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

ISIS is the Modern Version of Early British Colonialism

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,454 times Debate No: 82922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




Based off of ISIS' perceived motivations for starting their rather savage acts and war in the Middle East, I would like to declare that I believe ISIS is the modern version of the early British colonists. The fact that ISIS wants to convert as many people as possible to their own religion, invade other countries in attempt to take over the world, kill innocent civilians, and the use of religion--an earlier version of Islam for ISIS, Christianity for British colonists--to defend the evil that they have committed, are some primary examples of how the two are similar. I do want to repeat that I said the two are similar, not the same.

As a side note for anyone who wants to debate with me, I am doing this to increase my intellect by acquiring new knowledge on other people's opinions, perspectives, and facts. I look forward to hearing your perspective, :3!

P.S.: if you do not want to "debate", you can just type something in the comment section, ^w^.


I accept my opponent's terms and I await his opening arguments. I'll be taking the Con side of this debate, where I'll be arguing ISIS is not an accurate model of British colonialism.
Debate Round No. 1


Waiver this round, :).


**Due to some confusion regarding structure, my opponent and I have agreed to continue the debate here**

I'd like to extend my gratitude to my opponent for opening this debate with a truly intriguing and controversial topic. I look forward an engaging and civil discussion!

The debate should be largely based on historical significance, truths, and a representation of what the Islamic State is doing currently. I'll be pursuing a more contrasting view of the two, while my opponent should be seeking to closely compare the Islamic State and British colonialization. Without further ado, let's begin!

C1) Intent
Oftentimes, British colonialism (and European colonialism, for that matter) is quickly thrown under the bus as unjustified and immoral to the Natives already living in the New World. While some atrocities were undeniably commited, it's essential to realize the intent of European societies in doing so. This is especially imperative when making absurd comparisons between their actions and the actions of the Islamic State. First of all, the intent of European society was not to "steal" Native lands. As it initially took place during the Renaissance Period [1], the primary driving force behind the exploration was solely economic. [2] The new land would be a tool by which the European countries could gain capital, resources, and spread their influence. All of these were benefits to their economic standing. They had no inherent desire to harm individuals in the New World. The Natives were only inhabitants of the land they had "discovered," not targets.

The comparison of this nature to that of the Islamic State and the terrorist acts they have perpetrated are pale. Murdering innocent people in the name of their god is not synonymous to desiring terrority to benefit economy. The comparison between the two is already straining. In fact, "In June 2014, the group [Islamic State] formally declared the establishment of a "caliphate" - a state governed in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph." [3] The article further expounds on their intents and what they want. It's not anything economic, it's a religious movement; essentially a cult. However, they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. This ideology is demonstrated by the numerous terrorist attacks they have executed. [4] [5] [6] The following shows a disturbing infographic denoting the horrific acts commited by the Islamic State. [7]

These heinous acts of terrorism are not even remotely close to what British colonialism facilitated. Moreover, most of the harmful consequences were unintentional. This, however, does bring up a good point: the results and aftermath of British colonialism and Islmac State actions.

C2) Consequences
Though intent is a large factor of justification and represents a relatively accurate system by which to compare two actions, the ultimate conclusion must be based on consequences. In that regard, there is overwhelming difference between British colonialism and the Islamic State.

Though widely interpreted as the contrary, the consequences of European conquest were largely beneficial. Pragmatic benefits were subsequent results, and renders British colonialsim as a positive consequential historical course of events. For example, one of the results of colonialism are some of the world's most stable democracies. [8] The United States is a prime nation to measure the long-term effects of British colonialization, and ultimately justify its aftermath. Because of British colonialism, we are able to participate in an active and successful economy and ensure our security because of the biggest military superpower in the world. [9]

It's illogical to cast aside all these benefits simply because there was some injustice served in the process. Furthermore, these results are quite different when juxtaposed to the effects of Islamic State terrorism. The opinion, even in Muslim countries, is largely unfavorable.


