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

Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,863 times Debate No: 60803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




It's no secret that ISIS is storming through Iraq trying to make it an Islamic state. So then the question becomes, What do we do about it? I strongly believe that we need to intervene. If we allow this to grow then the entire Iraq war was for nothing.


I accept this debate.

I will contend against US intervention with ISIS.

As it does not seem to be prohibited, I will begin my argument with the following statement: If the US were to intervene they would inevitably kill/injure muslim civilians, this will create a false Crusader threat, which will amplify the appeal of ISIS. Any evidence of a western country killing innocents would be of enormous value to ISIS in the form of propaganda, which they could in turn use to radicalize more muslims, based on their abuse of the "War on islam." I believe that instead we should focus on humanitarian efforts to help the displaced civilians.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to thank you for taking this argument.

I agree that it would be inevitable that we would have civilian casualties. But, that is hardly an argument when you consider the alternative. ISIS is a violent extremist group that is tearing through the middle east with little consideration for human life. Those who are of different religion or belief system are given the choice to convert or die. This is a much higher loss of innocent lives than anything the U.S. would do and I find it hard to believe that people would choose ISIS over Americans who are just trying to stop this injustice. These people do not care who they hurt and are willing to die for their cause. It is my firm belief that the fastest most effective way of helping these people is to remove their oppressor entirely.


In the interest of fairness, I have placed no rebuttals to your round 2 argument, and unless you disagree, I believe we should limit round 3 to rebuttals only.

I agree that the US should make humanitarian efforts in Iraq in order to help those displaced by ISIS. However, becoming further militarily involved will result in consequences for the US. The only solution that will work long-term is not a violent reordering of the middle east, but a political solution. In order to defeat ISIS, we must undermine one of their leading principals, that Muslims are under attack by the 'Crusading west.'

Also, how would the US justify intervening against ISIS in Iraq, but not against Assad in Syria? This would send a message to the middle east that the US will only intervene when it's own prosperity is at stake. We must not play into the Jihadist's hands, but rather come to a political solution. The only was to defeat ISIS is ideologically.

On one final note, I would like to add that I am not totally against military intervention in Iraq, especially if the Iraqi military cannot pull itself together. However, this intervention MUST be at the hands of a Sunni-Muslim majority country, as this would deal a major blow to ISIS's "War on Islam" rhetoric.
Debate Round No. 2


Of course in the long term it would make sense that it only works with political solutions. However, Iraq seemingly has little to no resistance against ISIS. The people who are doing this do not care or have any reason to listen to us. A political solution to this problem is just not going to happen in the time frame that we have to work with. What i'm suggesting is no a 'violent reordering of the middle east', but is a calculate strike against specific targets that threaten the safety of everyone. Once we have taken ISIS out of relevance, then we can work on fixing all of the political injustices that still exist.

In response to your comments about Assad, I think that the truth of the matter is that the U.S. will only intervene when it poses a threat to us. Why would we do any different? We have enough problems of our own here at home that need to be addressed. Getting involved in foreign affairs would be ridiculous and costly if it posses no immediate threat to us. I am not promoting American exceptionalism, but simply saying that the U.S. is not in a good position to be getting involved in things that don't effect us.


In an effort to remain fair, I have attempted to limit this round to rebuttals only.

You write that the inevitability of civilian casualties is hardly an argument when the alternative is considered. The alternative being that ISIS continues its 'rampage' in Iraq? The civilian casualties are not the problem. It's the repercussions they would cause that would have a negative effect on the US in this 'war'. The loss of innocent life is unfortunate, tragic even, but if we did intervene, ISIS would use the argument that the 'crusading' West is murdering innocent Muslims. Using this propaganda, ISIS would grow stronger, as more every day Muslims would be radicalized. It is more rational to attempt to help those innocents through humanitarian efforts and leave ISIS alone for now. I know it may seem hard to believe to you, but people WILL choose ISIS over the US, and they will be the ones that end up fighting the US. You believe that removing their oppressor in its entirety is the fastest and most effective way to help these people. Do you also believe that our adventure in Iraq has been a great success? How much longer do you expect it will take to complete that mission? Removing their oppressor in the manner you suggest would result in the radicalization of more Muslims and a bloodbath between ISIS and the US.

I noticed that you added new arguments to your round 3 submission. You have presented no evidence that ISIS poses an immediate threat to the US. While claiming not to be promoting American exceptionalism, you suggest that we can work on all the political injustices that still exist without giving one example of where this strategy has worked. You imply, without support, that ISIS is currently relevant.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lukeyboy 2 years ago
wipe it out with a rather large nuclear bomb... if it was somehow possible to get the innocent out of the way and the ISIS idiots to stay put it would be the best option. it is no secret that they are brainwashing/forcing people into the most extreme form of sharia law known. if the western world doesn't intervene now and bring a total stop to it we will be seriously regretted when Russia kicks off with there next Nazi style attack on who knows. what will be worse for the US and its allies? possible war with Russia in the future , or possible war with Russia in the future plus war with a bunch of rag wearing imbosiles beheading everyone who wont convert to their ridiculous way of life. take a look on youtube at the vast amount of videos of torture, beheading and slaughter posted by ISIS and wake up to how fast their culture is forcebly spreading. the sooner it is stopped the better. fast effective results are needed! without the loss of our good people who should never have to face this bull****. it is already too late americans/brits + others are fighting for ISIS in Syria. the world or as much of it as possible could unite and stop this but will we just watch it happen infront of our eyes? most likely! 1.2 billion muslims in the world, 15-25% extremists. that's 300,000,000 people who want to desrtroy us.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
I would like to take this one but excuse my saying I think it would be noob sniping. The resolution is presumably - The US should send troops to stop the expansion of IS.
If you are happy with this resolution and the fact that IS cannot be defeated without invading Syria I am happy to take this.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
Another interesting fact: The US only only turned on ISIS when 40,000 people were about to be slaughtered.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
Interesting fact: The organization that is now ravaging Iraq (and being bombed by US) is the same organization that the US SUPPORTED in the Syrian crisis.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro kept a steady hold on his argument and refuted most of Con's claims (i.e. he was very correct when rebutting Con's Assad comments). No one used sources...conduct is tied since they both kept their composure...Overall I must say that Pro won the debate because of his resolution which was never quite debunked by Con.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's ISIS aggression case was a one-sided perspective, without considering the implications of the other side, which Con did in con's arguments when Con mentioned Assad & the "War on Islam" Propaganda point.