ISIS will capture Baghdad
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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. :)
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.
here is a source for you :)
You can see here ISIS is very well-armed as well. They are gaining moentum acr5oss Iraq http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.