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

Islamic State is good.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,320 times Debate No: 65948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)




First of all:

I do not accept main sources as proof, when you prove something it must be in pics or videos only and not links from BBC, CNN, etc..., i will also do the same and will prove myself in pics to make it fair.

Now time to get this going.

I am sick and tired of the lies and the tons of bullsh*t that has been going on it for days by people who don't even know what IS probably is these days, i will be clearing its name today of the many false crimes and accuses it has been accused of so far.

Islamic State kills civilians and childern.
That's false, IS didn't kill a single innocent man, anyone it kills is either an armed man, or a spy, spies are not civilians, don't confuse the two.

Islamic State kills non-Muslims and those who don't agree with it.
That is also lies, the IS does a option with all non-Muslims, it gives them a choice of 1- convert to Islam. 2- Pay a tax. 3- Leave the state.
many of them don't agree with this and they pick up arms and fight, which leads to them getting killed.

Also those who don't agree with what IS is doing (and are Muslims) live with all their rights in the State, a proof of this is Vice news coverage of IS, where he announced he doesn't pledge allegiance to the Caliphate and they didn't do anything to him, and he visited their prisons and it showed the prisoners not allowed to pledge allegiance because the pledge doesn't become forced.

Islamic State does mass murder.
It does, and its proud of it, why?
Look at what the Assad forces did, what Iranian militia did in Iraq, what Hezbollah did, Rape, Kill children, and many more, don't you think they deserve this? a person who raped your child wouldn't you want his head gone?

these are my primary debates, in the next round i will show the pros and good things of what IS did in the areas controlled, and i will respond to more debates if my opponent posts any.


First of all:

Who is it for you to decide that I should not use BBC and CNN or other "Zionist sources" as the source? I don't want any pics. I need justification, and rational ones too. As a framework, the BoP lies exclusively on the opposition to prove that (1) killing is permissible by Islamic Law, (2) that even if it is, it is permissible and just in this cae, (3) that actions done by IS, and things said by IS are moral in nature, and (4) that these actions are justified in their nature.

Now, as a groundwork for objective morality, I turn to the Quran, the Geneva Convention and Categorical Imperatives that allow men to act morally and justly, and through this, I shall define morality in context:

Good-Whatever is moral; i.e (in context) what ever is permissible by the Quran, by the Geneva Convention, and by pure human reason.

The opposition starts off with a relatively biased case, and I shall dispel the rumour against CNN and BBC, or the usage of it. IS has recently set some "filming restrictions" in areas that it controlled. They do not deny CNN and BBC the right to film; they rather deny al-Jazeera the right to film in their territory. [4]


1. Islamic State kills Civilians and Children

The Islamic State kills spies? More like innocent civilians and journalists in the area. It is destructive to the my mentality and the mentality of the world that any one man would attempt to justify the barbaric actions of anyone. Now, the opposition seems to accept video evidence exclusively. In the citation is a video of the Islamic State executing two children for unknown crimes. [1] The fact that the Islamic State executes children is a fact of incomprehensible thought, and the fact that people attempt to justify this is even much more disgusting. I do not need, hopefully, to rationalize why this is uncomprehensible.

So, let us take the assertion that these kids are armed: if they were armed, then the Islamic State does not have any rights to kill them anyways, as via the Geneva Convention, this is banned. But accordingly to the title of the original video (عاجل اعدام طفلين شيعة من قبل دولة العراق والشام الاسلامية, "ISIS Executing to Shi'ites in Syria"), this is overruled. Then let us assert that they are spies; what information, other than biased facts perceived could be given to the Assadist forces? Apart from this, all human morality opposes this.

This is not the only time where the Islamic State has been charged with war-crimes. Executing Sunni and Shias, Christians and others alike [2] they have no inkling of humanity left in them. Now, the opposition may "argue from genetics' and say since this is a youtube video, then it is unreliable, but to cite the Islamic State is wholly a stupid move to do.

2. Islamic States Kills Non-Muslims

There is general acceptance; IS kills non-Muslims. However, the degree of this is to be discussed; the opposition must justify the paying of this tax to reside in their own country for worshipping their own religion. The fact that not only Christian adults are killed, but every Christian who worships the cross instead of the crescent (including children and women) is simply disgusting. There are accounts from camps all around Syria of IS coming, and demanding three things that Christians weren't willing to give up: (1) their religion, (2) their women, and (3) their lives. There is no instance of a Christian ever paying a tax, and then the Christian's existence was ensured. Many accounts of the massacres in Iraq show that even Christians who pay the tax are killed. The number of Christians in Mosul and IS controlled areas are close to nil.

Now accordingly to the opposition, opponents of the IS are not prosecuted. He cites a VICE video. The VICE video shows that the
allegiance to ISIS is not needed and obligatory, henceforth opponents of the Islamic State could live in perfect harmony with the laws of the Islamic State. Cited is the video [3] in which the opposition refers to. This proves nothing but that the IS has a pledge of allegiance. I have pledge my allegiance to my country, and many other people have. However, these people have the rights to live under a just law and a just government. They have the rights to practice their own religion, and they (previously) had the rights to civil disobedience if some laws were unjust. This is characteristic of open society. Closed society is characteristic of the Islamic State. The Islamic State follows a naive monism of nature and convention, and henceforth, it kills based on a perceive intepretation of a Holy Book. There is a ban of civil disobedience in all forms in the Islamic State.

3. Rationalization of Mass Murder

"At least we aren't supporting people who eat the organs of their dead" Putin let us take your assertion. Assadist forces kill civilians, and they are "proud of it"? But what was Prophet's Muhammed words on killing? Oh yeah, that's right! And do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct (Quran 6:151) Islam is a religion of peace, not savagery. Two wrongs never make a right; apart from this, the opposition hates Assad because of merely idiotic reasons.

The opposition criticizes Hezbollah, Assad and their allies for these attacks against humanity; however, these attacks were relatively minor when compared to the proud nature of the Islamic State. IS has killed, since the Northern Iraq Offensive, 10,000 people and injured/effected a further number of 14,000 people. Assad did not force his fellow Syrian citizens into sex-slavery, nor did he kill base on religion and race. The Islamic State does this. Hezbollah fought for Lebanon and the defense of fellow Sunnis; the Islamic State kills Shias and Sunnis alike. Rationalize and justify that, my friend.


