Should the United States attack ISIS with force?
Debate Rounds (3)
"Be so subtle that you are invisible. Be so mysterious that you are intangible. Then you will control your rivals' fate." -Sun Tzu. According to the legendary Sun Tzu, a master military general and strategist, you should never be so obvious that your opponent knows what you will do. Why do you think terrorists kill people and anger America? Is it to spread widespread terror? That is one reason. Is it just to kill for the fun of it? Maybe, but it is not their motivation. Perhaps you might be thinking this. And maybe you think that since America has so many soldiers in its armies, they can easily crush the terrorists under their foot. Being the incredibly smart debater (or judge) that you are, I am sure that you have maybe thought of this. But the terrorists have people almost as smart as you, and they have probably come to the same conclusion. What is the point of spreading terror if you know you will fail immediately? There is no point. That is why America has not completely destroyed ISIS. They know that ISIS wants them to be angered. ISIS is just goading us. Unfortunately, ISIS is the very idol of Sun Tzu's quote. They are subtle, and mysterious. If we were to destroy ISIS, we don't know what would happen. No doubt they have some other plan to destroy America, and they won't be using pure force. But America won't be using pure force either. Instead, this is an opponent that you can't defeat with might. Only with much skill and intelligence will we be able to destroy them.
Collateral Damage: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target;specifically: civilian casualties of a military operation (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). To simplify, it means that you did not mean to break something, but it still broke by accident. Some people have thought of the idea of completely destroying all the terrorists by using several atom bombs to completely wipe out the terrorists. Including Donald Trump. That should give you an idea of how stupid this idea is. His plan is to completely destroy all of ISIS and all Islams to completely eliminate any threat of terrorism. Well, to be fair, that would be an excellent idea, if you weren't afraid of ending thousands of innocent lives in the process! Assume that we use atom bombs to wipe out all of ISIS. Approximately 140,000 people died from the dropping of the atom bomb (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu...). Almost all of them were innocent lives. Now pretend that we dropped an atom bomb right on the HQ of ISIS(assuming we even know where it is). Collateral damage. First of all, the bombers might die before they even got to drop the bomb. Also, the radius of the atom bomb would at least kill over a hundred people after it struck. A better idea, you might be thinking, would be to just send in ground troops. Send them in, eliminate all the terrorists, nice and tidy, right? Since there are often civilians in the area that terrorists are in, there will still be lots of accidental deaths. "Approximately 210,000 Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani civilians have died violent deaths as a direct result of the wars." (http://watson.brown.edu...) There is also the large possibility that lots of the terrorists might get away, and the threat of terrorism still hangs in the air. The only thing that you accomplished was killing some terrorists, and also ending some innocent lives in the process. Yippee (sarcasm).
Pretend that your poor mom was an innocent that died in the assault on ISIS, and you are mourning for them. Heartbreaking, right? Then, it hits you: who is responsible for this death? Well, of course, the people that sent the soldiers in. That just so happens to be America, the grand country you once heard of. The anger that was once directed towards the terrorists is now being directed towards America. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of people who are just like you: mourning for their loved ones, and hating America. Lots of people will join ISIS, and want to avenge their dead family. Destroying members of ISIS will end up creating more than there ever were. Instead, something that we can do is take in orphans from the victims of ISIS, and show them much hospitality. Show them that America is not the bad place that they imagined. If they one day go home, they will one day spread the word. We don't even need to wait to do this. We can even do it right now. Instead of raising a new generation of terrorists unintentionally, we can create hope for the victims of ISIS.
Thank you for your time and consideration, debater and judges.
I thank Con for creating this argument, and I wish him good luck in the future of this debate.
Since this is a 3 round debate, I shall present my argument in Round 1, my rebuttal in Round 2, and my Conclusion/rebuttal in round 3.
The war on terror has proved to be futile, but this case is unique.
ISIS is rampaging through the Middle East, especially in nations such as Iraq and Syria. For the United States to not get involved, would not only be a detriment to our world standing, but also to our personal security.
Regardless of the upbringing of ISIS, it's wrong to assume that any diplomatic means would suffice. In all wars and conflict, there are two solutions: diplomacy, which would amount to both sides having a sense of rationality, and violence, which would mean that one side has to beat the other, either to submission or to eventual demise.
ISIS is not a reactionary group. They are extremist militants who want power and the creation of a Muslim Caliphate. Even groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have distanced themselves from ISIS, as ISIS is too extreme in their ways.
They maim, kill, rape, steal, and beat both men and women alike, especially individuals who do not subscribe to their barbarism. To state that there is a way in which diplomacy would suffice is quite a wrong statement indeed.
Multiple high ranking members of the United States military have stated publicly that in order to defeat ISIS, the United States would have to intervene militarily. Members of ISIS are already dead set in their ways, as their goal is far bigger than expulsion of the West; it is, in fact, like stated previously in my argument, the creation of a Muslim state. Their rallying cry is such a creation, and they masquerade their barbaric process through the guise of religion and holy text.
