Islamic State is good.

FRAMEWORK:The opposition has argued from ad hominem and has still argued from etymology. He has attempted to refute the validity of the sites presented, but not the point themselves. In this, I contend that my points are still all affirmed at this point. If the opposition has noticed, all my points remain more or less affirmed, for the fallacious argument from etymology and many other disturbances of human reasoning observed here is seen by me as fallacious and wholly invalid (and highly unsound). Moving the goalposts will not work in this debate, unfortunately, and this is not an "on balance" resolution.O1. IS kills Civilians and ChildrenAgain, if we look at the parameters of this debate, we are not debating an "on balance" resolution. We are arguing whether the Islamic State is good in a basis of the parameters of good that has been consented throughout the debate. Let us firstly refute what is claimed here via a logical sense.The opposition goes on with a vague and ambiguous "source analysis" of the validity of the sources. This is a fallacy formally called arguments from etymology. Secondly, quite recently, a decree from the Islamic State allowed for the "enslavement of Christian and Jewish" women of the warring sides. [1] Apart from this, there are now instances of Islamic State now killing and stoning adulterers in accordance to strict Sharia Law [2]. OCHR [3] reports this: On 4 August, ISIL fighters reportedly attempted to ascend from the base of Jabal Sinjar, killing 30 Yezidi men and abducting a number of women. UNAMI/OHCHR received calls directly from people trapped on Jabal Sinjar.....Five survivors from Khocho village recounted how on 15 August ISIL gathered all males. According to survivors, as many as 400 males were killedNow, there is no inkling of them being armed men or perceived spies. Quite the contrary: Gross human rights abuses and acts of violence of an increasingly sectarian nature, committed by armed groups, have exacerbated the effect on civilians and contributed to the deterioration in the human rights situation and the rule of law Now regarding children: On 29 August, ISIL shelled al-Askari area in Tuz Khurmatu, Tikrit killing five civilians, including one woman and wounding another 25, including five women and six children...ISIL fighters arrived in several vehicles, separated men, women and children, and robbed them of their belongings.There is too much evidence of the Islamic State killing women and children. Now, this fact is more or less confirmed. Ultimately, we now have to reaffirm the establishment of the concept of good/evil as set in R1, in which opp. has affirmed throughout the debate. This is not an on balance debate, this is a good/bad debate. If the Islamic State were a good force, then, quoting R1 parameters: (1) killing is permissible by Islamic Law, (2) that even if it is, it is permissible and just in this case, (3) that actions done by IS, and things said by IS are moral in nature, and (4) that these actions are justified in their nature.Henceforth, the opposition has de facto conceded this point, for he has not proven any of the four parameters of "good"O2. Haram, Jizyah, and ZakatAgain, I want to re-emphasize that this debate is not about the benefits of the Islamic State, but this is an ethico-political debate upon whether the Islamic State has been a humane state or not. This is why the concepts of Haram are so important here, for whatever is Haram is henceforth impermissible by Islamic Law, and if the Islamic State does Haram, then it is immoral.Now, the contention that Zakat and Jizya are technically, but not literally, the same thing is seriously flawed. For "technicality" does not provide distinction. Technically, al-Bagdadi and the Supreme Leader (Faqih) of Iran are the same people, because they are both human beings. Literally, however, al-Baghdadi and the Faqih of Iran are total enemies. Now, I quote in the Holy Quran this about Jizyah:Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (9:29)Whilst I quote in the Holy Quran this about the Zakat: "They were enjoined only to worship God, sincere in their faith in Him alone - and of upright religion - and to establish the Salat and the Zakat. Such is the upright religion" (98:5)Clearly, the Holy Quran makes a huge distinction between Zakat and Jizyah. They are both taxes, but a Muslim does not need to pay Jizyah, whilst a non-Muslim would need to pay Jizyah but not Zakat. Now, as stated via the Quranic Verses, Jizyah provides the non-Muslims living in an Islamic state with protection. However, here is the difference between Jizyah in the Islamic State and Jizyah in the Quranic Commentaries. The Quranic Commentaries commands 1 Gold Dinar as Jizyah; that is around $250 in modern exchange ratings. In the effected areas, the wealth of many do not exceed $3,700. This would mean that they needed to pay 14% of their money to the Islamic State. The rate of Zakat is 2.5% of the net per capita. Is this justified? Why does a non-believer pay 7 times more money in homage to the Islamic State than normal Muslims? [5,6]The baseless allegations by the opposition are henceforth refuted via this very fact. Apart from this, sometimes Jizyah are agreed by both parties. However, there was no such agreement on the rate of Jizyah; the Islamic State demanded Jizyah or death.O4. IS kills Non-MuslimsAgain, the opposition's claims are worthless. They did not just destroy one Church [3]. Accordingly to OCHR:It was also subsequently reported that around 45 abandoned Christian institutions were demolished, converted to mosques or used as bases by ISILChristians are not the only ones persecuted. The Islamic State has vowed to destroy Mecca [4]:If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah.I think there is enough proof that the Islamic State kills Christians, Muslims, and threatens the whole stability of the world that I do not need to further affirm this fact. O3. EducationI believe that my points here have been all affirmed?O4. JusticeThe opposition commits the fallacy of presumption. He here is presuming that since he does not think that it would be sensible that IS demands gold payments, they do not do it. There is a plethora of evidence for this! Accordingly to Quranic Commentaries, Jizyah is supposed to be paid in minted golden dinars, in which the Christians do not have. As proven, the Christians living in the areas would have to pay at least 14% of their net earnings to the Islamic State, who then prohibits them to practice their religion publicly, and even goes on to kill and kidnap those who do not follow strict Shariah customs. There are many instances of this happening [3]:According to one of the nuns (who was abducted), they had been abducted by ISIL because they had notobserved the rule requiring that any female must be chaperoned by a male in public.The main principle of justice is an equilitarian principle; to give everyone their due. A women has a due to walk freely on the streets, with no disturbances. A human being has a due to practice his own religion without being taxed for doing so. If justice had been served in occupied Syria and Iraq, then the citizens of both countries would be walking freely. This is not the case, as we have clearly demonstrated. Justice? I do not think so.O5. Economics of the Islamic StateAgain, no refutation of the claims made were actually offered. I shall here reaffirm my argument: The minting of the Golden Dinar will inherently destroy the economics of the Islamic State, and it shall face some type of economic collapse in the future. Accordingly, there is this concept of "good" money and "bad" money. "Good" money is the ones that are actually worth a whole lot; "bad" money is paper money that have artificial worth. Grisham's law predicts that due to the desirability but rarity of "good" money, "bad" money will eventually replace "good" money. Considering the Islamic State to have no legitimacy over Iraq, and considering that Iraq is still printing it's money, the common prediction would be that IS money will eventually go bankrupt. With it goes the wheat and other materials that the region produces, causing an economic collapse, for wheat, oil and gold have an objective international real price.Due to time restrictions, this is all I could do. I consider the resolution negatedCitations:[1] https://twitter.com...[2] https://twitter.com...[3] http://www.ohchr.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com...