1. Islamic Law Bans Killing

There are many Islamic-Quranic verses that ban killing of anyone. But firstly, an Islamic State implies the separation between Mosque and the State. Islam teaches tolerance of all religions. “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (The Cow. 2:256) Islam bans killing in all forms. “… whoso kills a shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Quran 5:53). Allah's merciful hands extend to everyone of every race, intention etc. "My mercy embraces all things …" (Al A-Rif, 7:7156) Furthermore, many opinions were valued in an Islamic society. ‘And those who were given the Scripture did not become divided, except after the clear proof had come to them.’ (Al-Bayyinah 98:4) Do not kill is mentioned again in Al-Isra, 17:33 "‘And do not slay the soul [whose life], God has made inviolable" And finally, dispelling the false accusations and claims that IS is "Jihading" against the world ‘O you who believe, what is wrong with you that, when it is said to you, “Go forth in the way of God', you sink down heavily to the ground' (Al-Tawbah, 9:38) [5,6]

With a plethora of quotes from the Holy Book that establishes an outline of the Islamic value of ethical actions and killing, I have no other way to conclude that Prophet Muhammed and Allah did not need this needless killing, in which many have died for the sake of not following a religion in which the perpertrators of such barbarosity do not even follow.

I consider the resolution negated. I am disgusted by the opposition's position. I am disgusted by the Islamic State, and I hope that one day, everyone shall live in harmony and peace.

السلام عليكم



Debate Round No. 1


My opponent said who am i to decide that my opponent shouldn't use mainstream media as sources, i am the one who made this debate, and that was my rule, if you have issues with it and don't accept it, you are free to not accept my debate.
Now about justification, i have plenty of that.

1. Islamic State kills Civilians and Children

Like i said before, IS doesn't kill civilians and children, the video my opponent showed claiming that IS killed 2 children, i have 2 objections on it.
The first is that the video probably doesn't even belong to IS, any Islamic State kill or anything done by them is made by official channels and websites belonging to them, which is then edited to HD and added logos and other, this video has none of it, it even has a Free Syrian Army logo which further proves my point that IS did it.

The second being, i don't know if opponent knows Arabic but the man holding the paper is saying that these 2 people were Shabiha , a known gang of Assad regime that kills and rapes people, these 2 got caught from those persons and then they agreed to make a prisoner exchange with the Assad, when they got to exchanging Assad betrayed them and killed a couple of people from those who were capturing the 2 child's, and then they executed them.

2. Islamic States Kills Non-Muslims

My opponent said i must justify that why non-Muslims should pay tax to stay in they country worshiping their religion.
Muslims also must pay tax to stay, more known as Zakat.
Also i don't see whats wrong with Taxes. most countries in the world have taxes, why can't the Islamic State have taxes?

My opponent then said that IS is killing all non-Muslims and Christians and even those who pay tax, however he didn't provide any proofs for his claim.

Then my opponent continued saying that those living in it should have the rights to live under a just law and a just government and the right to practice their religion and to do civil disobedience if laws were unjust, he claimed that those living in the Islamic State have none of these right and that there is a ban on civil disobedience, yet again he provides no proof for his claims.

The citizens living in the Islamic State have their full rights, they live under a just law and a just government (more on that later) they also have the right to protest and disobedience and if they feel they are unjust.
My opponent claimed that previously, which means before the Islamic State, however its clear to mostly everyone how protests were killed during the Assad regime and the Malki regime.

I would also like to mention that IS accepts all of those who repent and join it, its Caliphate ordered that "even if he kills a million of us and he repents to god, then accept him and forgive him".[1]

3. Rationalization of Mass Murder

My opponent claimed that Assad does not force people into sex slavery and that he didn't kill based on religion and race, and said that IS does this, yet again he does not provide any proof.

Assad war crimes are clear to everyone and his ethnic cleanzing, Assad is an Alwaite علوي and so is his government[2], his prison's and crimes against Sunnis and his backing of all Alawites people are clear to everyone[3].

Now like i said in my previous round, i will cite the pros of what the Islamic State did in the controlled territory.

Serving the people

Since its founding, the IS did all the ministries (more known as Diwan) in the civil world, there is a ministry of educations, a Ministry of civil services. a ministry of justice, a ministry of defense and more.
All made to make a good country servicing the people.

1- Ministry of Education
IS had to make sure that all its children forget about the pain of war and learn a new important things, it builded new schools, made new curriculum, along with other stuff.
the above link is full of pictures from Karkok city in Iraq, under the new educational year and system.
Further links

2- Diwan of Health.
It had to also care about the health of its citizens no matter how bad the bombs of US get, it treated children with cancer, is served free milk to children and more.
I couldn't find a good source for treating children with cancer but here's one that mentions it

3- Diwan of Justice
Justice is the foundation in all civilizations, since it came the IS removed all the corruption of the previous government which everyone in this world know how it is, it removed the widely spread bribery in Syria, and the Wasta in Iraq, Justice is also served to everyone in IS, no matter you are the Caliphate of IS or a normal solider, you will face punishment unlike how it is under Assad or Malki.

In VICE news you can see how the new Hisbah patrols go to people in markets and see if they are cheating people or not, you can also see the courts of IS.

4- Diwan of Civil Services
In the middle of bombs, missiles, air raids, and fights, yet it didn't forget its people and it treated them like there was no war going on at all, tell me which country in the world did that?

Removing the pictures and statues of old leaders and how praised they were and replacing them with good:
Fixing electricity and providing it to people:
Building a new market:
Giving away gas for people:
Fixing roads and cleaning them:

As you can see highly known and modern countries couldn't do these simple things like Syria and Iraq and many others, while IS did it in all of this war, this proves how corruption ruins everything.

5- Ban on drugs and cigarettes.
IS is green and pro environment! a things that many people in USA and UK been calling for a lot of times, IS did it.
Burning drugs of the PKK:
Burning cigarettes :

A new currency
Any person with good economical knowledge would know how big the paper money is a scam, a piece of paper that can be copied of millions is all of a sudden worth something? biggest scam in human history.
And then IS came along and changed that, Gold and silver and copper coins, actual precious metals that are worth something, something that USA feared for a long time so that the Dollar wouldn't lose its worth, something expert economists feared and predicted for a long time.

And they actually didn't put any leader picture on them like every country does, they put symbols with meaning to them.

A simple Google search of "Islamic State currency" can prove this.

Also a simple google search of Alawites would immeditally show pictures of them holding Bashar picture and many articles of their support to Bashar, i wonder why?



Firstly, I can't read Arabic. Many of the opposition's videos and sources are in Arabic, so I don't know what I'm supposed to do here? Secondly, the rationalization of mass murder is possibly the greatest war crime anyone could do. Morever, it is not within the rules of the debate to say that the "I cannot use CNN or BBC" as it wasn't a rule posted. The common definition of good here is whatever does not violate the categorical imperative, and the most frequent is: "do not kill those whose souls does not have the ability to harm you" The opposition has rationalized and endorsed this.

