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

Defeating ISIS with Violence is impossible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/10/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 894 times Debate No: 73148
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




HELLO, with the upcoming National Forensics League tournament coming up on April 14 I need to be as prepared to argue as possible, thus I have decided to come to DDO to find further scrutiny in my arguments and develop them as well as find new arguments for either the pro or the con side. The resolution to be pro or con on is Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops is in the best interest of the United States. I have changed my formatting here though because instead of taking on every single argument at once, perhaps some people would simply like to take on a single argument. This will be for argument: [ A ]……if you want to debate this, please just tell me in the comment, Thanks!

A.) Argument on ideology

1.) ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology.

2.) Empirical evidence (history) shows that military violence will only draw more middle easterners to radicalism, as we are seen as the 'invaders and imperialist aggressors' who have come to destroy their way of life and replace it with capitalism and christianity. + the harder the violence the more support they gain.

3.) The primary purpose of ground troops is to instigate violence against ISIS

4.) This will be conveyed as an attack on all of the mulim world

5.) When the US puts ground troops, radical islamic ideology will spread and create a massive flood of ISIS fighters whom the US will not be able to beat.

6.) If we create more ISIS members, we proliferate the problem we try to solve

7.) This is a negative in general and is NOT in the interest of the United States.

8.) The resolution should not be affirmed.

We have to fight terrorism by underpinning the ideology itself and making it lose its appeal. ISIS itself WANTS us to come in again and get involved with another conflict drawing more support to it.

Rules, Rounds and Regulations

1.) R1: Opening argument/ resonse to opening argument
2.) R2: Responses/ rebuttals
3.) R3: Rebuttals/ rebuttals
4.) R4: Summary and Why you win

5.) BOP is on CON

6.) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con looses his argument then he automatically looses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated.



Before we dig down to anything else, we must cover a few definitions:
Defeating: to overcome, win against.
ISIS: the Islamic State of greater Iraq and Syria.
Violence: any behavior involving force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Impossible: not possible; unachievable.
Responding to the Pro's case:
1) Pro said that 'ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology.' True. So what?
2) Two responses: a)The Pro has brought forth no examples of where this happened. b) They will not be able to attract much support as most Muslims do not support ISIS. In fact, almost all the top Muslim leaders speak out against it, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Al-Azhar, the Nabil Al-Arabi, Mehmet Gormez, and countless other figures of Islam condemn it:
The fact is, ISIS is simply acting under the name of Islam and will arouse little (if any) support.
3) True. So what?
4) Only by very stupid and rebellious muslims. (look at 2))
5) Not true according to the above. (2,6)
6) We will not create a significant amount of new ISIS members.
7) True, it is not in our best interests, but it will not happen.
8) The resolution should be affirmed.

Now for my own case.
Contention 1: Only way.
It's not like we can defeat ISIS with words or threats :-). We must use violence in this scenario. Violence, as harsh as it may sound, is the only way.
Contention 2: Not impossible.
Defeating ISIS is not as impossible as Pro makes it sound. For one: the resolution does not give a certain nation in question. Therefore, defeating ISIS as the UN would be under this resolution. For two: ISIS will not attract as much support as they hope they will/as Pro makes it out to be. ISIS has already lost it's appeal with almost all of the Muslim world.

Today, I hope I've shown that the Pro is simply overestimating this, and is not counting on fact. It is for this reason, and the ones above, that I believe the Con warrants your vote.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1



Ground troop:

-The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot.[1]

- Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot [1]


-fighting between armed forces.[2]

-take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). [2]

Ground Combat Troop:

To get this definition, being that there is no direct definition I combine the definitions of ground troop and combat.

-Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot in order to reduce destroy or prevent the advancement of the enemy and who are designated to participate in fighting between armed forces.

*Prefer this definition because the framers of the debate resolution most likely wanted to talk about the implications of putting more soldiers, as we have before, into the middle east, which is probably because ISIS is becoming a greater threat. This is opposed to my opponent’s advocacy, I content that this debate is too wide to talk about ALL types of attacks, especially being that the greater resolution suggests that ground troops will be doing the attacking.


-All of the members who compose of the current ISIS group and anyone who joins in the future.


very unreasonable” [3]

Synonyms- “unattainable, unachievable, unobtainable, unwinnable, hopeless,impractical, implausible, far-fetched, outrageous, preposterous, ridiculous,absurd, impracticable, unworkable, futile” [3]

The case

“1.) Pro said that 'ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology.' True. So what?”

