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

ISIL is more powerful than America

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 92811
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




ISIL is mpre powerful than America as the GLOBAL Coalition against IS lead by America has brought no results at all. . America spends MILLIONS of dollars everyday but gets no good results.


First off, they call themselves ISIS now, not ISIL.
Secondly, America as a country has more citizens, army men and firepower compared to ISIS.
America isn't winning as they don't want to be fully involved in a conflict that is not there own, and leaving their country defenceless would be catastrophic. American troops have problems in attack, but will be good in defence, as they can establish bunkers and turrets and know their territory.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
>Reported vote: bearski// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro offers no evidence to support they're position. Con explicitly refutes Pro assertion ISIS is stronger with facts

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both debaters. A lack of evidence and better refutation may inform a decision, but without assessing the sources given and the rebuttals specifically, the vote could be posted on virtually any debate and have the same meaning.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
>Reported vote: TheWorldIsComplicated// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The Pro didn't prove anything. Con provided some evidence as to why Pro was wrong.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) This RFD is too overgeneralized. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate as part of assessing arguments. Assessments that one side provided evidence and the other side "didn't prove anything" are not specific enough to the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.