Now, with this said, I shall reply to the opposition's points. *Don't look at the videos if you don't want to see nasty nasty stuff*

O1. IS kills Civilians and Children

The Islamic State did not have the HD cameras/weaponry that they had a year ago when this video was published, and the Free Syrian Army flag consists of the same color, but not the same logo that was present in the Islamic State. Formerly, the Islamic State was part of the Free Syrian Army, and before they broke in the Battle of Aleppo in 2014, they used the same television channels and many of the same logo. Moreover, how could these children be Shabihas? These are unarmed children, which are protected via the Geneva Convention and other HR conventions. Via justifying this, the opposition is justifying a crime and a haram in Islamic law. But perhaps this is not enough. Linked is another video showing the Islamists killing two bus drivers in Syria. (

Now, I would like to point out a major contradiction within the opposition's assertions: In his first contention, he says that the Islamic State kills armed men and spies only, but in his second assertion, he asserts that the Islamic State kills Christians who choose to not pay tax. This inconsistency exerts some type of power within his arguments: which one of these are really credible? I know as a fact that the second assertion is true, as the opposition justifies it in his third assertion (in R1) that the Islamic State kills innocent civilians who are not Islamic. On this ground, his assertions in the second round (when he "refutes" my claims of Islamic State mass murdering people) that the Islamic State does not kill based on religion and faith is totally worthless on these grounds.

O2. IS kills Non-Muslims

I have not a single record of a just state making their citizens pay for practicing their religion. This is one of the burdens of a ultra-theocratic monotheist state.

However, let us talk about the tax we are in question of here; the Jizya. The Jizya tax is a tax that is imposed upon every abled body man living in an Islamic State. This tax, when in practice during the early Caliphates, exempted the following: children, crippled men, the poor by biological basis, women, and others who are unable to provide for themselves. Now, is it not true that the Islamic State kills Christian children, a haram on the basis of quoted Quranic Verses, on the basis that they did not pay the Jizya tax? Now, if Caliph Baghdadi really desires for the creation of an Islamic Caliph, then he has to realize that all previous successful Islamic Caliphates tolerated everyone to practice his/her own faith, and to submit to the Islamic laws via tax, and not via blood. [6]

With the prinicple of Jizya established, I shall now go on to talk about the justifications of the Jizya. Currently, there is no direct tax in any just society that one has to pay for the practicing of their own faith. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article II prohibits this action of intolerance practice in Islamic State today.

Now, there are many examples of Islamic State groups killing Christian children and women, even when the Jizya tax only applies to men. They are being prosecuted in Mosul, Kirkuk and other places of Iraq and Syria. After an advance on Arsal in Lebanon, they even wrote "we are coming to behead you, worshippers of the Cross" on some Churches within firing distance from Arsal. Even if the Islamic State attempts to implement some type of Jizya, they will not be accepted until they find a way to incorporate religion into a sort of nationalism that they must espouse. [3, 4]

O3. Diwans

1. Diwan of Education

The new Islamic State system of education is a one sided educational system which only focuses on breeding more Osama Bin Ladens, and not more thinkers. Islamic State schools have cancelled sociology, history, art, music, civics, philosophy, Christian religious studies, and psychology. This has turned that Islamic State's Education into a Diwan of Jihadism, and this is in no way beenficial to the world. In biology class, teachers are not allowed to refer to evolution as it is an "infidel science" In Arabic class, no one is allowed to recite polytheist poems. In math, the words democracy, elections and donations are taken out of all the questions referring to it. The Syrian and Iraqi children under these educational system have no more identity; they are not Syrians, nor are they Iraqis. The Takfiris are eradicating all national loyalty that they have. (And the Ba'ath "Loyalists" still think they are fighting and dying for the sake of Iraq?) [1]

Education is supposed to be a process in which the ends is to create more free-thinkers and more wise students, not to create more one-minded Takfiris. If the learning of ways to "kill people, murder people" etc. is important to the opposition, then I can affirm to him that the world does not see it as wholly important. The world sees it as a useless relic of a violent past.

2. Healthcare

Healthcare in the Islamic State has failed. In the city of Mosul, the ultimatum to doctors "come back and serve us, or never come back ever again" has not resulted in any good results. In Syria, the Islamic State obstructed a huge delivery of medicine to al-Raqqah, and in Mosul, medicine is expensive mainly because the Islamic State blocks humanitarian organizations from delivering medicine and such! Pharmacists and doctors are forced to smuggle in medicine and are forced to sell them at twice the normal price. The Iraqi state has attempted to liberate these people from suffering, but they always fear IS's intervention. Many Islamic State hospitals are currently out of wheel-chairs and there are no prospect for those who are currently suffering from a complicated disease

Is this effective? Is this really the creation of an effective healthcare system in which the world must worship? If the Islamic State really had humanitarian aims, then it would stop all this senseless barbaric killings and allow humanitarian organizations to worship and send aid to help the starving citizens of Raqqah, Mosul and other IS territories. [2]

3. Justice

Justice is not the emplacement of law and order in one place. It consists of the following: (1) the equal treatment of all citizens by law, regardless of faith and religion, (2) the giving of one his reasonable due, (3) the emplacement of laws which consent has been retrieved from those who live under it, and (4) equal distribution of law enforcement agencies.

Put this in context with the analysis of the Islamic State's laws. Accordingly to the interpretation of IS laws, simply using drugs is punishable by death. A man has a certain liberty in him to choose to smoke or to be Christian that no one can take away, with just conscience that is. The Islamic State treats Christians as if they were criminals and murderers, and kills them without any fear of it being haram. The Islamic concept of Haram is imposed on all followers of Islam, but not on those who fight a Jihad? Was it not the Quran that declared that "[Allah's] mercy extends to every soul" If the Islamic State truly wants to be Islamic, then it has to stop cherry-picking from the Quran and embrace the true nature of Islam; a humanitarian anti-killing religion.

4. Currency

The biggest scam in history? I want to object to this, but before that, I shall analyse the IS currency as of current. IS's dinars has a gold weight of 4.25g (or 20 Arabic Karats). Such coins would require immense amounts of gold, in which I do not believe the Islamic State has, to mine in huge quantities. In fact, these coins will be worth $600 in the current markets. The fact that they are going to make money out of something that is instantly tradeable without need to be coined or minted will severely limit the usages of this coin. Apart from this, since the currency are made out of gold, the price of the IS currency is not determined by the Islamic State, but rather by gold dealers in London and Zurich.