Refer back to the overview of a year [7]; there's a plethora of unwarranted deaths because of the Islamic State. And in reality, there's been no noticable economic, political, or social gains from these events on an international basis. The only individuals it seems to benefit are the perpetraters themselves. Those of the same religion have pushed them away, as evidenced by the poll. Measurable effects, on balance, have overwhelmingly indicated that the results from the actions of the Islamic State are detrimentl, whereas I've demonstrated that British colonialism has had a net benefit to society, the world over.

As I've shown by way of multiple arguments, there is a vast difference between British colonialism and the Islamic State, leaving you with no option but to vote CON.

Debate Round No. 2


Wow, that is really amazing stuff. Though there are a couple "gaps""if you will"in some of your statements that I would like to address. I will address each paragraph one at a time (I will try to stay as organized as you, lol):

1.You are very much correct by saying European colonists did not originally leave their homeland to steal foreign land. Like you said, one of the main motivations was economic reasons; but, religious freedom was just as big of a contributor ( The three motivations for European colonists that you listed were to gain capital, resources, and spread their influence. Does that not sound a lot like ISIS?
-Capital gain: thought ISIS does not want to sell land, and will not at pretty much any cost,
-Resources: in order to keep itself running, ISIS steals oil, a lot of oil. In fact, ISIS profits around $8 to $10 million every month ( Daniel Glaser, the assistant secretary of treasury for terrorist financing told NBC News "in a one-month period earlier this year, ISIL (ISIS) made about $40 million in one month off of the sale of oil"about $500 million in the course a year" ( Taking over small towns and cities also has other major benefits, like gaining slave labor, more militants, vehicles and oil, possibly weapons and ammunition, and valuable shelter and hiding locations from enemy forces.
-Spreading their influence: ISIS" entire purpose is to spread its influence. An article in The Atlantic titled "What ISIS Really Wants" stated that ISIS believes it "is a key agent of the coming apocalypse" ( In Islam, the "apocalypse" is a peek into the future given by God. But ISIS differs from other jihadist groups because they believe the apocalypse "is written into God"s script as a central character" (The Atlantic). In an article by The Library of Congress, European settlers fled their homelands in the seventeenth century in order to occupy a "free" land, even if they had to fight for it, for the sake of religious freedom. That is essentially the same motivation ISIS has; but when speaking specifically, ISIS is working toward their own religious goal. Both Christians and Catholics believe that Christ will return, but will rain fire upon all unbelievers, officially creating two distinct worlds. So both religions believe an apocalypse will come, the only difference is how it will unfold.
And you are also correct that for the overwhelming majority of countries taken over through European colonization were not taken with the Europeans docking their ships and running guns blazing. For a really classic example, as soon as the first European settlers"not Lewis and Clark, they were explorers"got off their ships and started to just trek the beach, Natives ambushed them, their intentions very clear that they did not want any foreigners there.
2.I do not want it to sound like I am defending the Islamic State at ALL, but ISIS kills many opposing militants, not just journalists and non-believers who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. European settlers also murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the name of God. Sometimes even acting like ISIS by having a "convert or die" mindset. For example, the Spanish mercenaries traveled to South America to spread the word of God and claim land. In the process of using God to justify their actions, they killed many people, militants and civilians included.
-And yes, ISIS is a caliphate. Based off the definition of a caliphate that you got from BBC, and the United States and Europe could be argued to be a caliphate. Except the motivation behind the U.S. and Europe is not strictly religion, it is a mixture of things (economic largely, political, for capital, and more). In terms of religion, countries around the world"but mainly the U.S. and Europe"have missionaries (not affiliated with the government) that go into different countries, preaching the world of God in an attempt to get people to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior. Though it is not violent like ISIS, both are religious movements, and sole purpose of the government and people "preaching" their religion are extremely violent in doing so.
3.Acts of terror are very much heinous as you say, but they are very similar to that of British colonialism. An article titled " " by ___ is written

