polled supported the use of American fighter jets in airstrikes. This is more than the 2001 Afghanistan role at 61%, as well as the potential Iraq mission (44%).

In addition, America is a well-developed country in the international community with a reasonably advanced military. Unlike many of the countries, we are perfectly capable of effectively delivering airstrikes. In the interest of the stability and future quality of life in the Middle East, we must deploy these offensive military assets. defeat this obvious and blatant disregard for overall stability of the region. To preserve the stability of the world, we must make the greatest effort to first contain, and then destroy IS.

As America, we also have a moral responsibility to address the problem with assisting in the fight against IS. They are an extremist group, which by definition, consist of radicalized fanatics. Fanatics are not reasonable people. History has shown that they cannot be negotiated with, they have no desire for peace, and they have absolutely no regard for those who fall outside their narrow fundamentalist circles. The situation we are confronted with regarding IS is military in nature, and requires a military resolution. The situation at this point means that anything short of direct action will fail to have a meaningful impact.

However, even still, you could still be of the opinion that America shouldn"t help. Why should we be joining a war that doesn"t even concern us? However, America has been threatened, targeted, and even attacked. In a recent 42 minute video released by IS, a spokesperson for the fanatical group that goes by the name of Abu-Muhammad Al-Adnani has stated "Rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone"s advice and do not seek anyone"s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling."

On November 13th, just a mere 3 months ago, a group Islamic convert, seemingly heeding the call to arms went and killed 130 people in Paris. A photo of the incident was then posted on an IS media outlet. To state that IS doesn"t affect us is an outright lie.

Although this is not an attack on U.S. soil, 83 percent of registered voters say they believe a terrorist attack in the United States resulting in large casualties is likely in the near future, rising from 73 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll earlier during November asking the same question. Forty percent say a major attack in the United States is "very likely," which match the record level of concern recorded after the 2005 subway bombings in Britain.

America must act in order to prevent the situation from worsening. If not, the future of the entire region has the potential to become more dreadful than anything we could possibly imagine. And this, we cannot accept.

It is for these reasons that this resolution must stand. I am now poised to hear your rebuttals, and I look forward to the third and final round of our debate. Thank you and good day!

Poll links:


BigStokes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


In conclusion, ISIS has gained incredible notoriety in the media and for good reasons such as robbing, killing and pillaging. They are a growing terrorist cell, and are causing widespread terror. Isis is the greatest threat to world security since the beginning of the 21st century, and needs to be confronted.

Humanitarian aid is not possible against ISIS because of their widespread reach both in the United States and Canada, and also Iraq ans Syria. We cannot send supplies to our allies because of the reasons that I have stated above. We cannot leave it to the united Nations because of the reasons I have stated above.

The United Nations does not have exactly the best track record on fighting ISIS attacks. Considering the recent attacks on the Canadian parliament, and multiple attacks on Paris soil, and the United Nations have not forcefully interceded, it is rightful that the United States and other countries intercede to protect their interests and their citizens.

There are many reasons as to why America should be participating in the fight against IS. Firstly, we are already backed by overwhelming support by the public. A recent poll done by "The Hill" on November 20th, stated that 73% of those polled supported the use of American fighter jets in airstrikes. This is more than the 2001 Afghanistan role at 61%, as well as the potential Iraq mission (44%).

It is for these reasons and the reasons that I have listed above that I believe that this resolution must and shall stand. I look forward to my opponents final round, and would like to debate him again on the topic to make up for the missed round.


Sorry it"s taken me so long to get back to you, with the inclement weather weather in my area, my soccer schedule and whatnot. Any who, I"d never abandoned a decent debate regardless.

To answer your questions -

How could we ensure the protection of humanitarian aid: The answer here is simple but confusing, our only mission would be to ensure that it gets to Europe and the Middle east, since Europe is so close to the middle east it would not only be tactically but finically better for our friends across the pond to deal with it from there, simply put; we get it to the United Nations/Kuwait, they are responsible for the movement of supplies into hostile area and protection on our behalf, it"ll be an "IOU" (this answers two of your questions)
How can we ensure the aid will give long term effects in return? This one"s fairly simple, the aid will not only help oppressed civilians, but their own domestic forces, when they"re able to stand on their own they"ll begin to fight for their own land back from the inside regardless of the ISIS control.

Furthermore to support point two I just made, surprisingly Russia was onboard fairly quickly in the attacks on ISIS, why would we waste our resources doing something they"re already doing on our behalf? But to strengthen this point I"ll go ahead and provide some quick facts for you.

Truth: ISIS works similar to an executive business
Truth: ISIS"s biggest income is the sales of Oil from their operations in Saudi Arabia and Turkey
Truth: There are sleeper cells in America and a number of other countries
Truth: Part of ISIS"s creation is due to America"s own influences

So the question you"re probably asking now is what exactly do we do, and you"re probably pondering flaws in what I just states. I"ll try to simplify this and explain the following actions that should take place. It would be finically beneficial to let Russia take front on the offensive campaigns against ISIS, the US could start dealing with humanitarian aid instead of offense. If we really want to do our part we need to start identifying the sleeper cells amongst the US and our Allies, it"s likely that the sleeper cells will not be people of Arabic decent, most likely American ISIS sympathizers. So here"s the breakdown of how our action will work.

Retract our forces in the area to focus on domestic defense > start supplying humanitarian aid through our allies in the area > work with the intelligence community globally to start identifying sympathizers > work on education of ISIS to prevent further people sympathizing > attack ISIS from a finical stand point

I was surprised with how often you brought up the fact that "ISIS IS GROWING", yeah they"re clearly growing but not domestically, it"s internationally, we"re looking in the complete wrong areas. Furthermore, how can you argue morality with a topic such as this, this isn"t a morality debate. It only becomes morality when US lives are at stake.

You said ISIS"s mission statement was to gain superiority through intimidation, last time I checked we weren"t intimidated by them so that"s a lost cause (lol)

Quoting Obama probably wasn"t the best idea, seeing as he hasn"t had the best track record. Anyway back to the debate,

You could argue that ISIS is a modern day Nazi Germany, and if history repeats itself (which it generally does in some way) one of three things are going to happen ultimately;

First Option: Rebellions will break out amongst the people ISIS has control over and they will start their own militias, eventually through the help of the Russian government and other close nations retake the area and leaving ISIS to eventually decay away

Second Option: ISIS Could become the next North Korea and be completely forgotten about, who cares about them anyway?

Third Option: Eventually they"ll get tired of playing around and either surrender or just disappear slowly

Due to the unfortunate timing of's server crash, this is my unorganized rough draft. Since my opponate didn't have time to rebut any of these I'm forced to extend all my contentions.

In conclusion, key voting factors are these (in order to be fair)

> No contentions dropped, all extend unchallenged
> I proved that it would be economically beneficial to not get involved
> The job is already being done by Russia
> To take down ISIS you need to work executively
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I was forced to vote pro because con conceded pro's rebutals. he went on to refute in the last speech which is abusive because pro can't respond to your new arguments. Therefore I had to exclude all extra argumentation last round. Being that con forfeits, he also loses conduct. Pro is the only person in-round to actually use a source.