There are more implications of this; gold has an international value which is highly intercorrelated with wheat and oil. If the prices of gold double, the international value of wheat and oil decreases, and this reduces the price of which Iraqi and Syrians living under the Islamic State could sell their products, giving off for a much lower standard of living. These factors will highly effect the new economy of the Islamic State, which now faces huge SoL deficits. However "glorious" this introduction may be, it is not enough to skyrocket the economy of the Islamic State. History could tell you that: the same principles of economic and monetary pricing was adopted by Abd Al-Malik, and this failed miserably. This caused a return to the main tenants of using Hebrew-based monetary styles in the Ummayid Caliphate. [7,8]

With this, I hold the resolution negated. Peace be upon you, my friends.


[4] VICE, "Hezbollah Battles IS for Lebanon"
[5] Source 4, R1
[7] Bloomberg
[8] Forbes

Debate Round No. 2


First of all, Most if not all of my links had pictures on them only and very few text, so my opposition knowledge of Arabic shouldn't matter at most.
Second, in this round, i will be using Quran verses and proof from them since my opposition is doing the same.

IS killing civilians and children

I am glad my opponent agrees that IS back then didn't have HD cameras and the same weapons they have now, because i will get to that later.
However, IS was not part of the FSA, it was its own army and commanders, they reported to Al-Qaida back then, not FSA.

The video, That video is indeed official, unlike the children one because of the flag in the top left and the Furqan company logo.
Now, First of all i agree that what those people did is wrong, they killed these 2 simply because they weren't Sunnies, now there are 2 things:
1) This could be Al-Nusra, and not IS, since these 2 were joined back when the video was published.
2) It could be a mistake, something bad IS did, compared to the tons of good things it did, it isn't much, every army in the world made a mistake.

My opponent says that how could these children be Shabihas, my opponent clearly doesn't know the Assad regime, judging by the children in the video their ages would be from 12-15, Assad regime used far more younger children to his goals[1], Children as young as 10 years old are carrying guns with the regime, and so do you expect IS to let someone who carried arms and fought against them to let him free?

My opponent say that i said "Islamic State kills Christians who choose to not pay tax." I didn't say that, i said IS make anyone who doesn't pay tax to leave the Islamic State, and if they pick up arms and fight, they kill them.

IS kills non-Muslims

My opponent once again completely ignored that Muslims pay Zakat as well in the IS, this proves equality in IS that everyone pays Tax, not just non-Muslims.

My opponent is going in circles this far, he says once again something he keeps saying since R1 that i replied to, which is that IS kills christian children on the basis that they did not pay Jizya tax, he provides zero proof at all.
I said it before and i will say it again, IS does not kill christian children, neither does it force tax on those who are unable like poor and children, my opponent made that up or heard it from another fake media source.

My opponent then claims that Jizya tax is basically because they are non-Muslims, which could be not true, these tax go into nation wealth which provides more and further services to the people of it.

My opponent then said that IS is killing Christians in Lebanon by proving himself with a link from CBN that isn't working, and a link from VICE news that only proved the writing "we will break your cross", so my opponent somehow figured that IS killed christian children and women only from that writing? wow...
And even that writing isn't fulfilled with true IS, its written by some supporter who IS isn't affiliated with, if you keep watching the VICE news video you would find that the people there themselves said that the fighters in Lebanon are linked with FSA not IS.

Now before i continue i would like to advise my opponent to stop going in circles next time, and bring something new to the table not something i responded to 3 times.

1. Diwan of Education

My opponent said that IS cancelled sociology, history, art, music, civics, philosophy, Christian religious studies, and psychology.
Once again, that is wrong, IS only cancelled a single form of art, music, philosophy, christian religious studies.
Sociology, History, Civics, Art, Psychology are all still taught.
This can be proven by official decree from IS that i can provide but its in Arabic.

Side note: My opponent said that Syrian and Iraqi children have no more identity and national loyalty, i am happy to see this and i am smiling, this is exactly what me, IS, every true Muslim wants, a single Caliphate, a single currency, no passports, nothing to divide us, no Great Brittan borders and colonies, the Hadith says: "The Believers are like a single body, if one part breaks down, the rest becomes tired and sick as well"

2- Healthcare.

I agree that healthcare is not at its best due to Assad cutting electricity and lowering food from them.
But what do you expect? A nation that is getting fought from every country in the earth, and all the care its providing! to me that is more then enough.

Also my opponent posted a link of a site, not a pic or video, like we agreed i do not count on those, specially the name stars and stripes.

3- Justice

My opponent now once again said without proof that IS punishment for taking drugs is punishable by death, which is wrong.
My opponent once again as well like i said before goes in circles and repeat that IS treat Christians as they were murderers and criminals and kills them with no fear of it being haram without mentioning any proof.

4- Currency.

My opponent only mentions the Golden Dinar, and totally forgets that there is a Silver Dirham and the copper Fels.

Now in this round, i will post a bit of the atrocities Assad and Malki and the YPG did in the past years that people seem to forget and only focus on what IS did, lets suppose DID kill those 2 truck drivers, that's one accident since its foundation, how many innocents did Assad kill? YPG rape? Malki Rape and kill? Thousands.


Assad torturing a child:
Assad Torture someone to make him say Bashar is your God:
Assad forces torturing a woman:
Malki forces torture an elder person:
Assad forces rape:
YPG Forces rape a Yazidi girl:
Asad's Shabiha Cut Off the Genitals of Civilians While They Are Still Alive HIGH NSFW:

Now after seeing all of those (you really need to) do you think what IS is doing isn't fare? beheading Assad forces is far too little, if i were there i would torture them so much, If you a father of a girl who got raped, a father of a child who got raped, a son who lost his father, what would you want? Human rights? courts? is that what you would want?
Sure its easy to talk behind a screen eating some McDonalds thinking that you know how it feels like, but you don't, when you are alone in Syria, no one to care about you, trust me you don't want courts, you want revenge.
"He who heard is not like he who saw"

I hope the next round my opponent would learn something and not go in circles repeating a thing 10 times. Peace be upon you.


[1]: << Syrian regime only gives food to children who support him. << Go to Syria. << YPG child soldiers.



The main contention of the debate now is not "did the Islamic State do more harm than good" to Syria, but was it "good" in the sense that was defined in R1. Now, I believe, the limits and exclusiveness of "good" was defined to some sort of objectivity; i.e complete compliance with UDHR, Geneva Convention, and Categorical Imperatives. Apart from this, I remembered only agreeing to "CNN" and "BBC" and not "Stars and Stripes" Henceforth, the contentions of argumentation from ad hominem genetics could be easily dismissed asmoving the goalposts.

O1. IS Kills Children

The Islamic State kills civilians and children. We have a concession here, and if we apply the parameters of this debate upon this point, the Islamic State did moral wrong in it's executions of these two Sunnis. Now, this rationalization of murder is highly uncalled for at this point. The shame-naming of the opposition shall be addressed here.