1.The after effects of English settlers was largely good, that is through the lens of those who are dependent on democracy. What do the Native Americans think about English settlers taking over their land and to this very day leaving them to perish? Other people have had that same question to, so there are quite a few stories with natives" responses to that question. One Native American, ___ ____, said " " ( ). So like I said, the outcome that the Europeans had depends on what ethnic, racial, and economic (just a few) lenses you look through. Speaking of which, Spinning off of that, ISIS has the same goal as European settlers, but its objects and how it will achieve those goals is different. ISIS promises men who join money, eternal life in the afterlife"with seventy-two virgins, and something worthwhile to fight for. Though that may not sound like it was on the same level as an entire democracy, it holds nearly the same significance. Just like why the followers of the Europeans that paved the way for them were excited to have a new life, in a new land, with new rules, the same applies for new members of ISIS. In addressed why people (specifically young women) join the Islamic State even though they know what they are getting into. In reply to the interviewer, , Dr. __ stated " ", and later continued to say " " ( And just as a side note, the United States or Britain does not have the "biggest military superpower in the world. Technically, China has the biggest military superpower in the world since there are 1.2 million troops in the PLA.

How did you get the JPEG or PNG image posted? I had no clue that could be done, XP. Sorry for having so many blank responses! I"ll try to fill them in later, I only have a 30 seconds to post!


R1) Intent:
I have a couple of responses to your attacks here:

A1) Religious freedom =/= religious dominance
>> You assert another big reason for the colonialization was religious, to which I agree. However, these people were simply seeking freedom from religious oppression. They were escaping a place where it was believed religious uniformity was necessary for societal success, similar to the beliefs of IS. The Islamic State affirms there must be one religion and one religion only; Islam. However, the colonialization of colonies, and the flee from religious oppression is the opposite. The pilgrims settled to escape the uniformity and came to settle in the New World and establish "plantations of religion." [1] Instead of enforcing religions, they sought new land to cultivate open religion, not oppressive.
>> The Islamic State, on the other hand, is operating under a policy of "convert or die." [2] Fleeing from oppression can be accurately likened to the British colonialism, but the spread of oppression is equally linked to IS. They are asserting power to convert anyone who isn't Islamic, and kill those who do not. One group (IS) is seeking religious dominance, while the other event is seeking religious freedom. The two are not even close to comparable.

A2) Monetary gain
>> The monetary gain premise is faulty. Regardless of whether or not IS is taking (which happens to be bad) oil, it doesn't flow under intent. Their reason, again, is religious, not economic.

>> On the other hand, it's only logical to conclude this was the primary driving force for colonialism and flee from Europe. New worlds offered the desirable prospects of a country by which they could gain profits with little cost. Joint-stock companies proved quite beneficial even then [3], affirming that colonization was good not only then, but now. The same is not true for the Islamic State, whose actions have no apparent positive consequence. By reason of pragmatism and logical consequence, we need to reject the notion that the Islamic State is a modern day representation of British colonialism.

A3) General Intent
>> My opponent's assertion here operates under a failed and fundamentally flawed premise; that colonization was a resultant of seeking religious freedom alone. Instead, economics was the driving force behind the colonization. This argument is really a mess when you get into it. I'll note a few key problems:
    • + Refer to A1 -- IS is spreading religious dominance, while colonialism diverged from oppression to freedom. This can mean only one thing: their intent religiously is not synonymous. This alone disproves the false claim typified in the resolution.
    • + Economically, the impacts between IS and British colonialism are incongruent. While the territorial claims benefited the global economy, IS has not. As my opponent mentioned, IS steals oil, not benefitting economy in any way. Again, this renders the assertion false.
    • + The goal to spread influence is something shared by both groups. However, the type of influence to be spread mandates the two not be considered similar. While British colonialism sought to develop the world, benefit global economy, and settle rugged land, IS only does the opposite. They seek to spread violence to those who do not bend to their will.
>> The good of the world is by far more important than a dominant religion. The means to achieve the ends of a global religion have been all but good. With British colonialism, there was great good brought about.