-This is a logical proof, thus the first point should be self-evident and not need to be proven or self valuable.

“2.)…. The Pro has brought forth no examples of where this happened.”

Take for example the 2010 case of Faisal Shahzad, the attempted bomber of Times Square. So I am not adding my own points to much I will simply use quoted evidence from source 4.

“Faisal Shahzad was sentenced by a federal judge to life in prison yesterday for his attempted bombing of Times Square, a crime for which he previously pleaded guilty. Aside from proving yet again how uniquely effective our real judicial system is (as opposed to military commissions or lawless detention) in convicting and punishing Terrorists (see this NYT Editorial on that issue this morning), this episode sheds substantial light on what I wrote about on Monday: namely, how our actions in the Muslim world — ostensibly undertaken to combat Terrorism — do more than anything else to spur Terrorism and ensure its permanent continuation.

Ever since Shahzad was apprehended, the media storyline has been one of fauxbafflement: why would a naturalized Pakistani-American citizen with an M.B.A. and such a nice, middle-class life in the U.S. possibly turn into such a vicious Terrorist Monster? But from the start, the evidence answering that question has been both clear and overwhelming. The New York Times examined a decade’s worth of emails and other private communications as Shahzad became radicalized against the U.S., in which he railed with increasing fury against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone attacks in Pakistan, Israeli violence against Palestinians and Muslims generally, Guantanamo and torture, and asked: “Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?” When he pleaded guilty in June, this is what he told the baffled and angry Judge about why he did what he did:

If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, “we will be attacking U.S.,” adding that Americans “only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die”

One of the first things he said was, ‘How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan’,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the interrogation reports are not public.

And then yesterday, at his sentencing, this is what he said when asked if he still wanted to plead guilty:

“Yes,” said Shahzad, and then said he wanted to plead guilty and 100 times more,” because he wanted the U.S. to know it will continue to suffer attacks if it does not leave Iraq and Afghanistan and stop drone strikes in Pakistan.

Calm, but clearly angry, and standing the whole time . . . . Shahzad said the judge needed to understand his role. “I consider myself a Muslim soldier,” he said. When [Judge] Cedarbaum asked whether he considered the people in Times Square to be innocent, he said they had elected the U.S. government.

“Even children?” said Cedarbaum.

“When the drones [in Pakistan] hit, they don’t see children,” answered Shahzad. He then said, “I am part of the answer to the U.S. killing the Muslim people.” [4]

“2.)…. most Muslims do not support ISIS”

On this point I will have to agree, most muslims do not support ISIS, the issue is not, do many of the 1.4 billion muslims support ISIS. The issue is whether or not our actions will create more terrorists and MAKE more muslims support ISIS. To support this claim I will now provide evidence which comes from a Chicago University study named the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism.

“a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiateswhat is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years: namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings isnot Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather. . . . foreign military occupations.

Pape and his team of researchers draw on data produced by a six-year study of suicide terrorist attacks around the world that was partially funded by the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. They have compiled the terrorism statistics in a publicly available database comprised of some 10,000 records on some 2,200 suicide terrorism attacks, dating back to the first suicide terrorism attack of modern times – the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 U.S. Marines.

“We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, … and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign,” Pape said in an interview last week on his findings.

Pape said there has been a dramatic spike in suicide bombings in Afghanistan since U.S. forces began to expand their presence to the south and east of the country in 2006. . . . Deaths due to suicide attacks in Afghanistan have gone up by a third in the year since President Obama added another 30,000 U.S. troops.” [5]

Here are some charts showing the number of terror strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan over time.

Iraq incidences of terror attacks over time


“More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.

Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.” –from same University of Chigago study on terrorism and its roots.







Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


opponent conceedes all arguments, vote pro.


Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Opponent forfeits the debate, please extend all arguments of mine and give er a vote!


Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dantheawesome 1 year ago
I would love to do this debate. As I stated in a comment on another of your debates, I am a S&D person as well (competing in Stoa).
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago

uh, ya. Major mess up. in every place that I say Shiite or Shia, change that to Sunni and every place I say Sunni, change to Shiite haha. I had some wrong information about which side ISIL was. Then tell me if that makes more sense.
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
and for good policy making to work, you must work with Iraqis, not Sunnis/Shias. American "boots on the ground" won't work. The best policy for Iraq is to get to some moderate agreement with the Sunni, and ultimately, install some type of federal state where Sunnis and Shias get to decide their domestic issues separately, but in matters of foreign affairs, together.
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago

If you are saying that Iraq's Sunnis would rather side with ISIS than the Iraqi government, then know that there are many Arab tribes ( of Sunni persuasion who are taking up arms to fight the Islamic State threat in Anbar province apparently.

