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

Should ISIS affected areas be bombed?

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: 7/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 78051
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




-Mahatma Gandhi
Bombing everything is not an option. That would lead to a high death count and would not cause complete eradication of the ISIS. Ground forces need to engage in a war and a recon must be done on the enemy camp before the attack as we do not want civilian deaths. The military must be able to differentiate between the ISIS militants and the civilians. Since, the ISIS has committed genocide, which is a war crime, instead of killing more civilians (collateral damage), only the ISIS militants must be targeted.


First of all thank you for making this debate, and I am looking forwards to having this debate. Currently I am on the line about this issue, but I will do my best to argue for the pro side. Now let's begin :)


First off I completely see where you are coming from and understand.

"Ground forces need to engage in a war and a recon must be done on the enemy camp before the attack"

If only it were that easy. While I believe ISIS to be violent savages, the face can not be ignored that they are deceptive masterminds. They will go to absolutely any length to get what they want. ISIS soldiers have nothing to lose. They believe once they die they will spend eternity in paradise, and that's one of the things that makes them so dangerous.

If we take ISIS lightly and they have their way the word will be harmed beyond what you can imagine. In fact some believe that ISIS wants to bring forth the apocalypse, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they want. ( ) ISIS has been rapidly capturing territory. Fairly recently ISIS captured Baghdad, while slaughtering citizens and military in the process, leaving the streets littered with bodies. ( ).

ISIS has been nothing but brutal. ISIS kills dozens of innocent people at a time for doing nothing but failing to conform with their beliefs. ISIS has been known to carry out public executions and Crucifixions. ISIS reaches out an manipulates those in 1st word countries and instructs them to "kill where you are". Those killings have no benefit. There is no gain for ISIS to have innocent people killed thousands of miles away, yet they do it anyways. ISIS has shown no mercy to anyone whether it be civilians, military, the religious or impressionable youth they manipulate. ISIS simply knows no mercy. They will not show us mercy and will destroy us the instant they have the opportunity. So we should not show them mercy. (

Airstrikes against ISIS have been our best method of fighting them. Very little to no casualties on our side, and most importantly very effective. We can use airstrikes and bombings to strategically target strike points, take out military leaders and drive ISIS into submission. 500 pound bombs being dropped on your head will take away your will to fight very quickly.
According to these two out of many reports airstrikes and bombings against ISIS are working and are very effective.

The only downside to it is the unfortunate reality of civilian casualties. With bombings there will inevitably be civilians who will lose their lives in the blast. Many people believe that because of this we should not bomb ISIS, but there are a few key points they are missing. 1. Some civilian casualties are absolutely inevitable in war. No matter what we do they can not be avoided. 2. These attacks are done by talented, trained military professionals. They know what they are doing and they know how to minimize civilian casualties and they will do so. Still not convinced? Well let me help you think about it in a different way.

The death count for the people ISIS has murdered is around 170,000. Those 170,00 people probably had friends, families and maybe even lovers, and now they're gone. Many of them brutally murdered by ISIS. The question I have for ISIS is: Why? Why did all of these people have to die. Well it seems there really is no good reason for their death. Many of them were murdered for their religion or for standing in ISIS' way. ( Now sure if we bomb ISIS there will be some civilian casualties, but that number will be absolutely nowhere near the number of innocent people ISIS has slaughtered. If these bomb strikes can put a stop to this genocide then we will save countless lives, even though many lives will be lost in the process.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1


Is killing innocent people to save other civilians a good deed? Wouldn't the ISIS show arrogance if we start bombing it? "Islamic State group has reportedly developed a nuclear weapon made from radioactive material stolen from an Iraqi university, according to a militant who claims insider knowledge." (source: Going for a war with the most advanced anti social organization which possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be disastrous. We don't want any sort of nuclear war. And by recon, I meant we need to analyze the opponent's strength before attacking. If we just bomb a few ISIS affected areas, that wouldn't lead to their end. We cannot afford to engage ourselves in a nuclear war, which might lead to a huge death count. We need to look at all aspects before going on a war, especially with WMD equipped organizations.


"Is killing innocent people to save other civilians a good deed" This is outright misleading and completely academically dishonest. You are implying we are intentionally killing citizens which is outright not true. We are targeting ISIS militants and unfortunately some citizens may be lost in the process.

"Wouldn't the ISIS show arrogance if we start bombing it?" I think it's completely fair to say ISIS is beyond arrogant already.
Also we have been bombing ISIS for quite some time now and their behavior is no worse than it was previously.

