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

War or Not? ISIS Issues

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: 9/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,767 times Debate No: 61627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Many democrats have said that the struggle with ISIS is not a war, but rather a counter-terrorist movement. This is bull crap. ISIS has 30,000 members now, and a few air strikes will not cut it. Also, just because there are American boots on the ground fighting ISIS, this does not mean that it is not a war. However, many liberals choose to change the definition of war all so that they can say the War on Terror is over. Why would they do this? So that in November when Election Day comes, Democrats look better on the ballot. These liberals do not want what is best for the American people by eliminating this serious threat, rather they are interested in the political aspect of it so that they can be elected to screw up even more. ISIS is directly threatening America, but Obama chooses to rely on the allies he doesn't have. Britain, Germany, and Turkey were all asked to aid in this "prolonged counter-terrorism movement", but due to Obama's terrible foreign policy nobody is helping.


I accept the challenge.

I will demonstrate that the conflict with the self proclaimed Islamist State is a continuation of anti-terror measures that have been previously adopted. ISIS is one head of a hydra we call terrorism, something on going and that directly defies the conventions of 'War' amongst the world community.

We are not at war with ISIS any more specifically than we are at war with 'Drugs', 'Poverty', or 'Illiteracy'.
Debate Round No. 1


The White House and Pentagon have recently declared war on ISIS, Friday to be exact, so there's my point proven. And since that is settled, we shall now debate the topic of what to do to ISIS.

I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists. Air strikes are a good first move, but it is not enough to stop this force. We need to continue to pound them with air strikes while providing tactical assaults from the ground. As I said before, nobody is doing anything because they want to say that they successfully gave peace to Iraq so their politcal status will be improved for the November elections. To add to that point, we need to realize that dealing with ISIS is not a political issue. They are a direct threat to the U.S., and need to be taken as such.


"Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, used the language at least three times during his daily briefing with reporters. "The U.S. is at war with ISIL in the same way the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda," he said, using an alternate acronym for the group.", from NBC news.

Also: "Minutes earlier, a Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, used similar terminology. "This is not the Iraq war of 2002," he told reporters. "But, make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL, in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates." , from the same source.

"I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists." --- and there in lay the problem. In the name of fighting the hydra of terrorism, we insert ourselves into more nations, earning us more enemies. There is no surety that should this head get cut off that some other group of malcontent radicals won't just fill in, depleting our resources further.
Debate Round No. 2


We need to cut off this head of the hydra because it will become way too powerful. It will take over Iraq, Syria, other Middle Eastern Countries, and even Egypt (ISIL: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant- the Levant is a term that describes Israel, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt). ISIL is trying to create an Islamic Empire similar to that which existed in the 1300's. It spanned from Iraq to Egypt, and was the world's superpower at the time. If this happens, ISIL will be a severe threat to the U.S.

You are correct in saying that if this head is cut off, others will grow, and that is certainly true. However, this is why troops need to remain in the Middle East until those countries can LEGITAMATELY defend themselves. This means no more cutbacks on the military. If there are troops in the Middle East constantly, these kinds of radical terrorists groups can be stopped before they can have a major effect on the world.


If there are troops in the Mid East constantly, what need of their own military do developing Mid Eastern countries like Iraq have?

Full on war and their subsequent occupation is what causes our military spending to skyrocket, which is why we cannot engage these situations as 'War' in the expected sense of the word. War has a financial toll on those fighting it. Dropping quarter million dollar ordinance on 6 men in a 'beater' pickup with some 200 dollar black market AKs (or worse, scavenged US and Soviet Era arms from abandon sites) puts us at a marked disadvantage with no foreseeable gain. We have clandestine agencies and covert operatives for situations like these, which dollar for dollar can have a much bigger impact with minimal exposure.

As it was stated by Rear Admiral Kirby, "This is not the Iraq war of 2002". Fighting terrorism requires technology and secrecy, the exact weapons our enemies cannot use (by definition) to spread their ideals.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
The newly elected and sovereign state of Iraq would not offer the US a Status of Forces Agreement past late December of 2011. This means the US would not get immunity for conducting itself in defense of Iraq or itself, and would be held to the region's laws. Much like the defeat of Japan and Germany, the US was granted this SoFA to essentially act as the deposed countries' military until suitable replacement and training could be conducted.

With Iraq, we were told to hit the bricks. Sure, it was unpopular with the public, but not OUR public. Iraqi elected officials were getting pressure from their own folks to get us out of there. Hence, blaming this on Bush, the US, Obama, the Brits, its all posturing for current elections at home. Until such time as the Iraqi people fight and win for their own freedom, this current situation will simple be repeated.
Posted by grotto77 2 years ago
This all begins with war on Iraq 2. Americans invaded Iraq 1) to be present in the region and collect inteligence on terrorism 2) use 9/11 and WMD threat as an excuse to secure oil contracts 3) to fraud billions of taxpayers money through weapon industry 4) they had utmost secret reasons to invade, and they never could tell. Based on published information, the invasion was a bad idea, and it happened under false pretenses (Links to Al-Qaeda and WMD). The military campaign was a disaster. This being said, the Americans and the British are fully responsible for the ISIS coming to power, because they have withdrawn from the country too soon to meet the wishes of public, however this was a matter of military strategy and security of the whole region. Going to war to fight ISIS in full extent (meaning not just drone and air strikes) will not be popular, there will be casualties, but I'd hate to see all the allied countries in Op. Iraqi freedom to mess up and do not clean up. If were confident enough to come and turn the place around, we gotta make sure it stands on its need and Iraqi population can govern itself in peace and prosperity. Otherwise we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Posted by Christian27 2 years ago
need a contender for this debate:
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
The Syrian rebels just signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS. I told you we couldn't trust them. The Syrian campaign is pointless now.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Spedman. The kurds are already knee deep in this conflict.And if I remember , they did not persecute Christians or other religions. It was ISIS that drove Christians from their homes if they would not convert.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Bringing any Arab nation into this is a potential risk. NATO is fine on its own we only need Arab nations to stop giving aid to ISIS.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I am with that fella at the bottom.We should arm the Kurds to the teeth.They have been and will be our allies in that region. Why try to get big countries with us that would be reluctant to side with Obama in any kind of conflict. Weak does not even begin to describe him.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
"...Why do people with no concept ..." --- In the interest of myself and my opponent, why are you positing this before any actual arguments have been placed? Wouldn't this opinion be better served after reading each's positions on the matter?
Posted by Rational_Thought 2 years ago
Why do people with no concept of international political/nation history always have to debate these topics.
Posted by Spedman 2 years ago
Interesting topic I think both of you are right. While we are in technicality at war with ISIS we are not fighting a full-scale war against them. I do not think boots on the ground is a good idea.....yet. For now we need to support the Kurdish war-effort as best we can. The Syrian rebels should not and cannot be trusted plain and simple. Their previous history with al-Qaeda affiliates makes them a potential risk. However, Assad is not someone we should support or side with. Its a messed up situation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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: I can't figure out what debate each side wants to have. Con wants to discuss what it means to be at war and whether the War on Terror is equivalent to a declaration of war, and Pro wants to have... it looks like multiple debates, including, but not limited to, American foreign policy, American leadership, the War Powers Act (which is what allows presidents to "declare war"), and generally just whether liberals suck. I think Pro just wanted to spend this debate venting, and as he fails to produce a cohesive case, he also fails to meet any possible burden, and therefore I award Con the debate, both by default and on the basis that he at least tried to bring some clarity to the debate.