And again, Kata'ib Hezbollah and the Badr Organization will not "constitute a new IS-styled" threat as they are in actuality fighting against American Occupation, not trying to create an Islamic State like that of ISIS's. In fact, due to the very Shi'ite nature of these militias, I think they would actually help stable the situation.

And again, the Shia militias would support Iran only because Iran had provided them with the weapons necessary to fight the Islamic State threat. I do not know why you demonize *all* Muslims in this way: are you saying that *all Muslims*, especially radical, will constitute a new ISIS? Let us go to Lebanon: the Party of God in Lebanon preaches for reconciliation. Due East of Iraq, Iran has a more or less secular identity towards the minority Zoroastrians and Jews; in fact, Iran has the second largest number of Jews in the ME apart from Israel. You assume that Qutbism is a *Sunni-Shia* thing. You are wrong in this regards: although I do not mean to praise Iran or the Party of God, they are much less sectarian and much more willing to reconcile with minorities than the Qutbists that Saudi Arabia and Turkey currently supports.

And why does everyone focus on Iraq? Note that the Islamic State comes from Syria: and the US is doing nothing but propagating the advance of J. al-Nusra in this respect. Apart from this, the US has simply abandoned its adopted revolutionary group, FSA! Why? Because Assad is beating the fook outta them. You cannot deal with *Iraq's ISIS* and leave ar-Raqqah at large!

Again, the policies for dealing with ISIS here are pretty vague.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago

My response to that argument would be, Yes, I think alot of muslims do hate ISIS and thats because They are the ones getting attacked (Sunni's). But according to ISIS, they are not attacking real muslims, they are attacking believers in false idols, the separation is much further apart than even christianity to jewdaism according to both sides. Keep in mind what I'm saying, is that those who are also Shiite muslims would much rather side with the radical Shia then the Americans who blew or shot up their father (be he a terrorist or just a 'casualty').

If you are saying that the ones being attacked will be on our side, then I must say that this is a very limited sort of 'alliance', and it would last only so long as ISIS existed, but that's it. Right afterwords the Sunni would simply harness the chance to persecute the Shia because of a shift in the balance of extremist power. We would simply see Sunni extremist organizations like Lebanon"s Hezbollah and Iraq"s Asaib Ahl al-Haq become the new ISIS. And creating a new ISIS is not in the US's best interest.

in sum, the only ones who completely hate ISIS are the ones ISIS is against. Presuming then that you mean we have the Sunni on our side, supporting them only creates a new ISIS. The argument however is that those who share are also shiite would much rather support the radical shia (their own familys and religous similars) then Americans invading their land or Sunnis who would happily behead them in the same way ISIS does. in this regard, we get more ISIS fighters.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
I agree with Mack, most Muslims hate ISIS.
Posted by Mackattack3000 1 year ago
Logically B is not wrong but from a Realist perspective in international relations it would be because we are talking about international interests and then you are reverting the argument to domestic issues. Furthermore, security always trumps everything. If the threat is a security threat then security wins over all else regardless if people are struggling at home.

I see problems with A because they wouldn't view it as an attack on all Muslims because ISIS is an extreme version of Islam and many Muslims consider them apostates. They refuse to call them the "Islamic State" and refer to them instead as "Daishe" which is like a crude slang word, which sounds a lot like the Arabic word or phrase "to crush under one's foot". That's how I would attack A, basically that its not a shared ideology among all Muslims.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
While I initially liked B. Money and resources that is used to fighting ISIS could be used for the people of the United States. I think people want to strike B because 1) The United States is no longer an isolationist country. 2)The United States is already devoting money and resources to fighting ISIS. 3) People approve to fighting ISIS, more so than fighting Iraq. (Most likely because ISIS is killing innocent men, women, and children) 4) The War on Terror is in the interests of the United States, as declared in the early 2000s.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
Ok guys, I shall kill B lol
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
Kill B.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year 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: FF and only Pro used Sources and arguments.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF