The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The world must intervene and eliminate 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,144 times Debate No: 60419
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This debate is about that IS - Islamic State must be eliminated, which I'll debate for. It's about that the west and the world should intervene. I'll support those arguments.

The debate structure will be:
round 1 for acceptance,
round 2 for case,
and round 3 rebuttal and conclusion.


I accept and await my opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe that the world cannot look when a power built on insanity and massmurdering that claims that it has the authority of the whole muslim world, can be watched by the world while they appropriating natural resources, massmurdering innocent children, women and men and is starting to achieve it's ambition. To get authority of the whole muslim world. I'll argue why in this debate.

IS or ISIS, is a terrorist organisation responsible for massmurdering of innocent children, women and men. It's a jihad group which means that if there will be a Islamic State, they would support jihads which correspond to the christian worlds crusaders. It has officially designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. That Saudi Arabia has officially designated IS to be a terrorist organisation, shows how insane they are when Saudi Arabia hasn't even officially designated Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organisation. IS doesn't just want to hurt every innocent child, women and man that isn't sunni muslims. It do also want to hurt it's own people that doesn't obey their strict rules. IS has proclaimed a caliphate, a caliphate is an absolute monarchy state and it's ruler has the title of "caliph" and is claimed by the state to be a successor to Muhammed. It has told their people that they're gonna conquer back Andalusia - south of Spain, conquer Israel and conquer Rome. People who don't agree to them, people who have ever said anything bad about them will be executed. Right at spot, even if it's in a shop gallery, on the street, wherever. When they occupy regions, anyone not believing in their insanity, anyone that hasn't the same culture as they have, have a huge risk of being raped, tortured or killed.

Why we must intervene and eliminate this insanity
I have a question for my opponent; Do you believe that it was unnecessary to intervene and free the people of Nazi Germany, do you think that we should have accepted what the Nazi Party did to the people and watch when they annihilated a whole religion?

I assume that your answer is NO! If we don't stop ISIS now while they don't have very stable foothold and free the people of Middle east of the threat and the subject of ISIS, we'll risk that they'll get stable foothold and then risk a war that probably will cause disastrous consequences. If we don't stop them they might try to annhiliate the jews, and then we'll have a second holocaust. We have seen, and I have proven above what they're are capable of. Letting ISIS succed is a threat to the whole west, letting ISIS succed is letting massmurdering go on in middle east. I don't think that anyone deserve this, and I don't understand how my opponent is willing to let this happend.


IS (Islamic State) Is a horrific terrorist organisation that is responsible for numerous horrific violations of human rights that is attempting to create a theocracy in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (as well as possibly Israel). That doesn't mean that we should eliminate them. Now I should first state that I do support the bombing of IS around Sinjar Mountain to free the Yezidi but that does not equate to us starting a war.

Getting Bogged Down

In 2001 the US and UK invaded Afghanistan to kill or capture a couple of hundred Al Qaeda operatives [1]. Thirteen years and 24,500 deaths later [2] [3] we are still there with no apparent reason. In Iraq in 2003 a coalition of mainly US and British troops invaded Iraq under the false pretence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction [4]. Eight years and half a million deaths later [5] the united states was virtually forced out of Iraq by the government there [6] leaving Iraq in a state which helped lead to the current crisis.

Unintended Consequences

There was a time when the iron fist of the Assad regime seemed to be the worst possible situation for Syria. After the Assad regime essentially declared war its people various western countries funded and armed the rebels [7]. These rebels turned out to be the Islamic State. During an another Iraq war what might be the unintended consequences?

False State

The state of Iraq is a false state, it was created by the British during the aftermath of the first world war [8]. It has at least three main regions. The Kurds in the north who have been trying to form their own nation for hundreds of yeas [9] they were able to achieve a degree of independence under the recent Iraqi government but now they are spinning loose [10]. There is the Sunni's in the west who seem to want to become part of Syria, possibly even an Islamic Kalafate [11]. Finally there are the Shia in the south who seem to want to become part of Iran and who Iran fought a war over for eight years in the 1980's [12]. If the outside world gets involved with Iraq we could end up further destabilizing the region.








[8] "The Middle East in the twentieth century" by Martin Sicker

[9] Ozoglu, Hakan "Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries"



Debate Round No. 2


LudwigEmanuel forfeited this round.


I guess that's the debate over then.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro and superior argumentation by Con.