The Instigator
Mags2
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
sassydebater
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

If US should get involved with 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mags2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,376 times Debate No: 66504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Mags2

Pro

If you are interested in debating, accept challenge in round 1
sassydebater

Con

Although it appears beneficial for the U.S. to become involved with ISIS, it is not. In a country that is already in an accumulation of debt, the funds needed to aid ISIS would further that debt and the question is- WHY? Why would the U.S. need to spend money for an effort that will take too long and will only repeat itself in the future? By recklessly becoming involved in this decision, the nation will be threatened from trade and tourism sanctions being tied off. The results from such an involvement will be devastating. If we attempt to solve ISIS as U.S. has done in the past in Iraq, for example, we will have a d"ja vu of the country suffering economically and financially. Therefore, the U.S. should not get involved with ISIS in order to first tackle the problems that are already at home and further prevent the disruption between relations in Syria (which are already very tense).
Debate Round No. 1
Mags2

Pro

First of all, last Sunday, the FBI issued the strongest warning to date about possible attacks by the ISIS terrorist group against the U.S. military inside the homeland. If that's not a sign, then what is? . I do agree with my opponent on that it will be expensive, but if we are not to act now, the price of freedom form ISIS would be high. ISIS has, of course, killed two American citizens in a very public way. But with the very notable exception of Mehdi Nemmouche, the French citizen who returned from fighting in Syria to attack a Jewish museum in Brussels last May, the much-discussed threat of ISIS"s international fighters returning to their home countries to carry out attacks has been theoretical. How many Americans will it take for the U.S to get involved with ISIS?
sassydebater

Con

In regards to your argument of the FBI warning about attacks by ISIS, there are a lot of things that are threatening our homeland, including ISIS. However, there is a lot of concern in just saying, "Let's go fight off ISIS! For freedom!" In fact, that is a rather bold and non-convincing argument. There is more to politics than just going off to fight the problem. There are consequences to these actions. And even though ISIS has killed two Americans tragically, ISIS has also taken other hostages from other countries as well. You may ask yourself: Why aren't these countries engaging in ISIS? It is because as much as you may like to think, ISIS is very mysterious. We do not know much exactly on them at all. It is hard to go up against a threat that we do not know. Our little knowledge on the scope of ISIS puts us at more of a risk to suffer further consequences from this group. As of now, Obama is sending advisors over to assess the Iraq situation, instead of putting boots on the ground. But, this raises skepticism in global politics. One article points out, "This [the actions of Obama] not only risks the ambassadors' lives, but can be used as another example of America acting as the "world"s police," putting itself into global affairs." The other plan is to enforce military action into the region. The US"s plan to use air strikes and drones against ISIS will prove to be harmful to innocent civilians, which would only add to the anti-US sentiment in the region, as I said in the first round. So yes, ISIS is a threat, which you pointed out in Round 1. But that does not mean we should rush in and get involved so quickly.

As for your question, "How many Americans will it take for the U.S. to get involved with ISIS?"
I find it amusing that you ask such a rhetorical question because the answer is: very enormous, if conducted in the way that you are implying. You are acknowledging that becoming involved with ISIS will involve the lives of many U.S. citizens for a cause that is still too young to quite take action on yet.
Debate Round No. 2
Mags2

Pro

To reply to your "sending drones and air-strikes," they already have, and they are helping defeat ISIS more than ever. At statement from central command (Centcom) said the attacks on Kobani hit six Islamic State fighting positions, destroying them. Centcom also said that a "heavy weapon" was destroyed.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com...
Last Monday, western allies vowed a tough fight against fighting ISIS on Monday after the terrorist group called for attacks against those countries.These countries, part of the coalition taking on ISIS, were responding to a new audio recording in which a senior ISIS leader, for the first time, explicitly called for attacks in the United States and on the home soil of Western allies. Now should we just let ISIS come on in to our country? No, we shouldn't. We should stop ISIS now before they become an even larger threat. I would like to begin this round with a quote from the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has called ISIS "as sophisticated and well funded as any group that we have seen . . . beyond anything we have seen." The group has former military officers who can fly helicopters, spot artillery, and maneuver in battle. ISIS is increasingly a hybrid organization, on the model of Hezbollah"part terrorist network, part guerrilla army, part proto-state.
sassydebater

Con

In that website you provided, it does not say anything about us "defeating ISIS more than ever." I agree that ISIS is a sophisticated, well funded group AND THAT it is beyond anything "we have ever seen." This tells us how extraordinarily complicated this group is, which is why it is much more difficult for us to try to solve this problem than just go in and put simply, blow things up. You have to consider that this group has been around for a long time, since 1999 to be exact. We are still trying to figure out exactly how much of a threat they are in regards to invading our homeland. They may be able to and they may not, but this still does not change the fact that the effects of our involvement would be damaging to our nation. Besides, as I mentioned earlier about our relations becoming tenser with Syria as a result of our involvement, we will also have tense relations within our own government. This is a very stressful situation and not everyone is on board with Obama's plan for involvement. In fact, becoming involved could set a negative precedent of engaging in armed conflict without official congressional approval, which is supposed to be approved by Congress. Only Congress can declare war; this is a power assigned to Congress only. So with Obama starting to make plans of his own, this could not only ruin our relations with Syria, but within our own branches of government.

