The Instigator
Koseph_Jony
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The US government is funding ISIS!

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 80113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Koseph_Jony

Pro

How is ISIS getting all of these weapons? The answer is simple... The government is paying for them! Open your eyes people!!! Guns aren't cheap pieces of equipment. And there is no way a few of Osama Bin Laden's grandchildren can afford as many weapons as they have!!! It's time to act people! It's time to stand up!!!!
Jonbonbon

Con

Well, thanks for this debate. While I do enjoy getting screamed at as much as the next guy, let's try to tone it down a little bit.

I just have a couple things to say.

1) In order for my opponent to win, he must substantiate his claims. His substatiation consist of claiming that guns aren't cheap and that the guns must be coming from somewhere. And exclamation points. He used lots of those to back up his claim. Here's the thing though, he's making a claim against the norm, which means he needs to back it up with some reputable evidence.

2) The guns could be coming from literally anywhere else. Some country in the Middle East could be funding them, some rich guy could be funding them, they could just steal everything they need, they could be supplied by a country that's not even in the Middle East that's not even America. There are so many other options that what my opponent presents is like a fraction of the possibilities out there. That means the resolution is not affirmed.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 1
Koseph_Jony

Pro

So, your first argument is you explaining your rulesand trying to tell honest voters what to do, basically calling them stupid, which they arent, so quit trying to bribe them to win. The guns COULD be coming from anywhere else but they AREN'T!!! What do you think the CIA does with their weapons overseas, why are they mysteriously dissapraring out of the blue. It is George Bush and the CIA funding ISIS in order to bring more attention away from the fact that they are brainwashing society, and it looks like it has worked on you.
Jonbonbon

Con

I'm just going to do a line-by-line style rebuttal:

"So, your first argument is you explaining your rulesand trying to tell honest voters what to do, basically calling them stupid, which they arent,"

Actually, I'm attempting to help the voters out. See, generally voters shouldn't vote for something that's not said in the debate. So I was explaining my personal standpoint against my opponent's case in order to ensure that voters could use that as a voting point for sure. Not that they couldn't vote on that anyway, but I'm just making this more comfortable and clear.


"so quit trying to bribe them to win."

That dangling modifier is killing me. But now onto the actual statement, I'm going to define bribe for you. Bribe: to try to get someone to do something by giving or promising something valuable (such as money) : to give or offer a bribe to (someone). [1] I didn't offer anyone anything to get them to vote for me. I just reminded everyone that you need to give us evidence.


"The guns COULD be coming from anywhere else but they AREN'T!!!"

You could at least give a little evidence considering the vast amount of possibilities you're just casually dismissing.


"What do you think the CIA does with their weapons overseas,"

Probably keep them handy or use them in some possible scenarios.


"why are they mysteriously dissapraring out of the blue."

Well you know how to use periods and exclamation points thoroughly, but I guess question marks got lost on you. Aside from my grammar nazi reign, I do have something to say about this. According to all of the evidence you posted in the last round, no guns are disappearing from the CIA.


"It is George Bush and the CIA funding ISIS in order to bring more attention away from the fact that they are brainwashing society, and it looks like it has worked on you."

Well, it's a good thing that George Bush still has a signficant pull in the CIA, and you still don't have evidence.


Now, I'm going to remind you of my arguments:

My opponent hasn't presented reputable evidence, and there are literally hundreds of other ways that ISIS could be getting their weapons. These two points haven't actually been properly disputed. My points carry on, and my opponent has nothing supporting his case. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
Koseph_Jony

Pro

My answer for where the guns are coming from was actually (believe it or not) on the next line. Where I state : the CIA and George Bush are supplying the guns for ISIS. It's simple math. By triangulating the location of a few marked weapons, we can determine that they are coming from government controlled areas. Simple.
Jonbonbon

Con

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I feel really ignored. It's not a good feeling. Probably worth a loss of conduct points if we're being fair about it.

I've asked my opponent several times throughout the debate to provide me with evidence, and he doesn't even acknowledge that I said that. The best he offered was to say that we could triangulate the position of where the guns were coming from.

First of all, that's not even how it works. Second of all, unless he actually posts the evidence, he is asking you as the voters to go to the Middle East, infiltrate an ISIS hideout, steal some of their guns, identify them, then do some incredibly difficult research to find out if those guns came from the CIA.

That's not even close to proper evidence.

So yeah, I saw where my opponent claimed that George Bush and the CIA we're finding ISIS, but I didn't see where that claim was backed up.

My opponent currently has the credibility that a bag of marshmallows has on the contents of earl grey tea.

Thank you for reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MisterMittens 2 years ago
MisterMittens
Seriously. George Bush isn't even president anymore.
If anything, you should be blaming Obama.
Duh.
>_>
Posted by MisterMittens 2 years ago
MisterMittens
So in sum, Pro's case is rejected and refuted by lack of empirical evidence, which was necessary for a claim such as his.
On the other hand, Con's case was largely unaddressed (except for the assertion that it is false, which I have no reason to buy)
I hope that explains my vote. :)
Posted by MisterMittens 2 years ago
MisterMittens
Ran out of room for the reason for vote.
Enjoy the freelo. ^_^
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Boom! Drop the mic.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Your move Koseph_Jony.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Yeah, I'm in college, so I actually have a life. I've been slowly writing my argument that will ultimately destroy you.
Posted by Syndikate 2 years ago
Syndikate
She still have 2 days to make a comeback.
Posted by Koseph_Jony 2 years ago
Koseph_Jony
Ha she gave up! Guess this means I win. Stand up people ISIS is indeed getting their weapons from the government. If not them, George Bush is giving them their weapons. Period.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MisterMittens 2 years ago
MisterMittens
Koseph_JonyJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 makes the claim that ISIS is receiving funding from the US Government. The only evidence he has to back up this assertion is another assertion: "the CIA and George Bush are supplying the guns for ISIS" Neither of which he has given any empirical data to prove. The CIA weapons are disappearing? I've heard no such thing. The guns aren't coming from elsewhere? That's a broad claim. Prove it. I have no reputable source to go by on any of these claims, and I'm not going to simply believe Pro's arguments just because he says so. Needless to say, Pro fails to fulfill his burden of proof. Now let's look at Con. It is implied that Con's win condition was to show that ISIS isn't funded by the US Gov. She gives me what I was probably supposed to assume is a case on probability: "there are literally hundreds of other ways that ISIS could be getting their weapons" A.k.a. it is likely that other sources are responsible for ISIS funding. While it's weak, Pro doesn't provide a refutation.