America should not waste their time with another unnecessary war. We would be wasting our time, money, and troops. ISIS is not a huge threat to the American people, maybe to Middle Easterner countries, and too an extent European countries, but not the USFG. We recently got out of a seemingly endless and meaningless war, the last thing we need is to get involved in another war in the Middle East without an exit strategy. NATO should continue with air strikes on ISIS, and the US should continue to supply Syrian Rebels and Kurdish fighters., but we should not involve the US military, whether that be air forces or ground forces. Using airstrikes is similar to the term "gateway drug", when we're just using a small but effective force and not tying to go all in, we'll eventually get sucked in, sending in ground troops. The US should help in this war, but not get directly involved.
I feel that my opposition has misunderstood the question but I will post my thoughts anyway. "Should America combat The Islamic Stat?" The answer for any rational person that understands the question should be no. The Islamic State is not a group of terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to blow up a bus station. The Islamic State is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). Our government is based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and unalienable rights. Attacking a country because of their religious views would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy.
In response to my opponent's statement about going to war with ISIS because of it's religious beliefs, that is not why war is being waged. War is being waged because of the actions that ISIS has taken try to create a caliphate. Americans are angry and/or scared because ISIS has killed other innocent Americans. Though some are concerned with the religious principles of ISIS, the majority are just angry because of the malicious actions they've taken. Americans should not send troops into Syria and Iraq to combat ISIS because they simply are not happy with what ISIS has done. Sure, most will agree what ISIS is doing is wrong and irrational, but they are not directly effecting the USFG. We should not combat ISIS because it's simply not necessary. Arming and training troops from other countries and organisations is the most the US should be doing in this war against ISIS.
Of course I agree that actions must be taken against ISIS, but yet again you are off topic and ISIS and the other terrorist groups are not the focus of this debate. The question posed was "Should America combat The Islamic State." In my previous post I explained what the Islamic State is. Therefore your argument for or against ISIS and the actions the UN and America should take against them is invalid. Please do some research on what The Islamic State is before your next rebuttal.
When we say The Islamic State, we mean the terrorist group, ISIL, ISIS, IS, Islamic State, that's what they prefer to be called. Also, my opposition seems to be debating himself, or no one at all. They are supposed to be pro (for) military action towards IS., but all they've argued is that my use of the title Islamic State is wrong., when they should be telling why we should combat them directly.
Let me reiterate. Terrorist groups should be dealt with and swift action should be taken against them. There was no argument from me against that statement. What I was trying to do what correct your inaccurate synopsis of the debate question. The fact that you still have not given a coherent rebuttal means you have not done your research and I am "debating himself, or no one at all." As for the topic of the debate I gave my answer and reasoning for my stance in my first post. The Islamic State is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). Our government is based on religious freedom, freedom of speech and unalienable rights. Attacking a country because of their religious views would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy. That about summarizes it.
Reasons for voting decision: PRO tries to argue that the Islamic State constitutes an actual country. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold true for the American government's perspective because the borders of the Islamic State and its government are not formally recognized in diplomatic spheres by the United States.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.