The Instigator
Lexus
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Dilara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Paris attacks were justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,237 times Debate No: 82842
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (106)
Votes (1)

 

Lexus

Pro

Resolved: on balance, the Paris attacks were justified.

Definitions:
on balance - with all things considered
Paris attacks - a group of terror attacks in the capital of France, Paris, in the evening of 13 November 2015
justified - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair

Rules:
1. Definitions are not contestable.
2. Don't accept if you're TheHitchslap

You argue first round. I have set the voter Elo to 3000 so that the Westerners whose blood was shed in Paris do not frown upon me and attack me through what they consider a useful outlet when in actuality the outlet of their anger, a vote, does not distort the truth!

Allah yusallmak!
Dilara

Con

The Paris attacks were not justified. You should not kill innocent people because they live in a country with a government that does things you don't like. You can not deny them of their lives and happiness because of that. http://news.sky.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Pro

Thank you, fellow Sunni daughter of Allah.

In this round I will both provide a constructive argument for why these are justified that is two-pronged, and a rebuttal against my opponent's entire constructive case. I will provide some reasons for why these Paris attacks were justified, but I ask the bloodied and harmed Westerners who view this debate to not take their personal biases into account, rather just what is said in this debate - tabula rasa judging if you will!

Before I begin, I want to point out that the resolution is asking if what the Islamic fighters did in Paris was for good reason or based in morality (which is too sketchy for a debate among this userbase, so it is wise to interpret moral to mean good reasoned). So if I prove that if they did it for a good reason overall, then I should win.

CASE
Contention 1. These attacks will bring about the Dajjal, the second coming of Jesus, and will lead Islam to rule the world.
Graeme Wood, March 2015, writes:
  • An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

This means that if we contiue to attack the West then we will influence their allies (the de facto ally of the West is Iran in the fight against ISIS) into fostering the Dajjal into existence (for, if there is no reason for Iran to hate ISIS, then why would the Dajjal rise?). Further, the Dajjal rising from the ashes of Paris will cause a. a death toll in ISIS that is greater than that of the attacks in Paris which effectively justifies the action of the terrorists in Paris for their own blood is shed (for there are more than 5000 ISIS members, and only 5000 will remain) and b. Islam will reign true throughout the world unattacked.

This justifies the Parisian attacks for two reasons: there is direct justice served from the deaths of ISIS members, and because Islam will foster throughout the world (ISIS did this for a good reason, for their religion says that they should spread it to the blind to give them sight of the truth). This alone should be enough to affirm the resolution.

REBUTTALS
My opponent's entire case can be summed up as: they didn't deserve to die. But, there is retribution from the deaths of many more ISIS members that justify this attack, and Islam is fostered because they died.

Further, they actually did deserve to die, because they are instruments in what Graeme Wood calls the "Army of Rome" (which means the army of the West) - which will give rise to the Dajjal and will try to give rise to the apocolypse. If we did not kill at least some of the instruments in this Roman army, then there is a possibility of a widespread apocolypse to happen at a later date than a sooner one (apocolypse is good in this sense; pre-apocolypse is anti-Islamic and the post-apocolpyse, which isn't actually apocolyptic, is pro-Islam and pro-power) - something that means that we cannot acheive Allah's full will.

So, they are instruments of the Roman Army, so they deserved to die - this alone breaks your entire negative case.

Allah yusallmak!

Dilara

Con

I seriously think you're a troll.
The world is fine with a diversity in religion. We can all have different beliefs. The world would be very dull without that ideological diversity. Even if you do want to spread your religion, you can do so peacefully. Attacks like this only turn people against Islam and Muslims, as the many recent hate crimes against Muslims show.
The people who were killed did not personally take part in killing ISIS members. They should not suffer for what their governments did. What their governments did was justified, as ISIS is an evil group made up of blood thirsty murderers who throw gays off of buildings, rape women and kill innocent people--like in Paris. ISIS fighters deserve to die.
Muslims also died in the Paris attacks.
Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Pro

"I seriously think you're a troll."
Hurtful.

"The world is fine with a diversity in religion. We can all have different beliefs. The world would be very dull without that ideological diversity. Even if you do want to spread your religion, you can do so peacefully. Attacks like this only turn people against Islam and Muslims, as the many recent hate crimes against Muslims show."
Yes, it will reinforce the Roman Army's attack on Islam and will bring about the Dajjal, something good I claim and something you fail to refute. We need to do this, as I claim, to spread the True law around the world - you do not attack this, saying that the way that we do this is bad. However, the Dajjal is the only way we can do this! Claiming that we need to do it peacefully is impossible.