R2) Consequences
Again, I have a couple of attacks in this response:

A1) Global Benefit
>> As I mentioned before (and my opponent conceded) the aftermath of British colonialism was "largely good." However, the qualifier of those "dependent on democracy." This lens is transparent, but also fits to the world. Obviously, some specific events weren't positive, but the net benefit is overwhelmingly obvious.

>> There were quite a few benefits of British colonialism. For example, fur trade (practiced by both French and Brits) was essential to a the Natives themselves. They were able to trade their fur for other ittems they needing, including: "Knives, pots, and kettles facilitated food preparation, and nets, firearms, and hatchets made hunting easier and more productive." [4]
>> Europeans (largely Britain) brought a lot of things to the New World, and they can be classified in four predominant categories:

=1) Non-human organisms -- Plants, microbes, and new animals were introduced because of colonialism.

=2) Trade -- Europeans were able to trade with Natives for various different things that each group thought was necessary.

=3) Settlement patterns -- Prior to European influence, there were only small tribes. Colonialism solidified areas and established more firm settlements in which people could live more safely. [5]

=4) Supplies -- There were new supplies and such the Natives had never seen, like rifles ("fire sticks"), big ships, etc. These not only helped cultivation in the New World, but also benefited the group it was most largely affecting.

>> The assertion that they have the same goal is quite far-fetched. Besides, this assertion operates under the premise that Islam is a true religion, another whole premise entirely.
>> We have to weigh this debate on the tangible, measurable benefits and harms, not simultaneously accept Islam as the entire truth. Moreover, even if their objective is somewhat similar (it's really not), they are going about it in totally juxtaposed ways. This solidifies and backs up my stance that IS is not a model representation to any degree of accuracy of British colonialism.

There's a couple of things that require mention here, along with my conclusion.

I've continued to demonstrate vast differences between the Islamic State and British colonialism. Throughout this discourse in particular, I've strongly rebutted each of my opponent's substantive arguments with factual representations of their differences. Right now, you can only vote Con, and here's why: the intent is different, the global impact is different, the consequences short and long-term are different, and because I've also shown that IS lacks support from it's very own religious counterparts -- affirming their actions aren't necessarily correlated to the Muslim religion with any strong bond.

There were a few arguments mentioned by my opponent that were not topical. Specifically, the mentions of Spanish violence are not pertinent to the resolution, which specifies *BRITISH* colonialism. I am not obligated to respond to these, and they are likewise not impactful to the resolution.

To add a jpeg or png, simply copy and paste it across platforms.

I think this debate has an important qualifier. The actual colonizations from Britain came after the migration to the New World. The people left of their own accord, and were then colonized by Britain. Really, much of the harms about which my opponent speaks were not actually resultant of the colonization, but the actions prior to them.

Debate Round No. 3


Jordan_Fletcher forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited, extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


A1) Religious Freedom does not Equal Religious Dominance

>>This is a good example of how the Islamic State and early British colonists are similar, not the exact same. I totally agree with what your statement, “They [colonists] sought new land to cultivate open religion, not oppressive.” Some colonists wanted to simply mind their own business and have religious freedom, while others wanted to spread Christianity. Such acts can easily be taken note of through the depiction of many documentaries, articles, and even some documented primary sources. The most relevant example of which would originate from colonists’ first and continued interactions with Native Americans. In the process of seeking religious freedom and land, colonists invaded and seized control of Native American land, sometimes without attempting to negotiate with the natives on how to split the land or—more importantly—whether or not the Natives were even willing to give up their land. Though some colonists went beyond trending the line between strictly wanting religious freedom and forcing it upon others. For those Natives who complied and did not mind interacting with colonists were relentlessly preached to. [1]

A2) Monetary Gain

>>Something that I must admit right off hand is that I do not totally understand the meaning of your statement due to its wording. Correct me if I am wrong: my interpretation of your first point made under the second argument point is ISIS’ motivation for selling oil is not economic, but religious.