Our temporary actions that may seem so noble now will prove to be catastrophic effects on our nation later.
Debate Round No. 3
Mags2

Pro

FIrst of all, Obama has not done anything that would disobey the laws of Congress. Meaning, he has not declared war towards ISIS. If he was to do this without asking Congress, he would be impeached. As Obama said in an interview,"I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we're going to deal with it and to have confidence that we'll be able to deal with it," the President told interviewer Chuck Todd.
He said action will include military, diplomatic and economic components. He laid out a three-stage plan that starts with actions the U.S. has already taken: gathering increased intelligence on ISIS, and using airstrikes to protect American personnel, critical Iraqi infrastructure like the Mosul Dam, and cities such as Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

In this it says nothing about declaring war, and going against Congresses power.

The United States" focus on the Islamic State has given cover to Syrian forces, they say. That has freed Mr. Assad"s military from worrying about checking the militant group"s advances and allowed them to continue to focus attacks on the greater political threat " less extreme Syrian-based insurgent groups bent on ousting Mr. Assad and the communities where they hold sway.
sassydebater

Con

Oh, really? Then why does the Huffington Post write, "Two progressive senators declared Friday that President Barack Obama lacks authority for his growing war on the Islamic State, and are demanding that he immediately present Congress with a plan and a request seeking that authority." Obama is not seeking authority from Congress for the military actions he is taking in regards to ISIS. He is supposed to consult with Congress over these matters, especially if he does plan on engaging in a war. The point is that he is not consulting with Congress, which is causing tensions.

You have to think that if we do invade and take more military action, we are going to be engaging in a war against ISIS. Isn't a war, by definition, "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." And isn't this "three-stage" plan you talk about basically outlining a military strategy that would build towards a war?

A war would further devastate our nation financially. Like I keep saying, our nation knows too little of ISIS and lacks the support from other countries to engage with ISIS. ISIS will feed off our involvement like a parasite. They want to make us mad, which is why they have killed the two Americans that were held there. They want to see us try to stop them, which is a frightening thought. We need to further assess the situation before we take action.
Debate Round No. 4
Mags2

Pro

Your Huffington Post quote, shows no reason of how President Obama ignored Congress, and how he never consulted them on what America was going to do. In the contrary of your statement of Huffington Post, PBS Newshour states and I quote, "Thus far, there has been little clamor among congressional leaders for Obama to seek approval from Capitol Hill before proceeding with military action in Syria. And with the midterm elections just over two months away, lawmakers may be even less inclined to take a politically risky vote on military action." Rep. Steve Cohen said, "I see no reason to come to Congress because, if he does, it"ll just become a circus." Also, it is not the president who is lacking authority, it is congress. ongress should "certainly" authorize any military action in Syria. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and White House ally, has also called for a vote on the president"s broader strategy for going after the Islamic State group. To rebuttal your statement "he is supposed to consult with Congress over these matters, especially if he does plan on engaging war." The Constitution of America gives only Congress the power to initiate war. The main point is this: Islamic State group poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies from inside Syria, whose government is unwilling or unable to stop it. This is why The United States of America should be involved with the affairs of ISIS and both Syria.
sassydebater

Con

I believe this side-argument is too side tracked that you should read the post for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

In summarization, I have to say that my opponent has presented very little argument on why the U.S. should not go to war with ISIS.
They have not addressed the fact that we know too little of the subject, nor have they responded to the issue that it will devastate us as a nation financially.

The cons to this situation are truly much stronger than the pros. Our actions last a lifetime. In a situation this grave, we must wait and further assess this situation. Hastiness will not solve the problem. Simply sending ambassadors puts their lives in danger. Bombing the area is going to cause tensions for our country nationally and may risk killing innocent civilians of Syria. The effects to our involvement with ISIS are too unpredictable that we must wait for further information to come in. If other countries, who have even had their own citizens killed by ISIS, are not becoming directly involved, then that tells you something. ISIS is a threat, no doubt, but they are a dangerous, incalculable threat that must be handled carefully and the time to confront such a threat is not now. Considering the delicate state our nation is in on the global scale and in facing our own financial burdens of accumulating debt from becoming involved in situations like these we have had in the past, we must not become involved in order to secure the stability of our nation.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
z1, that was a terrible RFD... all based off of opinions.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Mags2sassydebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had really weak arguments. I didn't think either of them even deserved to win. Con really just asked mostly questions, and Pro didn't really rebut them. Huffington Post is not really a good source, so sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by z1 2 years ago
z1
Mags2sassydebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Isis honestly isn't much of a threat to the US. If they even tried to come onto US soil, they would have more to worry about then the military, they'd have to deal with rednecks first lol.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Mags2sassydebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made very weak arguments. I did a debate on this topic and it clear that both debaters failed to do the needed research into this topic. Pro used a really bad source on this topic but at least they cited one. Pro failed to know the difference between ISIS and the Islamic State. Con failed to know that ISIS was formed in April 2013. Only points I am giving is for Pro citing at least one source.