This video was shot soon after the break between al-Nusra and the Islamic State, so it would have been impossible for J. al-Nusra to film this. Apart from this, we take upon it as a concession that the opposition states that this is an on balance debate, not a good/bad debate. However, the resolution states that the Islamic State is "good" not "on balance, the IS has been more beneficial" Henceforth, this point I considered fully negated.

Now, accordingly to the opposition's accusations, he has clearly ignored the parameters of good/bad that was presented in R1, and the fact that he never refutes them is a show that he condones the definitions. One of the conditions was anything "good" was permissible under Islamic Law. Now, the interpretation of Islamic Law follows from several parameters. The first and foremost is the Holy Quran, the second is the Hadiths, the third is reason and the last is compromise. The latter two (especially the last parameter) has led many to corrupt the true nature of the humanitarian thought of Islamic philosophy. I quote from a Hadith the following:

'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Now is this "good"? I believe that I have provided tonnes of evidence based on the Muslim faith that shows that Islam does not condone killing, on balance. Now, if this is not enough, need I talk about the Yazidi Genocide. After the taking of Sinjar, 70,000 Yazidis were forced to flee; 500 Yazidis were killed soon after the Islamic State took over, and many are still now living under the IS's reign of terror! Even the Kurds are not free from this; many Kurds, who are overwhelmingly Sunni, are being forced from their homes and being killed by the Islamic State! True, there are some Kurdish fighters in the IS, but need I remind the voters of the fighters in Ayn Al-Arab, who are only gaining ground after attacks; besieged by the Islamic State, the fighting here has seen at least 1,000 dead, and many more wounded. [1,2]

UN Reports notes this frightening encounter:

"The ISIS emir answered me in a harsh tone: “Why? Do you have your house here? Do you have your village here? This is not your village and you have no house. I don’t want to see you talk about a house here. You don’t belong here. By tomorrow not one of you will remain here or come back here"

O2. IS kills Non-Muslim

Once again, I refer to the prinicple of good/evil in context with the parameters of this debate. Good is defined as anything that is not "Haram". Evil is anything that is "Haram". Now, I would like to go in much more depth about the concept of Jizya, and how that differs from Zakat. The fundamental fact that those who pay Zakat are exclusively Muslim, and Zakat is a Muslim Concept which derives from Quranic Verses proves that Zakat is not "tax" for non-Muslim. In a just society, a person must never be taxed on his fundamental basic human rights. No just governments have taxed their people for breathing the air; they tax their people for state services spent. The concept of Jizya is wholly unjust on this part; for Jizya refers to the taxation of a human's right to practice any form of worship of God that they want.

Now, I see the opposition's negation of the main conception of Jizya as not a tax for non-Muslims exclusively. However, I quote this in al-Razi's interpretation of Quranic Verse 9:29:

The intention of taking the jizya is not to approve the disbelief of non-Muslims in Islam, but rather to spare their lives and to give them some time.

The Quranic Verse 9:29 states this:

Fight until they [the non-believers] give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Upon this, the opposition argues from ad hominem and genetics, and I should like to say that this is a debate, not a Sophist convention. Fake sources? The parameters of such are only limited to the fact the websites of CNN and BBC the last time I checked. Based upon a fallacious position, I would like to dismiss the fake sources as the duty of the voter to vote fairly.

Apart from this, we have more than enough evidence to show that the Islamic State kills Christians. Linked is a collection of pictures from Mosul and IS occupied Syria that shows a plethora of evidence that the Islamic State kills, murders, tortures and harrasses Christian minorities, especially children and women. [1,5,8]

O3. Education

The opposition is wrong in his synopsis. This is what the mandate says:

1. The following subjects are to be definitively abolished from teaching programs: artistic musical education [music], nationalist education, social studies, history, artistic composition education [drawing], sport, philosophical, social and psychology studies, Islam-Christian religious education), to be replaced by subjects added in compensation by the directorate of programs in the Islamic State.

There is no definite proof of these classes being taught in IS occupied Iraq and Syria, but there is definite inferences that could be made from such a statement like the one provided above. If the opposition wants to deny this, then I shall challenge him to find any decree that overthrows the current decree now. [4]

O4. Healthcare

Stop blaming everything on President Bashar al-Assad; the main goals of the Islamic State has been revealed soon after the obstruction of a huge medical package to al-Raqqah. It was made much clearer when the Islamic State ordered the execution of 5 doctors from Sep. to October. It also reportedly converted many hospitals to torture and detention centers for IS militants. Accordingly to the United Nations:

ISIS has set up detention centres in former Government prisons, military bases,
hospitals, schools and in private houses.
I have been unable to see how the Islamic State could be considered "good" after what it has done in the Occupied Syria.

O5. Justice

It has been quoted in S3R1 that "the Islamic State will often kill those who take drugs" Now, I shall respond to the "baseless allegations" (which are in reality largely supported by sources) of IS killing Christians. IS kills Christians, and they do so without any mercy. Accordingly to the United Nations:

Between September and October 2013, ISIS fighters attacked three Christian churches in Ar-Raqqah governorate, destroying the Greek Catholic church; occupying Al Shuhada Armenian Orthodox church in Raqqah city and burning an Armenian church in Tel Abyad. As ISIS spread throughout eastern Syria, Christians and their places of worship continued to be attacked. In September 2014, ISIS fighters destroyed an Armenian church in Dayr Az-Zawr.

Regarding the Jizya tax:

The Nineveh decree echoes one that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the former name for the Islamic State, issued in the Syrian city of Raqqa in February, demanding that Christians pay the jizya levy in gold and curb displays of their faith in return for protection.

Justice much? What type of person carries gold in their pocket? The Islamic State has left no choice for these Christians but death and destruction. [2,3]

O5. Currency

I pretty much regard this contention is wholly affirmed. The printing of the Golden Dinar will inherently destroy the economics of the Islamic State, and it shall face some type of economic collapse in the future. Accordingly, there is this concept of "good" money and "bad" money. "Good" money is the ones that are actually worth a whole lot; "bad" money is paper money that have artificial worth. Grisham's law predicts that due to the desirability but rarity of "good" money, "bad" money will eventually replace "good" money. Considering the Islamic State to have no legitimacy over Iraq, and considering that Iraq is still printing it's money, the common prediction would be that IS money will eventually go bankrupt. With it goes the wheat and other materials that the region produces, causing an economic collapse, for wheat, oil and gold have an objective international real price. [8]

With this, I consider the resolution negated. Peace be upon you!



Debate Round No. 3


My opponent either didn't understand me or pretend to not understand me, i did not say that i only don't accept sources from CNN and BBC, i said "I do not accept main sources as proof" also i said " it must be in pics or videos" as well as "etc..." so i didn't only say CNN and BBC i said i only want pictures and videos and no sources from main media.