>>I would argue though economic benefit was a huge motivation for capturing many countries. In the case of the soon to be United States, it was the people seeking religious freedom who were followed by those seeking economic gain. [1] And also like the Islamic State, the only reasons why colonists did business with Europe was because Europe had an established economy that could pay handsomely.

- British colonies and ISIS could very well be put under the same label since they both are (1) independent groups seeking religious freedom and forcing oppression, (2) believe in order to obtain freedom, people who do not cooperate shall move out or die—generally speaking, and (3) both developed a well operating economy that boomed. In the article posted by RT Media, the author stated that ISIS profits greatly from drug smuggling, specifically heroine. [2] Now in both Christianity and Islam, is doing drugs or drinking excessive amounts of alcohol not despised? But for the sake of their economies, ISIS profits nearly one billion annually from heroine smuggling and British colonists of the New World became world’s lead producer of tobacco. [3] [4] But it is not like the colonists and ISIS sold the drugs and did not do any. The drug of choice in the New World was tobacco because of its abundance. [3] [4] For ISIS, it has been discovered that many of its militants use a powerful drug called PCP, which plays with the mind to make it feel like it is immortal—with a bunch of other side effects. [5] At least for ISIS, PCP gives the user a crazy boost of adrenaline, causing him or her to do unimaginable “heroic” acts, instead of just smoking or chewing a leaf because of its taste and addictiveness.

- P.S.: I reread part of my previous, incomplete rebuttal and noticed how I stated the Islamic State gained a profit of “around $8 to $10 million every month”. [6] In this rebuttal, I viewed a couple other sources and with backing from the IHS Conflict Monitor, I stand firm on what seems to be the most accurate number: around $80 million a month. Just about $50 million of which only comes from illegally selling oil. [2] Though ISIS profits could exceed $80 million a month.

A3) General Intent

>>One thing I would like to clarify is I did not say British colonists only wanted religious freedom. Going back to my incomplete rebuttal, I typed, “one of the main motivations was [for] economic reasons; but, religious freedom was just as big of a contributor”.

- You are very correct in saying that British colonists that settled in the New World wanted to be rid of religious oppression on themselves, but what you are mistaken on is colonists did not mind giving their fair share of religious oppression to Native Americans. In nearly all of the countries that not just the British, but European colonists colonized—or attempted to, the English invaders pressed Christianity and Catholic beliefs on the locals. Colonists justified their actions and condemned those who did not follow their will in the name of God. Though this did not take place in the New World, an otherwise perfect example of this can be found in the Pulitzer Prize awarding-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, professor of Geography at the University of California. For the sake of saving words to type, I will not explain his discoveries (though his theory is conveniently the title). [7]

- This is another example of how ISIS is similar, not the exact same as early British colonists. Unlike ISIS, British colonists of unknown nations had relatively good relations with their home countries, from a business prospective. So yes, colonists did benefit the international economy since the sales of products such as tobacco and eventually cotton (that is a whole new story) since its economy was, in a way, dependent on other European country’s economies. Even though ISIS is not on “good terms” with global economic superpowers, does not mean ISIS is not benefitting some nations’ economies—indirectly. After all, how else would ISIS pull-in nearly $50 million a month on oil profits alone? [2] Current findings suggest ISIS sells the majority of its oil to small business, random people on the black market, and crude, low-quality oil in Turkey for prices as high as $350 a barrel; three times more than that of a barrel sold in Syria. [8]

- I have addressed this in A1, so for the sake of saving words, I will just ask that you refer to that as a slightly less direct, but nonetheless effective rebuttal to your third key problem listed.

>>Giving pushback on this final statement in A3, through the eyes of the Islamic State militants, they believe they are making the world a better place. Specifically, ISIS believes it is “a key agent of the coming apocalypse”. [9] British colonialism could be argued by the majority to have been great in the end, but it depends on what lens it is looked through. If you ask an American whether or not British colonization was a good thing, more than likely he or she will agree. But if you ask that same question to a Native American living on a reservation, with the odds and an entire system designed to oppress him or her, you will get a completely different answer. [10] [11]

A4) Global Benefit

>>ISIS’ stealing oil has boosted many business revenues and even economies—after some circulation, specifically in Turkey and its drug smuggling has brought “pleasure” to many people’s lives. Thanks to modern technology, getting around to carry out various malicious activities is not as easy as it was back in days of the New World. So ISIS is not as profitable as it could be—which is a good thing. The benefits you listed were all great, but they do have some issues.