"The people who were killed did not personally take part in killing ISIS members."
And the ISIS members to die did not kill them. Still, the actions of the group are justified for they die for their actions! Something you claim and I agree to be good.

"They should not suffer for what their governments did. What their governments did was justified"
Without evidence I can claim the contrary and be as correct as you.

"as ISIS is an evil group made up of blood thirsty murderers who throw gays off of buildings, rape women and kill innocent people--like in Paris. ISIS fighters deserve to die."
Non-sequiter. They WILL die for their actions - you agree this to be good, therefore you concede the debate. They kill innocents to bring the Dajjal back - you do not fight this, this means that you concede the Dajjal will come.

My opponent fails to attack any of my case with substance besides just what they claim to be 'true'. They made no actual arguments for their own side, just claiming that I am a troll and saying that ISIS is bad and deserve to die (the latter I agree to, and this is actually the crux of my case!)

As always, allah yusallmak!
Dilara

Con

I can not believe I am having this conversation. You are either a troll or mentally ill. All the religious books have stuff that doesn't make sense in them. You can not follow everything in your religious book.
The ISIS members to be killed did take part in violence against innocent people or at least supported it. The Paris victims did not take part in or support violence against innocent people.
ISIS members support ISIS and their horrible actions. Not all French people support their governments actions.
Do you think its ok to kill innocent people?
Debate Round No. 3
Lexus

Pro

Besides a faulty appeal to emotion my opponent has not offered a single constructive argument, nor have they rebutted any of mine, just saying that I am not to be believed because "[I am] mentally ill" or a "troll".

Extend all dropped arguments. My opponent drops the Dajjal. My opponent drops the Roman Army and attacking it brings the Dajjal. They just say it is not moral, but when we look at it, the blood of ISIS is shed.

Easily vote aff because you have no reason to vote neg besides being a bloodied Roman armyman.
Dilara

Con

Vote for me because I'm not the blood thirsty psychopath!!!!!!!!!!
My argument is that innocent people should not be killed.
Debate Round No. 4
106 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Besides, on top of the murder and bloodlust, daesh engages in chattel slavery and sex trafficking. It's so vile it makes Cold Harbor and Pickett's Charge look noble, and makes the slave holding American rebel 150 look like decent folks on the side of right.

I almost can't believe anyone would think something so perverse is true.

There's only one word we have for this I debate, "Shame!" Shame on daesh and shame on you !
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I've never seen such incendiary rhetoric in my life. Hoping for Armageddon is evil in all cases. The western world is often villainous and hegemony is a vile thing to defend or be proud of. So is violence and holy war. Abraham Lincoln pointed out that often both sides of a bloody war invoke God in their favor, and likely neither is right.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
@liltankjj
"Interesting point that I must research. So Muslim faith belive in Jesus aswell? Not only as a prophet but a messiah?"
To be frank we care about Christ(pbuh) much more than Christians and we are sure that one day he will come back to this world.
Posted by shalal12 1 year ago
shalal12
@Lexus,
Salam,
Brother I just felt sorry when I read your idiotic arguments. You need to be educated under top Sunni religious teachers and not any stupid religious teachers to fill your brain with such silly sayings.
Christ(pbuh) and Mahdi(a.s.) need your help to fight with cruelness not justify such barbaric actions. You have no idea what Iranians are working for.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
ad hominem
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
Yea adhominem is never a good tactic.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

Conduct to Pro because Con frequently insults her, calling her mentally ill, a troll, and a "bloodthirsty psychopath." Arguments tied because Con doesn't have any offense (only appeals to emotion) and Pro's argument isn't sufficiently explained. I don't need to buy the Wood card, and Pro doesn't explain why the Wood card about the coming of Jesus and the Dajjal is correct. Lack of explanation means the judge discredits the argument in effort to be tabula rasa. Arguments tied. Conduct to Pro.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
I'm interested in learning more about Sharia law. If any one has non biased information do share.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
Now that's an interesting link thanks.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
The perfect justification.....
http://www.billionbibles.org...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
LexusDilaraTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments