The Instigator
Hellfire
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Should we nuke 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 4 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 868 times Debate No: 73001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Hellfire

Pro

Yes, we should. Because, ISIS is really threatening us. We know that ISIS is coming for us. Shouldn't we just nuke all of ISIS? Like come on! This is a serious problem!! Why wait and let them come make the first move? Doesn't that seem a little extreme? I mean they got firepower that we can't control, besides we would be no match without the help of a nuke. Besides look at Russia, we can't even take them out! Now we are waiting like some babies and not taking action. Plus, they killed 2 of our Journalists! 2!!!! I know if I was threatened like this, I would kill them all off and to make sure they DON'T come back.
bsh1

Con

Thanks to Hellfire for instigating. I will now briefly present my argument.

1. Our Current Strategy is Working

The coalition Obama assembled and led (as well as the Kurdish forces Obama supports) has really turned the tide back in favor of the new Iraqi government. [1, 2, 3] Recently, Iraqi forces took back the city of Tikrit, an important strategic location, from ISIS, as well. [4]

2. Using Nukes would Alienate our Allies

There are strong international norms--or taboos [5]--against the use of nuclear weapons to resolve problems. Our allies would likely see this as us going off the reservation, and would make them far less willing to work with us. There would be international condemnation for using WMDs (which are likely to kill more civilians than traditional airstrikes) and the coalition that we built would fall apart, and international support for the anti-ISIS movement would collapse.

3. ISIS is not a Significant, Immediate Threat to the Homeland

"[O]f the 29 Americans who have gone to fight with the Somali jihadist group al-Shabab, none have tried to commit terrorism against the United States. One reason is that many of them ended up dead. Press coverage of ISIS often ignores the fact that, in the past, the group has not targeted the American homeland. Jihadist groups, even monstrous ones, don’t inevitably go after the United States." [6]

4. Nuclear Weapons would make ISIS more Dangerous

(a) It would add fuel to ISIS's message that the West is full of hypocrites and is immoral and anti-Islamic. Perception matter, and the use of nukes, because it breaches global norms, would really shock the world, and give ISIS an ever stronger pitch to recruiters.

(b) It would likely cause ISIS to switch strategies from fighting in the Levant to striking the U.S. It would need to seek revenge for the extraordinary damage the WMDs did, and it would attempt to retaliate in kind.

(c) It would make martyrs out of those who died, inspiring other ISIS militants and Islamic groups.

(d) It would turn Iraqi and Syrian civilians against us, as many of them would invariably die in any nuclear strike(s).

5. Conclusion

Not every threat to the U.S. needs to or can be resolved via nuclear weapons. In the case of ISIS, nuclear weapons would only exacerbate the crisis by hurting our global and regional alliances, validating ISIS propaganda, and making the ISIS fighters martyrs to their compatriots. Moreover, our current strategy is working, and ISIS poses no existential threat to the U.S. in its current state, so there is no logical reason to escalate the situation at this time. Thus, the topic is negated.

6. Sources

1 - http://rudaw.net...
2 - http://news.usni.org...
3 - http://www.cnn.com...
4 - http://www.newsweek.com...
5 - http://www.cambridge.org...
6 - http://www.theatlantic.com...

Thanks! Over to Pro...
Debate Round No. 1
Hellfire

Pro

I think we should because without the more people to fight against ISIS we would die off fast and then we would become slaves! But, if we act fast we can nuke ISIS before they get a chance to nuke us. We would be able to use the nuke and get rid of it so we don't have to worry about someone that is stupid and accidentally pressing the big button that launches the nuke and destroys us all.
bsh1

Con

Thanks again to Pro.

Pro's arguments boarder of the absurdly incoherent, and fail to rebut any of the points I raised. Pro asserts, rather blindly and without warrant, that if we fail to nuke ISIS we will die off fighting them. This is clearly not true in light of the fact that we are crippling ISIS right now, and have taken only 11 U.S. casualties compared to 6,000 ISIS casualties. [1, 2]

Pro then suggests ISIS will nuke us, but this leaves the world of logic and enters the realm of hysteria-laden fantasy. Unless Pro can show it is likely that ISIS, which is currently being successfully turned back, will acquire a nuke, then there is no reason to weigh this possibility at all.

Next Pro writes: "We would be able to use the nuke and get rid of it so we don't have to worry about someone that is stupid and accidentally pressing the big button that launches the nuke and destroys us all." I am not sure what on Earth Pro is talking about, particularly since launching one nuke--or even a few dozen--isn't going to exhaust our stockpiles.
Debate Round No. 2
Hellfire

Pro

Hellfire forfeited this round.
bsh1

Con

Extend my arguments. Vote Con.

Also, please don't allow Pro to make new arguments in the last round as this would be grossly unfair to me.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Lol...I thought Pro had another round...
Posted by TheMajesticDudette 2 years ago
TheMajesticDudette
No. Nuking would only make the ISIS supporters angrier. They might form a small army that might get bigger and attack us! I know that sounds silly, but anything can happen when it comes to violent politics and war.

In conclusion: Let's war with them logically yet carefully in a strong way.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Hellfirebsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never constructed a coherent case, but instead blurted random arguments in favour of the resolution and never referenced any of them. Pure speculation. Meanwhile, Con constructed a referenced case, of which wasn't even touched by Pro. I find the impact of Con's points to be heavier than the impact of random bare assertions and speculation, so arguments and sources go to Con. Conduct to Con too for the Pro's round forfeit at the end.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Hellfirebsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con, as he was the only one to use sources. Args go to Con as well, as Pro dropped all of them. Con had better S&G, so the point naturally goes to him. Conduct: FF by Pro.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Hellfirebsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro made no attempt to refute Con's arguments. Con used the only sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Hellfirebsh1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, and had no sources.