The Instigator
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Dantheawesome
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Attacking ISIS on the basis of their humanitarian crimes is a bad argument.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 73255
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

HELLO, with the upcoming National Forensics League tournament coming up on April 14 I need to be as prepared to argue as possible, thus I have decided to come to DDO to find further scrutiny in my arguments and develop them as well as find new arguments for either the pro or the con side. The resolution to be pro or con on is Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops is in the best interest of the United States. I have changed my formatting here though because instead of taking on every single argument at once, perhaps some people would simply like to take on a single argument. This will be for argument: [ C ]……if you want to debate this, please just tell me in the comment, Thanks!


D.) (This is a response to an anticipated PRO argument) Human Rights violations

1.) Many people posit that because ISIS kills innocents we have a moral obligation to protect them
2.) Thus if another group were comitting inhuman activites of worse account And greater threat to us, we should attack them first.
3.) The Mexican crtels do worse And are a greater threat to the US directly. thus they are a greater threat to US interests.
4.) We should attack the Mexican cartels instead
5.) The plan takes away recoures to do so
6.) We should not commit ground troops because it prevents us from fighting the bigger problem
7.) This is not in the interest of the US
8.) The reslution should be negated or the argument should be dropped.



Rules, Rounds and Regulations

1.) R1: Opening argument/ resonse to opening argument
2.) R2: Responses/ rebuttals
3.) R3: Rebuttals/ rebuttals
4.) R4: Summary and Why you win

5.) BOP is on CON

6.) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con looses his argument then he automatically looses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated.
Dantheawesome

Con

Before we dive in, let's cover a few definitions:
Attacking: To attack in any way, including, but not limited to, military attack, political, verbal, etc.
ISIS: the Islamic State of greater Iraq and Syria; the terrorist regime.
Humanitarian crimes: any crimes that violate the basic human rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.
Bad argument: any argument that is not morally, ethically, or politically sound or right.

Observation 1: No given time frame.
The resolution gives no inherent timeframe for the attack on ISIS.
Observation 2: Any attack. By definition, an attack could mean sanctions, the military, verbal reproach, etc.
Before we take a look at the Pro's case, let's cover the value I will be upholding throughout this debate, as well as a criterion.
Security: Security is defined as the state of being free from danger or threat. This includes the protection of Human Rights.
My criterion, or plan to achieve my value, is Verbal Reproach.
As defined, attack can mean verbal reproach, which is also shown in my observation. This is an attack, and we will (for the most part), not be using military force under my plan.

In response to Pro's 1), I would argue, that as we need to protect the National Security, as well as the security of the innocents, we need to have some form of attack, described under my criterion.
2) So what? This is true as a general rule.
3) Although that is debatable, I will concede that point.
4), 5), 6), 7), and 8): By my criterion, we can attack the Mexican cartels with military force or other attacks at the same time or in different time frames, as stated in my O2. Also, my plan does not take away any significant amount of resources. No ground troops will be involved. This is within the interests of the US as the US was started to protect Human rights, especially Freedom of Speech and Liberty.

Now my case: Contention 1: We need a response:
a. Silence means agreement. Someone once wisely said that "To be silent means to agree". We cannot continue to let ISIS conquer the Middle East and leave our allies unprotected. We must take a stand for Human Rights.
b. If we don't who will?
The US is looked upon as the leading (or one of them, anyway) nation on Earth. We are supposed to take a stand, as a) others may be too weak/unstable, or b) If we don't, then no one else will, or even c) everybody may think as we do and no one will retaliate against ISIS.
I believe I've countered Pro's 8 main arguments as well as establishing a few of my own. It is for these given reasons that I believe that a Con vote is warranted.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

I thank my opponent for offering to debate, however there are some issues in this round wich urgently need to be adressed.

Framework

Let’s talk about what this round will be as my opponent seems to have seriously missed what the point of the match is. If you refer back to the very first paragraph I make it clear that I instigate this debate in order to improve my PFD ability, that being the case I obviously would need to work on the PFD resolution which I presented as “Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops to fight ISIS is in the best interest of the United States.”, thus it would only make sense that we are debating this as the resolution. We are simply debating a single argument which comes from the con side, relating to the aforementioned resolution. So in essence what I’m saying is that the PFD resolution above must be considered as the, overall, real resolution. The debate is concerning a specific con argument about that resolution, therefore everything in our arguments needs to be framed in that point of reference. I think this is a reasonable, I realize I never explicitly said to frame this as a PFD round so I wont request that so this is a very reasonable mediation.

Also con, given the above it should be clear that you can’t advocate a plan. This is simply a yes or no question to the full resolution which weighs all likely outcomes of the resolution. This is not a policy debate just to be clear.

I would also like to clarify that the list of statements in the first round is not a list of arguments, but a logical proof.