"Going for a war with the most advanced anti social organization which possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be disastrous." 1. We are already at war with ISIS, so I don't see your point. 2. If you look at the article you cited you will see this quote: " The U.N. nuclear agency has similarly played down the threat, saying that the material ISIS likely possessed was "low-grade" and did not pose a major threat, according to NBC. It is also unlikely that ISIS would be capable of transporting a nuclear weapon, if it existed, outside of Syria or Iraq, reported the Mirror." So in other words even if ISIS has nuclear weapons it is not a major threat, for it is a weak bomb and they can't do much with it. 3. It is not confirmed that ISIS has nuclear weapons, it could very well be a bluff or a scare-tactic.

"And by recon, I meant we need to analyze the opponent's strength before attacking" Let me remind you of what the resolution is. Resolution: Should ISIS affected areas be bombed? I'm not saying recon and attacks should not be done. I am saying that bombings should happen. There is not really any reason we can't do both. Use bomb strikes to put ISIS in a weakened state then an attack could take place.

"We cannot afford to engage ourselves in a nuclear war" 1. See previous points. 2. I really don't see your point with this. A direct raid/attack would be seen just as much, if not more, of an attack than airstrikes. 3. Even if ISIS does have one or two nuclear bombs they don't have the power or technology to use them to attack other nations, much less start a nuclear war.

The most important points of mine that you have dropped is that 1. ISIS airstrikes have been undeniably effective, therefore you can logically connect it will help lead to the downfall of ISIS. 2. Performing airstrikes will in the long run save a lot more innocent lives than it takes. 3. No matter how we chose to fight ISIS there will inevitably be civilian casualties and your alternative to bombing is no exception.

The reason bombing is such an effective strategy is there is no risk with an almost guaranteed reward. We will almost never have to deal with casualties. We can hit ISIS without them being able to see or hit us back. It's every strategist's dream.

So now let's take a look at the resolution again "Should ISIS affected areas be bombed?" What I have to prove is that ISIS areas should be bombed. I think it's fair to say that I have backed up my claims with plenty of evidence. I have proved that ISIS areas should be bombed because it's a safe, efficient military strategy, and most importantly it works. Now it is my opponents job to prove we should not bomb ISIS. My opponent has stated that bombing should not be done because there will be some civilian casualties. I have responded to this by saying that we will be saving more lives than we take, and that civilian casualties are inevitable. My opponent has stated that bombings will not wipe out ISIS and has given absolutely no supporting evidence, but much rather just states it. I have rebutted this by saying bombings and air strikes actually do work and I have backed up my claims with evidence, despite this my opponent still says it won't help take out ISIS while providing no evidence to support that. Lastly my opponent says we shouldn't bomb ISIS, because they might have one nuclear weapon. I have rebutted this claim by saying 1. Chances are they don't actually have a nuclear bomb. 2. According to the U.N. Nuclear Agency it is not a major threat. 3. We are already at war with ISIS and I don't see how bombing them is any more likely to cause a nuclear war than the ground strikes you recommended.
Debate Round No. 2


xxburgerfan forfeited this round.


It appears con has forfeited. Good debate. Please vote pro :)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: sara_ann_dee// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: PRO had better conduct because he did not forfeit a round. PRO avoided making any spelling or grammatical errors in his argument - something his opponent did not do (he made a lot of errors). PRO for the sources section because he was the only side to actually cite a source/s. Overall, PRO had a better argument because he did not forfeit and presented more evidence and did a better job at persuading viewers to his side.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G: Merely making grammatical errors is not enough justification for this point. The errors need to make the arguments substantially more difficult to understand, and that is apparently not the case here. (2) Sources: Con did actually provide a source. Merely having more sources is also not justification enough for giving these points. A voter needs to justify how the sources given contribute to the substance of the debate. (3) Arguments: The voter doesn't explain their decision here in any depth. The forfeit did not contribute to the veracity of Pro's arguments. While the evidence may have supported Con's arguments, it does not mean that the arguments themselves were better. And stating that one side "did a better job at persuading viewers to his side" does not explain how the arguments were persuasive, or which arguments were persuasive.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty cut and dry. Con tried to force Pro into a box with his case, and Pro showed how bombings can include things like recon and targeting, and that any other method would also result in tremendous loss of civilian lives. Pro establishes that the threat from ISIS effectively remains the same no matter what we do, but that bombing ISIS is likely to do more harm than good by reducing current massacres and their capacity for future massacres. Con wasn't responsive to any of this reasoning. The nuclear threat seems unlikely at best and problematic in any case at worst, so that doesn't suffice as a reason not to bomb. Ergo, I vote Pro. Conduct to Pro as well for the forfeit.