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

ISIS will capture Baghdad

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 75623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Kylar here :)
I believe ISIS is going to take over Baghdad, Iraq's capital city.
PM me or leave in the comments if you wish to accept-this is a serious no joking debate.
No forfeitures
good luck


Please begin with your opening argument. Since Pro has full burden of proof, Pro has to prove without any uncertainty, that ISIS will definitely capture Baghdad. Since the resolution says "ISIS will capture Baghdad", Pro must deductively conclude that no other rendition could possibly occur.

I wish my opponent good luck. :)
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my friend for our debate first of all :)
My opening arguments are as follows
ISIS has seized control of a large swath of territory in Iraq and Syria. Airstrikes have pushed them from Tikirt and Kobane but they are not broken just yet. The ISIS group has seized control of Ramadi, a vital town 60 miles from Baghdad. They have conquered Fajullah, 45 miles from Baghdad and are on the march. In Syria they have seized Palmyra, effectively controlling 1/2 of the war torn Syrian Arab Republic. ISIS is on the march towards Baghdad. Airstrikes will not be enough to slow down their advance and assault on the Iraqi capital city.
Over to con, good luck


I also thank my opponent for this argument.

All of the facts that my opponent has cited, are not backed up with sources. Until they are, there is nothing to deem them with reasonable veracity.

Although, even if they were sourced, they do not provide a deductive link.

I wish my opponent good luck in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2

here is a source for you :)
You can see here ISIS is very well-armed as well. They are gaining moentum acr5oss Iraq
You can see ISIS is pushing deeper. The Iraq military is weakened, they will fall. Their morale is low, and Baghdad is close to ISIS. I believe this shows ISIS will take Baghdad.
Thanks for the debate :)


Thanks for the debate Kylar. :)

Since Kylar has now sourced his assertions, they are credible. But, as stated in the last round, "even if they were sourced, they do not provide a deductive link." This is because the facts only provide a strong inductive link.

Kylar's argument is that ISIS is well-armed, and has a stronger military than Iraq. But, does this mean that they will definitely capture Baghdad? I think not. This is only inductive proof. An inductive proof is "is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion."(1) This would only suit a resolution worded like so "Is it likely that ISIS will capture Baghdad?"

Hence, Kylar's argument only shows that the conclusion will 'most likely happen'. But, under this resolution, an induction will not suffice. Kylar did not dispute what his BoP was in the first round, which was that a deduction would be necessary. A deduction is "is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion"(2) viz. the conclusion can never be false.

Kylar's argument is only inductive, as ISIS does not have to capture Baghdad; they can simply retreat if they want to, make peace etc. However, this might not be the likely rendition. The point is, a deduction has not been shown.

As a deduction has not been shown -- Pro has not fulfilled his BoP.

Thanks for the debate.


Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
@Emilrose, it's kinda how the resolution is worded, if Pro makes the positive claim and states "something will happen", they assume a BoP. To say the opposer has to prove them wrong, is shifting the burden of proof fallacy :)
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Hm, Con should at least have some BoP; as it's on them to prove that ISIS will *not* capture Baghdad as according to the resolution. I will follow this debate :)
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
Mkay. Good luck :)
Posted by Kylar 1 year ago
Yes :) I cant wait to debate you
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
I'll accept. Pro has full BoP?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro's first argument was one of bare assertions, and, as Con pointed out, not backed up with sources. Then, Pro used credible sources to inductively show that it is *likely* that ISIS would capture Baghdad, but the resolution seems to imply definitiveness, so Pro had the entirety of the burden of proof to show that there is no possible way ISIS would not capture Baghdad, as Con showed. Since Pro failed to fulfill this immense burden of proof, I award the victory to Con. Thus, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.