1.IS Kills Children

My point still stands that IS is good, however that single actions that IS did, the video, is bad, if a group have lots of good things, and done one bad thing very long ago, would that make the whole group bad?

My opponent keeps saying since R1 that killing in Islam is haram, i have no idea what does that have to do with the whole debate, what's the point of you saying that killing in Islam is bad? i know its bad, but IS isn't killing innocent people.

My opponent mentioned that IS killed 500 Yazidis and forced 70000 Yazidis to flee, and proved himself with 2 links.

The first link pretty much confirms what i keep saying, Pay tax, convert, leave Islamic state, simple.
The second link is another false site, "Catholic Online" the name pretty much shows how biased it is, and then posts pictures that a 5 year old wouldn't believe, not a single one of the pictures in there have IS logo, Flag, Solider in it, just killed people, how can you prove those people were killed by IS?

IS didn't kill anyone innocent from Yaizids, Kurds, anyone they killed either fought them, killed someone, or been a spy or informer.

IS is even helping the local population over there [1].

He then mentions a UN report, doesn't cite sources, just a so called "UN report", totally real and not made up.

IS kills Non-Muslim

Once again, my opponent mentions something completely unrelated to the argument and doesn't make sense, Haram and evil, what does that have anything to do with the debate?

I said Jizya is technically the same as Zakat, but its not literally the same, Zakat has an exact amount, Jizya doesn't, that's the only difference and the name, literally.

Also Jizya is not put just for being non-Muslim, Jizya is a complete tax for:
1) Protection of the person.
2) Serving the person whether its health, education, etc...

so Jizya is basically all modern taxes compiled under one tax and one name.

My opponent goes on to prove that IS kills christian by links to 3 sites.
The first site is like i said before, completely biased and fake site.

The second is a quote from the Quran, that says non-Muslims are free to go within the Islamic State without being harmed by Muslims, that is totally true, but against who? Those who carry guns and fight Muslims and rape them?
My opponent is going in complete circles only replying to himself and forgetting me, i say that IS isn't killing innocent Christians, instead of replying to me he insists on his opinion that it does kill then with no facts what so ever.

The third is a completely unrelevant site talking about IS currency and not acts of murder, i don't know what went into my opponent head on that one.


My opponent challenged me to find any decree that overthrows the current one, i am very glad[2].


I believe this part is done now.


I don't see or understand when was it said that "the Islamic state will often kill those who take drugs"?

Again, All what was said is fake, we already discussed this before.
Note: Although i agree there was a church in Raqqa that was turned into a Mosque, 1 church only.

Jizya tax, again its all fake, no one in the right mind would tell them to pay in gold, IS did not do that, please have a little more common sense.


My opponent now once again links me to another fake/bad site, the site he linked would not work without a registration for it, i do not see how such a site could be cited.

With this i end my round, Peace.

1) This is not required but i would really like it if my opponent would respond to the last thing i said on the last round.

2) In the next round i won't be responding to any debates, i would just put a last words, finishing touches on the debate.


[2] The decree's are in Arabic unfortunately but its official with the Stamp and signature of IS, any person with Arabic knowledge can confirm this.



The opposition has argued from ad hominem and has still argued from etymology. He has attempted to refute the validity of the sites presented, but not the point themselves. In this, I contend that my points are still all affirmed at this point. If the opposition has noticed, all my points remain more or less affirmed, for the fallacious argument from etymology and many other disturbances of human reasoning observed here is seen by me as fallacious and wholly invalid (and highly unsound). Moving the goalposts will not work in this debate, unfortunately, and this is not an "on balance" resolution.

O1. IS kills Civilians and Children

Again, if we look at the parameters of this debate, we are not debating an "on balance" resolution. We are arguing whether the Islamic State is good in a basis of the parameters of good that has been consented throughout the debate. Let us firstly refute what is claimed here via a logical sense.

The opposition goes on with a vague and ambiguous "source analysis" of the validity of the sources. This is a fallacy formally called arguments from etymology.

Secondly, quite recently, a decree from the Islamic State allowed for the "enslavement of Christian and Jewish" women of the warring sides. [1] Apart from this, there are now instances of Islamic State now killing and stoning adulterers in accordance to strict Sharia Law [2]. OCHR [3] reports this:

On 4 August, ISIL fighters reportedly attempted to ascend from the base of Jabal Sinjar, killing 30 Yezidi men and abducting a number of women. UNAMI/OHCHR received calls directly from people trapped on Jabal Sinjar.....Five survivors from Khocho village recounted how on 15 August ISIL gathered all males. According to survivors, as many as 400 males were killed

Now, there is no inkling of them being armed men or perceived spies. Quite the contrary:

Gross human rights abuses and acts of violence of an increasingly sectarian nature, committed by armed groups, have exacerbated the effect on civilians and contributed to the deterioration in the human rights situation and the rule of law

Now regarding children:

On 29 August, ISIL shelled al-Askari area in Tuz Khurmatu, Tikrit killing five civilians, including one woman and wounding another 25, including five women and six children...ISIL fighters arrived in several vehicles, separated men, women and children, and robbed them of their belongings.

There is too much evidence of the Islamic State killing women and children. Now, this fact is more or less confirmed. Ultimately, we now have to reaffirm the establishment of the concept of good/evil as set in R1, in which opp. has affirmed throughout the debate. This is not an on balance debate, this is a good/bad debate. If the Islamic State were a good force, then, quoting R1 parameters:

(1) killing is permissible by Islamic Law, (2) that even if it is, it is permissible and just in this case, (3) that actions done by IS, and things said by IS are moral in nature, and (4) that these actions are justified in their nature.

Henceforth, the opposition has de facto conceded this point, for he has not proven any of the four parameters of "good"

O2. Haram, Jizyah, and Zakat

Again, I want to re-emphasize that this debate is not about the benefits of the Islamic State, but this is an ethico-political debate upon whether the Islamic State has been a humane state or not. This is why the concepts of Haram are so important here, for whatever is Haram is henceforth impermissible by Islamic Law, and if the Islamic State does Haram, then it is immoral.