Definitions

Ground troop:

-The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot.[1]

- Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot [1]

Combat (attack):

-fighting between armed forces.[2]

-take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). [2]

Ground Combat Troop:

To get this definition, being that there is no direct definition I combine the definitions of ground troop and combat.

-Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot in order to reduce destroy or prevent the advancement of the enemy and who are designated to participate in fighting between armed forces.

*Prefer this definition because the framers of the debate resolution most likely wanted to talk about the implications of putting more soldiers, as we have before, into the middle east, which is probably because ISIS is becoming a greater threat. This is opposed to my opponent’s advocacy, I content that this debate is too wide to talk about ALL types of attacks, especially being that the greater resolution suggests that ground troops will be doing the attacking.

ISIS: All of the members who compose of the current ISIS group and anyone who joins in the future.

*This definition simply builds on my opponent’s definition except it makes clear that the ISIS to be combated is not JUST the current members of ISIS, as this would undermine the very purpose of defeating ISIS.

Grant Con’s definition of Humanitarian crimes.

“as we need to protect the National Security…we need to have some form of attack”

- You can’t just add your own justification to saving innocents, the resolution as it is presented at the very top of this debate mandates nothing more than justifying that attacking ISIS for the SOLE reason of their humanitarian violations is a bad argument, the debate is Not ‘is humanitarian violations a good reason to attack ISIS’ its very different. You have accepted that we are debating whether moral crimes are justifications of attacking, not if we can justify using humanitarian crimes as the basis of attacking ISIS, I’m not sure if you caught that but you are trying to justify a different thing than the resolution.

“By my criterion, we can attack the Mexican cartels with military force or other attacks at the same time or in different time frames”

-This takes away resources from the bigger humanitarian issue at hand (cartels) which also happens to effect America More than those smaller humanitarian issues overseas being that it is closer and effects more Americans, con concedes this is true. This means that it is in the best interest of the US’s moral AND personal interests to fight the cartels over ISIS. Please remember this is Not a plan to take on the Cartel, instead, it is simply made to turn the argument of moral crimes against itself using its own logic. In essence I have used the example of the Cartels to show that this argument cant be used in the case of ISIS because according to its own reasoning, the biggest issue comes first.

“Also, my plan does not take away any significant amount of resources.”

-no plans man

“the US was started to protect Human rights, especially Freedom of Speech and Liberty.”

-As the US we protect Only US citizens, con must show that the rights of our constitution applies to a people who are under a completely different country and constitution.

Observation 1

“The resolution gives no inherent timeframe for the attack on ISIS.”

-one is not necessary

Observation 2

“an attack could mean sanctions, the military, verbal reproach, etc.”

- I have defined attack differently so I disagree and this will not come to a preference debate, however I will point out that this doesn’t affect my case because the resolution is solely about the relationship between moral crimes and their implications on being used to justify whatever attack may be put upon them, whether they be military or nonmilitary.

“Verbal Reproach”

-can’t be used because the definition of attack is not as you deem it.

“To be silent means to agree”

- I think rape laws would disagree. What about all of those deaf people man?? Just kidding haha. I don’t really understand your point here though.

- this argument can’t be used. Your job is solely to negate the logical proof and nothing more. Your job is not to justify attacking but to justify the logical proof.

“If we don't who will?”

- this argument can’t be used. Your job is solely to negate the logical proof and nothing more. Your job is not to justify attacking but to justify the logical proof.

- If you disagree then please read the section of the first round “Rounds Rules and Regulations” which states: “6.) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con loses his argument then he automatically loses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated.”

Summary: Con has basically ignored or simply misunderstood the majority of the framing of this debate, some misunderstanings are resonable other completely unreasonable however, it is what it is so we can either fix it and move on or argue about it and get nothing done. Con cant make plans, that should be understood, and furthermore as has been explicitly stated the purpose of this debate is to examine the logical proof.We have talked about the moral argument a little bit so to summarize this I will point out that according to the argument's own logic, mexico take priority, meaning according to this very argument all of our efforts should be turned to mexico right now, not only do they prose a greater amount of humanitarian crimes than ISIS, but they are also closer to the US and actively destroying it and thus, they are also a greater direct threat to the US. Thanks for reading, I pass the pen back to con.

Cites

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

Dantheawesome

Con

Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

aaaand, he forfeits....
Dantheawesome

Con

Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

opponent forfeits again and conceedes all arguments vote pro
Dantheawesome

Con

Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dantheawesome 1 year ago
Dantheawesome
Yes. Pretty sure on that.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
@Dantheawesome

alright, I will assign you, just so you know the response time is 24 hours, can you keep up with that?
Posted by Dantheawesome 1 year ago
Dantheawesome
I want to debate. I compete in Stoa Speech and Debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
TheJuniorVarsityNoviceDantheawesomeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF