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

Should the USA invade ISIS territory?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 75766
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I continue to hear on the news about ISIS beheading, causing terror, gaining ground, and the the media continues to ask the same question, "is the airstrike strategy working?". Obviously not. It's making me curious how oblivious our country is trying to be to this act of aggression by ISIS.

Now, I'm all for not being involved with foreign affairs, but it seems like we are in a time in which we have really no choice. The threat of ISIS is growing rapidly everyday, as they continue to expand their military (should say militia), and recruit. Let me put ISIS in the shoes of Nazi Germany in the 1930's-1940's. Nazi Germany continues to regain ground lost in WWI, while the UK and France do nothing, just warning Germany not to continue. Easily, during those times, the UK and France could have easily wiped Germany off the face of the earth, but they didn't. Instead, they waited until Germany was too powerful and overran so many countries, that Germany was actually able to make France fall, and make UK's life hang by a thread.

Is the US doing the same to ISIS?

Now, that's a big statement, considering Germany is a recognized country, and ISIS is more recognized as a terrorist group. However, we live in a time where nuclear weapons are in the hands of threatening powers (such as North Korea, Pakistan, Iran), and one of them (Iran) are relatively close to ISIS territory. Now, let's say Iraq is Poland, and ISIS is Germany. If ISIS continues to take over Iraq like Germany to Poland, eventually ISIS will control both Syria and Iraq. This is quite believable as well, considering Ramahdi was just recently taken.

ISIS shows that they are a threatening power, able to take down a US-trained Iraq army. If ISIS takes Iraq, they will be bordering Iran, which has nuclear weapons in development (or possibly already do.) Imagine if ISIS does in fact take control of Iran? It's extremely hard to believe, but it's also hard to believe that ISIS would be able to control Iraq and Syria 1 year prior to this day...

Now they are talking about ISIS spreading towards Libya, which would lead a path to Italy, a european country. Now, again, the minute ISIS sets foot into Italy militarily, NATO would immediately take action. However, what if by that time ISIS controls nuclear weapons, or spread so much that they control the whole middle east and are using fallen nation's weaponry?

I think that the more we wait, the more we don't want to get involved, but if we don't involved, we won't eventually have to wait, because they'll come to us.


Pro has the BoP.

IRAQ AND IRAN DO NOT HAVE NUKES. Your entire argument hinges off that one fact and they, and I will repeat, they do not have nukes! Cheney made money off the Iraq war because of the WMD scare.

Also ISIS is a small group that is no real threat to mainland America. Post-WW1 Germany had many treaties forced upon the country and it's military, because as evident before WW2 they can make these weapons and use their armies to attack. ISIS is completely different.

With that in mind, back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand and respect what you're saying, but I never stated Iraq having nuclear weapons. I never stated Iran had completely developed nuclear weapons. HOWEVER, them researching nuclear development, is an all-time high, which has been a national headline of the US-Iran nuclear deal for the past few months.

When I speak about Germany and ISIS comparisons, I am talking about imperialistic similiarities. I made myself clear stating that Germany was a country and ISIS was a mere terrorist group, and that they contrast in that way, however, it's simply comparing their imperialsm.

Threat to mainland America? Quite big, actually. 9/11 was the one of first few terrorist actions against the USA commenced by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a savage group that took the lives of almost 3,000 Americans (2,977) to be exact. ISIS, is not simply a 'savage group'. ISIS, as much as people would not like to acknowledge, acts like a country. It is a well-governed group. Manages their own economy, produces their own goods, provides education, health care, and laws. ISIS is just as much as, if not more of a threat than Al Qaeda. ISIS would not do as a distinct action as the 9/11 attacks, but would do something similiar that America has not experienced yet.

USA invaded Afghanistan due to Al Qaeda, a group that is not even close to as-governed as ISIS. ISIS has military equipment that Al Qaeda did not have. ISIS is making over 1 million a day from their controlled territory. ISIS controls more territory than Al -Qaeda did.

It is in the distant future, but it is quite obvious Syria will fall to ISIS, considering ISIS already controls half of Syria. It will be a few weeks or months now before ISIS attacks Baghdad, as Ramadi just fell.

I don't really see a legitimate statement on to as why USA should not invade ISIS territory to regain Syrian-Iraq territory, as well as possibly influence political viewpoints for both Syria and Iraq. ISIS is similar to a plague. If not stopped early on, it will have long, dangerous effects. It's not only ISIS territory, but if we fortale a later ISIS-collapse, anything in that territory will most likely be unstabe. So if ISIS takes the already unstable Syria, and ISIS collapses, the long-term effects will be dramastic.

Back to Con.


I'm going to start with some rebuttals.

"HOWEVER, them researching nuclear development, is an all-time high, which has been a national headline of the US-Iran nuclear deal for the past few months."
It's still research and the USA has been bombing the Middle East. If things do break down and agreement cannot be made, the USA can take it by force. According to NY Times, "American officials say even if Iran breaks the deal, it would not be able to develop enough material for a nuclear weapon for a year, giving the international community time to respond." This is not a sufficient enough reason to invade and it undermines your whole point about a mini-country with nukes argument.

"Threat to mainland America? Quite big, actually..."
Can Pro provide any evidence to support this big claim? Also even so what's the threat? Pro has failed to show any reasons why this is bad and would impact America besides his domino scenario. Also going with the Germany example, Germany was actively making weapons and warships and training in blitzkreig. I would like Pro to show any evidence of this, otherwise this is a baseless assertion. Also his point about their military prowess is hyperbolic since "...3-4% of the Iraqi military"s active-duty strength"

"...before ISIS attacks Baghdad"
How do you know this? Why do you think so? So far Pro only has guessed that ISIS is going to take over Syria and somehow this leads to the takeover of other countries. Unfortunately, stopping the Germany example, Germans wanted that racial cleansing while all ISIS has done is behead (still an atrocious crime) on their own land.

" ISIS is similar to a plague. If not stopped early on, it will have long, dangerous effects. It's not only ISIS territory,.."
That entire last round my opponent has given nothing but claims and I don't see how this conclusion can be reached.

Now even if your points were true, war is not going to stop ISIS. ISIS was born from a multitude of factors and it was caused especially by political tension. It ranges from tension between local groups, the civil war in Syria, the US invasion, and the US endorsement of the government in Baghdad which disenfranchises Sunni muslims.
Also getting involved in a religious war is painting a bulls-eye on the US. They will make another 9/11 if the US gets so involved. The US would have to take a side and the extremist from the other side will add US to the list of targets.
Pro has mentioned this and discounted it, but most Americans don't want to get into another foreign conflict. The public opinion was against the war in Iraq caused by the Bush administration, We don't want to repeat the past 10 years of war in the Middle East.

I apologize if the order might be scattered. Let's see what you have Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


magicMust forfeited this round.


Extend all and vote me!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BadGuy72 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 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: American ground attacks prove they work better , I agree with pro more than con .
Vote Placed by themoongirl 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 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though pro had better sources, I think that con really got his point through more clearly and made better arguments.