The Instigator
FrugalCarrot7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nonsense
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Foreign powers should continue air strikes against ISIS and not deploy infantry.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 217 times Debate No: 83411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

FrugalCarrot7

Pro

Deploying infantry to combat ISIS would have many repercussions that many western powers are not willing to commit to. It would require increasing expenditures on military for an extended period of time, ruling out the option of a quick assault in joint operations with the new government. It would require creating an interim government, like Paul Bremer ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) after the Iraqi occupation and invasion of 2003, which would last at least a year due to hundreds of factors such as uniting the multiple leaders of the Syrian rebel factions under one goal with similar objectives. This would turn into another situation like Iraq which would be beneficial to the middle east but would not get the proper support from the western population over a long period of time resulting in a premature withdraw from Syria leaving them in a tribal conflict with multiple powers trying to claim authority. It would be more beneficial for both sides if the western powers were to continue to target ISIS's funding, propaganda, and military forces with air strikes in order to assist other forces such as the Kurdish Peshmerga in liberating the middle east from extremist control.
Nonsense

Con

I will be attacking the resolution in 2 different ways, I have separated them to make it clear.

Attack Method One

I believe that foreign powers should all surrender to, and resultantly fund, ISIS. In other words I see no reason for them to continue air strikes which is one of the two pillars of this resolution. This is the best solution for the following reasons:

1) War wastes time and resources, causing millions of people to die. http://watson.brown.edu...

2) The only benevolent purpose of war is to defend a nation's resources and its people, if it is for any other purpose then the one doing it is in the wrong.

3) If everyone was a member of ISIS, then noone would be terrorized.

Attack Method Two

It is unfair to send air strikes, ISIS has neither the resources nor experience on the field to counteract it successfully, especially if more foreign powers joined in than just Russia. If you are going to fight for a moral cause, you should use moral means or else the entire message you are portraying is that you are just as bad people as the terrorists are.

Fight fair or don't fight for moral reasons. You can't just say the ends justify the means because the only end will be your nation looking like bullies and cowards. On top of that, such an unfair way of winning the war would only encourage a new terrorist group to form, they're all based on rage towards USA's and other 'white nations' war tactics after all. ISIS may also oppose other Arabs but, like all Islamic terrorist organisations, a main method by which it radicalizes people is to find those who agree USA and other 'white nations' are immoral for what they do.
Debate Round No. 1
FrugalCarrot7

Pro

FrugalCarrot7 forfeited this round.
Nonsense

Con

Nonsense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
FrugalCarrot7

Pro

FrugalCarrot7 forfeited this round.
Nonsense

Con

Nonsense forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.