The Instigator
EXOPrimal
Con (against)
The Contender
rogueone
Pro (for)

Fighting 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
rogueone has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 343 times Debate No: 98114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

EXOPrimal

Con

Debate Settings
10,000 Character arguments
72 Hour argument time
14 Day Voting
Opponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debated and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a comment

Complete Topic
Should the U.S. send ground troops to fight the Islamic State group?

Note: Contender is debating for sending ground troops to fight ISIS

Terms
ISIS
ISIS stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and is an extremist militant group that rules by Wahhabi/Salafi law.
Syn: IS, ISIL

Ground Troops
soldiers who operate on the ground, as opposed to the air or the sea

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.
8. No "K's" on the topic.
9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login
10.For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate

Debate Format
R1: Pro Arguments
R2: Con Arguments, Pro Rebutalls
R3: Con Rebuttals, Pro Defence
R4: Con Defence and Further Rebuttals, Pro Defense, Further Rebuttals, and Conclusion
R5: Con Defense and Conclusion, Pro Waives

Note: First round is Pro argument not acceptance, if you accept please post your argument

I Thank My Opponent In Advance For Accepting This Debate And Wish Him The Best Of Luck
rogueone

Pro

Contention One: Isis is weak and we can easily stop them now

If we do not fight ISIS then we would not be promoting the general welfare of the American people, and this is the perfect time to take a stand. ISIS is making their way to take over everything and are starting to take over more of Syria, which means they are becoming more powerful and soon will be able to come to the US and put up a good fight, so why don't we just stop them while they are weaker? If we step out of the fighting with ISIS for now, we can just sit back and watch, until of course, ISIS has taken over all of the Middle East, half of Africa, a good amount of southern Europe, and quite the part of Asia, when they then want to attack us with a new army much more powerful than ours. ISIS has an estimates force of 31,000. Imagine this figure in the next 2/3 years! It is also estimated that it could take 3 years to legitimately eradicate the threat ISIS poses to the US and the rest of the world. A land invasion by the Allies (UK, US, EU and other powers) is our best chance at eliminating this brutality. They're running riot murdering, everything in it's way. ISIS militants separate the boys from the girls and rape girls as young as age 12. A land invasion would allow us to regain control of the country and protect it's people much quicker! We could do this in a matter of months, not years. By the time 3 years is up that 31,000 could be double, or more! And the amount of people suffering with this is astonishing.

Contention Two: Make good on our promise to fight terror

Did the United States not declare war on terror? ISIS is a terrorist organization with a grand plan of more violence. The U.S. allowed Al Queda a base of operations in Afghanistan which was used to attack several American targets killing thousands of American lives. Now it becomes a question of is ISIS a terrorist organization or not? It has become apparently clear that ISIS is one of if not the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world and we need to make good on our promise to combat terrorism at home and abroad. If we do not jump in on this war and fight ISIS on land, on sea and through the air, then we will be seen as a weak nation that can"t keep its promises and terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Queda won"t take us seriously.

Contention Three: The United States needs to take accountability and fix our mistakes

It is our fault that ISIS is what is it, we need to take accountability for what we have done and do something about this mistake. Most of the IS tech that they use, including weaponry, machinery and ammunition has all arrived in some way from the U.S. Furthermore when American troops withdrew from that region - what were they expecting would happen? You overthrow a dictatorship, and then leave the "moderate" rebels to fend for themselves? No, they all form small groups and eventually lead to a grouping such as ISIS. ISIS members are the so called "moderate" rebels the American government armed in order to fight dictators such as Assad in the region.

Contention Four: Once we fight ISIS we can combat other threats in the region
We need to join in this war because if we can eliminate ISIS we can combat Assad as well. This war is about more than just Oil and unusable desert land. It is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which both ISIS and Assad have been denying the Syrian people. The sad thing is that because of the rise of ISIS, an evil dictator on par with Kim Jong Un, Assad, got away with using long outlawed chemical weapons on peaceful protestors.
Debate Round No. 1
EXOPrimal

Con

I thank my opponent for debating this topic with me. In this round I will provide the introduction of my contentions, all contentions will be expanded on in later rounds.

C1: The Same Story
In 2003 we justified the Iraq war by saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein did commit many atrocities, but did we really help? Iraq is a mess, it’s government is built on corruption, and not the democracy we promised. 70% of iraq’s population lacks clean drinking water(1), and Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorist organizations.

We cannot send ground troops to the middle east without being able to guarantee that the same things won't happen. The US was never good at reconstruction, in fact our own reconstruction was a failure. The US is not popular in the middle east, so sending troops there would not help our cause. By sending troops the middle east would just revert back to the storm after we leave.

C2: Cost
The current war against ISIS without ground troops is costing 300k per hour(2). This is an insane amount of money, and that is only from air strikes. It costed approximately 2.1 million dollars for every single troop that was stationed in afghanistan(3). We cannot pinpoint the amount of troops it would take to take out ISIS because ISIS is widely spread out, but the amount of be very large. There is also the cost of american lives, we would be sacrificing thousands of lives to try to take out ISIS not to mention we would laso have to fight other terrorist organisations while we are at it. The cost of sending ground troops to the middle is too high, and the constant airstrikes will suffice.

C3: Unnecessary
We do not need to send troops to the middle east to destroy ISIS, thought it would make it faster. This speed is not worth the cost, so we should just be patient. During the age of Al Qaeda the middle east was not liberated by US troops, but instead by local militias with the US providing air support. We are providing enough support to take out ISIS

C4: Unwanted
The US is not at all popular in the middle east, and by semnding ground troops to Iraq and Syria we are just adding fuel to the flame. I will remind everyone that in the iranian revolution it was a popular passtime for rebels to burn american flags. We are not wanted in the middle east and it is time to see that.

Citations
1. http://in.reuters.com...
2.http://www.theatlantic.com...
3.http://csbaonline.org...
rogueone

Pro

"The same story"

This claim doesn"t really work with this debate because if you refer back to my first contention you will see that the pentagon estimated it would take about 3 years to combat ISIS and while Iraq is a mess, that is not topical to today's debate of fighting ISIS, not the Iraqian government.

"Cost"

My opponent also mentions that there would be a very high cost however isn"t this high cost worth it to reassert that the United States is a world power to be reckoned with instead of a feeble nation that can"t keep a promise. Isn"t our safety and rights worth the high cost?

"Unnecessary"

My opponent claims that sending ground troops to fight ISIS is not needed however they mention that ISIS "is widely spread out" meaning that they control a large region of land and that the airstrikes aren"t really working making ground forces therefore necessary.

"Unwanted"
My opponent makes a weak claim that the United States is unpopular in the middle east however they provide no statistics to prove this claim. Elliot Abrams reported for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2012 that the syrian rebels want United States help to overthrow Assad and ISIS.
Debate Round No. 2
EXOPrimal

Con

Rebuttals
ISIS is weak and we can easily stop them now
Summary: Pro claims that ISIS can be easily be eradicated if we send ground troops. He then goes into statistics that show the state of ISIS at the moment, and doesn’t go into detail on how we would eradicate ISIS. Pro also shows no evidence that ISIS is weak, if anything his evidence shows ISIS is strong.

ISIS has an estimates force of 31,000. Imagine this figure in the next 2/3 years!

Isis has been losing troops, we have killed 45,000 troops in our airstrikes against ISIS(1). In the next 2 or 3 years (or U32; i’m not too sure) ISIS won’t be able to gain too many troops. They will certainly not be able to “double, or more”.

“They're running riot murdering, everything in it's way. ISIS militants separate the boys from the girls and rape girls as young as age 12.”

The contention here is “ISIS is weak and we can easily stop them now. This is irrelevant to this contention. Nobody is claiming that ISIS is not doing horrible things, but because they are doing horrible things we cannot get rid of them easier.

It is also estimated that it could take 3 years to legitimately eradicate the threat ISIS poses to the US and the rest of the world.

We could do this in a matter of months, not years.

This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Pro does not cite any sources, so I cannot know which is true. I did my research and the first quote seems accurate, so the second quote is irrelevant.

ISIS has an estimates force of 31,000.

The estimation that Pro is using claims that ISIS has 20,000–31,500 troops. Pro is using the higher end of the estimation to try to prove his point. It is probably more reasonable to assume ISIS has 26,000 troops, 5,000 less than Pro claims.

Make good on our promise to fight terror
Summary: Pro goes into how ISIS is a terrorist organisation, and how we declared war on terror. He then claim that because of this we should send ground troops to fight ISIS or terrorist organisations won’t take the US seriously.

First off, a war on a noun never works out. Second, we are fighting ISIS. This debate is not about whether or not we should fight ISIS, but whether or not we should send ground troops. The US has taken part in more air strikes than the other nations fighting ISIS combined. We are wearing ISIS down, and is is very unlikely that the US will be taken lightly.\

The United States needs to take accountability and fix our mistakes
Summary: Pro claims that it is our fault ISIS is a thing, and how we should fix it.

I will concede to the fact the ISIS was created because of us taking troops out of the middle east. But the last part of that sentence is key. If we send troops into the middle east, then pull them out again we are just repeating the past. If we send ground troops to fight ISIS we will just create another terrorist organisation.

Most of the IS tech that they use, including weaponry, machinery and ammunition has all arrived in some way from the U.S.

If someone in the US sent guns and ammunition to ISIS, the federal government does not need to take the blame for it.

Once we fight ISIS we can combat other threats in the region
Summary: Pro Claims that after we defeat ISIS we can take care of Assad.

I will concede that Assad has done some horrible things, but there is a difference between fighting Assad and fighting ISIS. ISIS is a terrorist organisation, and Assad is a legitimate government. If the US trys to topple Assad we get into questions about state sovereignty and whether or not we have a right to try to take down Assad.

Citations
1: http://thehill.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RussellMania741 1 year ago
RussellMania741
OK, thanks.
Posted by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
That's the wrong side Russell, Contender will be arguing FOR sending ground troops, I appreciate your interest
Posted by RussellMania741 1 year ago
RussellMania741
I would like to accept the debate. I am new to debate.org and think its a cool site.
I am currently in 1 debate that I started. I read your rules and would like to accept your challenge.

This is what I would be arguing; We need to end this phony war in terror and bring are troops home.
The war on terror is just one huge distractions. We have no business in Syria and we should have never went into Iraq. Isis was created by the US goverment, so they could over throw Assad. I believe that we should bring are troops home now. We should be protecting our boarders. Just to be clear, Im not arguing for or againts ground troops; Instead I will be arguing that we should pull all our troops out and have the troops defend the boarders.
http://russia-insider.com...
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 1 year ago
MakeSensePeopleDont
@EXOPrimal -- Hey buddy. Very nice detail in your debate setup. I really want to debate this with you, but five rounds is a bit excessive here and I'm currently not sure if I'll have the time. However, if you don't receive a debate partner within the next five days, feel free to send me a message and let me know that you're still looking, and I will try my best to shift some extra time into my schedule.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.