Now, the contention that Zakat and Jizya are technically, but not literally, the same thing is seriously flawed. For "technicality" does not provide distinction. Technically, al-Bagdadi and the Supreme Leader (Faqih) of Iran are the same people, because they are both human beings. Literally, however, al-Baghdadi and the Faqih of Iran are total enemies. Now, I quote in the Holy Quran this about Jizyah:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (9:29)

Whilst I quote in the Holy Quran this about the Zakat:

"They were enjoined only to worship God, sincere in their faith in Him alone - and of upright religion - and to establish the Salat and the Zakat. Such is the upright religion" (98:5)

Clearly, the Holy Quran makes a huge distinction between Zakat and Jizyah. They are both taxes, but a Muslim does not need to pay Jizyah, whilst a non-Muslim would need to pay Jizyah but not Zakat. Now, as stated via the Quranic Verses, Jizyah provides the non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with protection. However, here is the difference between Jizyah in the Islamic State and Jizyah in the Quranic Commentaries. The Quranic Commentaries commands 1 Gold Dinar as Jizyah; that is around $250 in modern exchange ratings. In the effected areas, the wealth of many do not exceed $3,700. This would mean that they needed to pay 14% of their money to the Islamic State. The rate of Zakat is 2.5% of the net per capita. Is this justified? Why does a non-believer pay 7 times more money in homage to the Islamic State than normal Muslims? [5,6]

The baseless allegations by the opposition are henceforth refuted via this very fact. Apart from this, sometimes Jizyah are agreed by both parties. However, there was no such agreement on the rate of Jizyah; the Islamic State demanded Jizyah or death.

O4. IS kills Non-Muslims

Again, the opposition's claims are worthless. They did not just destroy one Church [3]. Accordingly to OCHR:

It was also subsequently reported that around 45 abandoned Christian institutions were demolished, converted to mosques or used as bases by ISIL

Christians are not the only ones persecuted. The Islamic State has vowed to destroy Mecca [4]:

If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah.

I think there is enough proof that the Islamic State kills Christians, Muslims, and threatens the whole stability of the world that I do not need to further affirm this fact.

O3. Education

I believe that my points here have been all affirmed?

O4. Justice

The opposition commits the fallacy of presumption. He here is presuming that since he does not think that it would be sensible that IS demands gold payments, they do not do it. There is a plethora of evidence for this! Accordingly to Quranic Commentaries, Jizyah is supposed to be paid in minted golden dinars, in which the Christians do not have. As proven, the Christians living in the areas would have to pay at least 14% of their net earnings to the Islamic State, who then prohibits them to practice their religion publicly, and even goes on to kill and kidnap those who do not follow strict Shariah customs.

There are many instances of this happening [3]:

According to one of the nuns (who was abducted), they had been abducted by ISIL because they had notobserved the rule requiring that any female must be chaperoned by a male in public.

The main principle of justice is an equilitarian principle; to give everyone their due. A women has a due to walk freely on the streets, with no disturbances. A human being has a due to practice his own religion without being taxed for doing so. If justice had been served in occupied Syria and Iraq, then the citizens of both countries would be walking freely. This is not the case, as we have clearly demonstrated. Justice? I do not think so.

O5. Economics of the Islamic State

Again, no refutation of the claims made were actually offered. I shall here reaffirm my argument:

The minting of the Golden Dinar will inherently destroy the economics of the Islamic State, and it shall face some type of economic collapse in the future. Accordingly, there is this concept of "good" money and "bad" money. "Good" money is the ones that are actually worth a whole lot; "bad" money is paper money that have artificial worth. Grisham's law predicts that due to the desirability but rarity of "good" money, "bad" money will eventually replace "good" money. Considering the Islamic State to have no legitimacy over Iraq, and considering that Iraq is still printing it's money, the common prediction would be that IS money will eventually go bankrupt. With it goes the wheat and other materials that the region produces, causing an economic collapse, for wheat, oil and gold have an objective international real price.

Due to time restrictions, this is all I could do. I consider the resolution negated




Debate Round No. 4


Time have got me in this one

Like i said in the previous round, i won't respond to anything now, i will post my last words and finish, to finish the great debate i had with my opponent.

Islamic State and what do you know what's Islamic State, covered daily by media, yet no one knows its true form.
Yes it has done mistakes, yes it has some bad things i don't agree with, but compared to FSA, SAA, USA, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and many more, Islamic state is very, very good.
It got the dignity of people living under it back, no more ignorant people with tribal ways of living, no more revenge killing or fighting for land.
It got rid of all sorts of corruption, there was no more bribe and go, there was no more letting someone go just because he is in the army or he knows someone important, there was no more 'high' and 'low' people, like the Hadith said:
"There is no difference between an Arab and non-Arab except in faith", race, sex, age, doesn't matter.
It guided people life's by the right path, no complete strict, yet no complete freedom, just perfect.
What army in Syria and Iraq right now is doing what IS is doing, uniting people under one banner.
What army revenged for the raped women, for the killed men? right now the Islamic State is fighting in Deir Al-Zor airport in Syria, almost controlling it, they took down an airport just because it killed 200 people living in Raqa.

It must be easy for you typing behind the screen in that comfy chair of yours, cursing and blaming IS, and said they should live by 'modern society' and 'human' rights and the UN.
You have a right to do that, because you are cared about (maybe), the UN knows you are there, if you die, someone will care for you.
In Syria and Iraq, no, no body knows you are there, no one cares about you, if you are lucky you would at least be a number on a screen, if you are extremely lucky you might get a picture of your dead body.

Once you got your sister raped, parents killed, and you almost died, and there is no more light in the darkness.
And then you see your last hope, the Islamic State, the actual army in Syria that is still killing SAA forces and taking justice for the poor.

Would you say "No they don't follow human rights code! i want to first court the person who killed both of my parents and tortured them, court him for 20 years then let him out for some reason because he knows someone high"
No you wouldn't, you would want his head out of his body, even more.

The actions of SAA and other armies are already mentioned in a previous round, you can check it out, maybe your will blood will boil a bit (probably not, after all they are 2000 kilometers away from you right?)

That is all, this has been a great debate with my opponent, i put my best, i hope he did as well.
one last thing,
When voting, please don't vote for him immediately just because i support IS, don't be that kind of a person, read the debates, see who actually wrote better, then decide.




First and most foremost: this debate is not about the Islamic State when compared with other organizations. Other organizations have done bad and horrible deeds, but this particular debate is not about them; it is about the Islamic State in the perspective of morality, of human rights, and of ethicality. Now, instead of ranting on about this, I shall firstly point out the many fallacies that I have recorded here, and throughout the debate.

1. Ignoratio Elenchi

My points about IS actions (golden dinars, on justice, on education, on IS killing as Haram, on Jizyah and Zakat, on IS killing children) have been dismissed or ignored.

2. Argument from Genetics

Source analysis by the opposition is an argument from genetics.

3. Ad Hominem

It must be easy for you typing behind the screen in that comfy chair of yours, cursing and blaming IS, and said they should live by 'modern society' and 'human' rights and the UN. Oh, indeed it is. However, I shall prove the opposition wrong soon.

4. Appeal to Emotions

Once you got your sister raped, parents killed, and you almost died, and there is no more light in the darkness. What are you trying to say here?


I would like to respond to the opposition briefly with my own anecdote. In 2012, I went to an academic compeitition at Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. This was the first time I went to the Middle East, and it was perhaps one of the most fascinating trips I have ever taken. I met an influx of Syrians, and befriended one. She was wearing a veil, and had the Free Syrian Army flag on her bag. At this point, the Syrian Revolution was in it's early stages, but everyone could see the direction it was heading: the Jihadists were taking control. I had a brief conversation with her; she apparently wanted the following to be done. She wanted Assad out of power, and wanted democracy. She wanted freedom, and equality. I got into a brief debate with her about the need to preserve the secular Assadist regime, and then we parted with a little good bye. Two years later, this summer, I met another Syrian who came to Singapore. He was initially studying at a Jordanian international school. I asked him about his thoughts on Syria. His response was iconic:

"I was for the revolution when it first started, but now, I am for Bashar. I am a Sunni, but I consider myself Syrian. There are people in Syria that are Syrians, but that consider themselves Sunni. I love Syria, and I want it to be a democracy. I don't want Syria to be another Saudi Arabia. My friends initially supported the revolution too. But now they support Bashar, not because they like him, but they feared his defeat."

This was during the Northern Iraq Offensives. News were getting to us too fast. Soon, I saw what my new Syrian friend was talking about. I trusted the news, but the same person also confirmed the reports.

"I had a family member who lived in Raqqah. After IS took Raqqah, he has seen heads on a pike in the park everyday" CNN reported the same story. Soon after that, the United States launched their sorties against the IS, and soon I became invested in raising awareness for the besieged city of Ayn Al-Arab. I can see no justification for the actions of the Islamic State, and Islam is definitely not one of it. I have proven that Islam calls killing Haram. I have demonstrated that Islam does not provide any justifications for this. Nevertheless, there is one thing that I have not demonstrated yet; that Assad were to stay.

Let us say Assad were to fall tomorrow. Let us say the black flag were to fly over the presidential palace in Damascus tomorrow. Let us affirmed that such a case happened. Then all hopes for a new Syria, united, free, and democratic, would have been rushed. We would now see a destroyed Syria, basing itself on an instable economic system and a totalitarian "theocracy" which is highly destructive for the region. Blood will flow; the Alawites, Christians (in Aleppo, in al-Qusayr), Shi'ites, Kurds, and pro-Assadist Sunnis will be killed. The Syrian nation will be become Saudi Arabia. They will be terrorist attacks against the United States, and another war against another M.E. country would have to be launched by the American public.

Then let us say that the Islamic State all attacked Deir Ezzor, but was repelled by the forces of the Syrian Arab Army (peace be upon them). Let us say al-Raqqah finally belonged to Syria. Then Bashar Al-Assad would have to be forced to do re-elections, and his legitimacy will be challenged with a scale of much less than before. Assad's Syria will become a Free Syria. Shi'ites and Sunnis, Christians and Kurds, Alawites and Yezidis; all these groups will finally live in harmony, in a free country. And was this not the aim of the ever weakening "Free Syrian Army", whose (unfortunately) Syrian Revolutionary Front has turned Islamist? [3,2]

Oh yes, it is easy for me, typing in my comfortable blue chair, taking sources from the internet. Oh yes, it is easy, but I am the future of this world. Do I not have the right to talk about this issue? Do I not have a right to talk about the forces that divided the Arabic world? There was a force, prior to the Islamic State, that almost created a successful state based on the principles of an Arabic Civllization, strong in character. This force was Ba'athism, where religion was to be put aside, where Arabs were to live happily alongside each other. This movement ended as a force when Iraq betrayed Ba'athism and embraced Sunni Islamism.

You have a right to do that, because you are cared about (maybe), the UN knows you are there, if you die, someone will care for you.

And if you think about it, do you actually think that the citizens of al-Raqqah has the rights to speak out freely like I can? The Islamic State oppresses them.

Accordingly: IS has spelled out the terms in which it seeks to frame a global clash of civilisations. At its core is a contest about freedom of speech and belief. By the nature of their work journalists are among those most exposed on the frontline of that struggle...Its “business model” of kidnappings could involve months or years of silence during which the families might receive no information at all. The ordeal might or might not later lead to a ransom demand and negotiations...Islamic State must now be stopped through coherent work by governments and the international media to counter its message of violence and hate. [1]

And more injustices were even given. Where are the pictures of the "extremely lucky" few who have been killed by the Islamic State? Heads and bodies separated: is this just?

Accordingly: In July, two women were stoned to death by an ISIS-sanctioned mob in different locations in Ar Raqqah governorate...In February, a 15-year-old boy was beheaded, ostensibly for committing rape. Children were present. Several of those interviewed believed that he had been executed for being a member of another armed group...On 29 May, ISIS fighters in Minbij abducted 153 Kurdish schoolboys, aged 13 and 14 years old, as they returned to Ayn al-Arab from Aleppo city, where they had taken their year-end examinations. [2]

Now, I see no further justification for this. The parameters of this debate are clear. Either the Islamic State is good, or the Islamic State is bad. Good is defined in R1 as being permissible by various degrees. This the opposition has not proven. There is no background behind his refutations, and his argument is based wholly on a fallacious premise. Because of this, I shall like to provide several voting issues.

Voting Issues:

The opposition has tried to "move the goalpost" by forcing me to post pictures. Opp. also argues from genetics, and ad hominems me by taking my right to debate this properly away, since I am just "a 14 y-o sitting in a comfortable chair, with an air condition, 2000 miles behind the actual fighting" Opp. ignoratio elenchi's my case, and cherry picks from it. He never really refutes my claims, and just attempts to refute my sources. FINALLY, opp's case was built upon an "on balance" resolution, when clearly, the resolution states that "Islamic State is Good" with "good" having an objective meaning as established in R1. Because of these, I assert the resolution to be negated

Due to exams, this is all I can do. Thanks!



Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Holy crap, 5 round debate... I will read this,
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
I don't want to hear your sectarian nonsense. If you're going to use sectarianism, I recommend you debate Nasrallah.
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
Yes, Bribery, corruption, injustice, being an Alwaite and a man with power would make you step over every poor citizen.

Yes perfectly well.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
Rebuilding my butt. Killing homosexuals, magicians, and "those who insult God". Syria was perfectly well before IS.
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
Every Syrian city was being slaughters for 4 years yet no one made a website nor did anything, now IS came and rebuilt Raqqa and everyone bated an eye.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
Raqqah is being slaughtered silently.

You know that very well.
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
That was...unexpected.
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
Well this is getting dull.
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
I never said you were 10 year old :)

Wish i can post more :/
Posted by Thelord444 2 years ago
6 hours remain, hope my opponent doesn't go out now :/
No votes have been placed for this debate.