  1. Non-Human Organisms: The only non-human organisms that are regularly being shipped—alive—from one country to another are microbes and plants, which ISIS has in abundance. As mentioned earlier in A2, ISIS runs a huge international drug smuggling operation. Regarding animals (such as goats, not humans), they are not needed and relied on nearly as much. If a member of the Islamic State wanted a specific food or drink, he or she would go to one of the food marts, pay a 20% tax on whatever he or she purchased [2], and get just about whatever he or she wanted that is in accordance with their religion. Remember, the Islamic State is not just a bunch of savages huddling in huts with the world’s crappiest Kalashnikovs and Vietnam War era M4s and M16s—which is a good thing, it actually functions like a well-run nation.

  2. Trade: ISIS has its own magazine [12], charges a 20% sales tax on everything to everyone (taxation accounts for nearly 50% of ISIS’ revenue) [2], trades and sells merchandise between various ISIS controlled territories, and even reaches outside the walls of Syria to bring in more revenue.

  3. Settlement Patters: What you stated about grouping Native Americans together is both a good and a bad thing, which is exactly what many European colonists did in Africa. [13] And just like in Africa, the results in North America were not good at all initially. Not knowing—or not caring—of some of the tribal tensions, British settlers sometimes grouped rival tribes in close proximity to one another. This caused flashpoints between some tribes, none of which ended well. In relation to ISIS, the Islamic State offers a man or woman a guaranteed place to stay and a spouse that has the same ideals has him or her. Which eliminates the potential for major internal conflicts arising. So in some ways, ISIS is more civilized than early British colonists were.

  4. Supplies: This is true: British vehicles, weapons, and more was a real eye opener for Native Americans and opened up a world of opportunities for them—if they could escape the prejudice and lies. For ISIS, Toyota pick-up trucks (lol), HUMVEEs, tanks, and even military aircraft as modes of transportation and firepower to help spread their message and destroy their adversaries. [14] [15]

>>Okay, I do not understand this: “this assertion operates under the premise that Islam is a true religion”. May you please clarify how Islam is not a “true” religion?

>>And yes, the Islamic State does not operate entirely how the British colonists of the New World did, and for good reason: times have changed and their religion and methods are different. Like I said in my thesis, “the two are similar, not the same”.


My sources are in the comment section.


Since I gave the first actual *argument,* it's only fair to waive this final round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
Pro then concedes again "You are very correct in saying that British colonists that settled in the New World wanted to be rid of religious oppression on themselves, " - and continues to state that while running from oppression, they oppressed others.

- This is historically incorrect, since the initial military were the ones with the intent of converting to their faith.

All in all, had Con not been polite and conceded two rounds, just like Pro, I would have given the win straight away to Con. If Con had argued in at least Round 5, then the win would be awarded to Con.

Regardless of this, Con still gets the argument point. Most of what Pro said was inaccurate, and commonly used generalizations, rather then specificity. The next difference is that there were only 2 rounds that were debated, or at least only 2 instances of formal debate. These two instances were on the side of Con, as he did well in both instances, while Pro only had a good debate in Round 5.

Con summed up what any RFD should say - the intent is different, the global impact is different, the consequences short and long-term are different, and because I've also shown that IS lacks support from it's very own religious counterparts -- affirming their actions aren't necessarily correlated to the Muslim religion with any strong bond.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
Con's A1 and A2 were perfectly done. They carefully debunked each historical fallacy that Pro committed.

"You assert another big reason for the colonialization was religious, to which I agree. However, these people were simply seeking freedom from religious oppression. They were escaping a place where it was believed religious uniformity was necessary for societal success, similar to the beliefs of IS. The Islamic State affirms there must be one religion and one religion only; Islam. However, the colonialization of colonies, and the flee from religious oppression is the opposite. " - this paragraph alone switches intent of British Colonialism to be opposite to ISIS - leaving oppression vs. continuing it.

Pro also conceded various points, with one of them being the following - "As I mentioned before (and my opponent conceded) the aftermath of British colonialism was 'largely good.'"

Round 4: Nothing was done this round. Pro forfeited, Con politely conceded the round.

Round 5: This was the deciding factor in my vote. Round 5 was the prime of each argument, as Round 2 and 4 were dropped, and Round 3 was done poorly by Pro.

Once again, Pro conceded an important point " I totally agree with what your statement, "They [colonists] sought new land to cultivate open religion, not oppressive." - this point, had he not conceded and kept arguing, could have won him the debate. Instead, he went from whole to fractional, which already disseminates his starting argument - which is that the ENTIRETY of British Colonialism is comparable with ISIS.

Pro then concedes again "You are very correct in saying that British colonists that settled in the New World wanted to be rid of religious oppression on themselves, " - and continues to state that while running from oppression, they oppressed others.

I'll continue this in another comment.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: persianimmortal// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I vote Pro. I had not seen it compared like that before and had done a bit of research on this comparison. I find that it is an interesting match and one that is very accurate. Therefore I am voting Pro

[*Reason for removal*] This vote doesn't actually mention anything stated in the debate. It could be interchangeably posted on any debate without any changes and have exactly the same meaning. The voter has to show that they read the debate, which requires citing specific arguments that convinced the voter, arguments from the other side that didn't, and coming to a conclusion as a result. The lack of this analysis makes this vote insufficient.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
Haha, yeah. :) Same, it was a good debate. I wish the forfeit hadn't happened... it kinda prohibited my rebuttals, since I couldn't fairly post in the final round. Oh well, we'll see how it goes... :)

10th, you?
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Man, great debating with you! IT WAS TOUGH! You brought up really good stuff. Whether I "win" or loose this debate based on the votes, it does not matter to me because I learned so much from debating with you. I want to type more, but I have to leave school, lol. Formatting, vocabulary, citing a different way, and using lots of facts and sources instead of just opinion are some of the main things that you have taught me.

So you said you are in school as well, what grade are you in?
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
No prob!

i'm hammered with school right now, so it'd be better for me if we simply finished the debate as is and asked voters not to include the forfeit in their decision.
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Hey ColeTrain! Thanks for keeping this debate alive! I thought that when I "forfeited" a round, that I lost the debate automatically, but that is not how it works, :D!

I do want to point out in my response, there are a couple times when I say "British" instead of "European" on accident. There are some errors that I immediately saw when I read it over after I posted it (I was low on time and had to leave the area with internet connection), so please try to make sense of the sentences that are worded awkwardly or may be technically incorrect because of my accidental use of the wrong word(s).

Again, thank you very much! Oh! If you would like, I can extend this debate by reposting it to make up for the "forfeited" round. Up for that?
Posted by Jordan_Fletcher 1 year ago
Jordan_Fletcher I have not been connected to the internet since Wednesday, so I lost, -_-. This has happened to me twice, TWICE! Come on, the debate was just getting good! >:(
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
No, it was fine! :) Don't beat yourself up. But yeah, it'd be nice if you added that in the comments section.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 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 Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was objectively one sided from the beginning - towards Con. However, the most peculiar sight was the finding that Pro did not present a cohesive starting argument, which Con did. In Round 2, Con presented a factual argument, while Pro conceded the round. So, as a fact, Pro had no real argument, just rebuttals. Round 2: Con had a very strong starting argument, in which he effectively laid out his entire point structure. Pro did nothing. Round 3: Pro rebutted Con's argument, but not in an effective way. His structure was not neat, and nothing was organized into subsections. Regardless, he started off the argument by agreeing with Con, "You are very much correct by saying European colonists did not originally leave their homeland to steal foreign land. " The remainder of my RFD will be in the comments.