I would like to see if my understanding of your main argument is true: the US should send in ground troops, or bomb ISIS, in order to win. Judging from your speech, it is most likely that you believe this: ISIS has caused too much pain and suffering for us ignore it. Many people across our nation are of the same opinion as you. But many others have a different thought: what about collateral damage? I know what some of you may be thinking. "Screw that! If you leave ISIS alone, then they will continue to spread suffering throughout the Middle East!" Technically, you would be correct. However, to quote my opponent here, "this case is unique." But if you look at my last complete paragraph much more carefully, you will notice that the collateral damage caused by the troops that we might send in will result in anger and vengeance towards the US. Sending in ground troops doesn't solve too many problems: in fact, it creates more problems than it solves. However, we can't just leave the victims of terrorism to the mercies of the terrorists. Instead, we should just take these victims, and show them hospitality. That way, we are not fighting ISIS with force, but we are taking away the people who might one day support them, and letting them be somewhere else and never see a terrorist again.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
I thank my opponent for posting his rebuttal. I shall now post mine.
"But many others have a different thought: what about collateral damage?" If all wars were to be fought with the intention or moral outreach of collateral damage, then there would be no conflict. The fact of the matter is, the United States military is far too technologically advanced and well trained to merrily bomb an excess of innocent people. This is a common mistake and debate topic that most individuals who are against armed conflict make, but it's often wrong.
In all cases, the installations that are being bombed happen to be bombed strategically, as each is an ISIS stronghold, with varying levels of importance.
My opponent has yet to provide any substantial evidence on his part, in which he can explain the amount of collateral damage that has been caused by continuous bombings of ISIS, and the efficiency of these bombings.
"Technically, you would be correct. However, to quote my opponent here, 'this case is unique.' "
If by technicality I am right, then by practicality, I am also right, especially in this case. It happens to be that I could make the exact same argument, being that this case is unique, and that there will be no collateral damage.
"the troops that we might send in will result in anger and vengeance towards the US. Sending in ground troops doesn't solve too many problems"
My opponent doesn't realize the magnitude of what the term "force" means.
My opponent assumes much. You state the "installations that are being bombed happen to be bombed strategically, as each is an ISIS stronghold," although you have not thought about the ISIS stronghold in particular. Where is the ISIS stronghold? Does the United States even know where it is? Can we even get close enough to the ISIS stronghold without them destroying our planes? Assuming that we knew where it was, and the United States' planes could get close enough to it, then I honestly doubt that the stronghold is in the middle of nowhere. If it were in the middle of the desert, then we could easily just bomb them without any worries of collateral damage. It is most likely in the middle of a city, where any bombing would kill at least one innocent person.
Force: strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence. 
This was your definition of "force" in your previous debate. However, the term of force is from Merriam-Webster, in which it says: "military strength." There is no need to get all technical in your definition. I am sure that you fully understood what I meant, although you may have been looking for an excuse to limit my argument. However, I have been using the Merriam-Webster definition throughout this entire speech, and will continue to do so. You have also said that "My opponents argument is just a prediction. My opponent does not realize that this argument is on the usage of force against ISIS as of now, not the effects it will have on the future." However, I suggest that you do further research before assuming so much. The evidence that I give is nowhere close to a prediction. According to Greg Botelho, from CNN, he gives proof that this has happened before with Al-Qaeda, with angry boys joining Al-Qaeda for reasons such as these. "Like with Al-Qaeda previously, disaffected young Muslims anywhere-- even in the West -- could join ISIS, then perhaps deciding to act out in their homelands." History repeats itself in many situations.
While not fighting ISIS with force, we are instead fighting them in a completely different way: we remove their supporters and potential supporters in a peaceful way, and they will have fewer supporters. If you cut off the snake's head, the rest of the snake will die. In this example, the snake head is represented by ISIS supporters. Without enough supporters of terrorism, ISIS will eventually be removed. This process, while taking a very long time, will be very effective against ISIS. Forgive me for not making it more obvious to my opponent. After all, without supporters, ISIS is as good as gone. "He states ways of preventing ISIS from gaining members, which won't do too much, but fails to provide a way to stop ISIS altogether." My opponent does not see why these two are linked together.
After the tragic event of 9/11, the United States was eager to show its military force to Al-Qaeda and take it down. They went on a campaign in Afghanistan to take down these terrorists. This campaign took several years, and cost the US government both fighters and money. They used the ground troops approach, which you should already know about. There was a large loss of life for America's army: 2,300 lives were lost in this war. There were also thousands of dollars that were spent on this campaign: the exact number is not known. This is the reason that we do not attack ISIS with ground troops. Also, there are literally NO US officials that vote to send ground troops to fight ISIS.
I shall begin my rebuttal and then finalize with a conclusion.
"although you have not thought about the ISIS stronghold in particular. Where is the ISIS stronghold? Does the United States even know where it is? Can we even get close enough to the ISIS stronghold without them destroying our planes? "
Firstly, I never mentioned that we would be attacking one ISIS stronghold. Need I remind my opponent that ISIS is not an official political entity, as the United States would see it, and that they do not possess the means to create an installation worthy enough of being titled a Headquarters or a stronghold. They are merely terrorists that hide behind the guise of innocent lives.
My opponent also fails to provide any information as to how these terrorists could take down United States warplanes. They do not possess the weaponry to sufficiently attack air forces, considering the majority of their forces are land forces.
I will ignore this statement about a counter attack by ISIS forces until my opponent can provide some source proving it.
"This was your definition of "force" in your previous debate. However, the term of force is from Merriam-Webster, in which it says: "military strength."
My definition ends with "physical coercion; violence." It can be reasonably inferred that both violence and physical coercion equates to some level of strength, especially military strength.
" According to Greg Botelho, from CNN, he gives proof that this has happened before with Al-Qaeda, with angry boys joining Al-Qaeda for reasons such as these. "Like with Al-Qaeda previously, disaffected young Muslims anywhere-- even in the West -- could join ISIS, then perhaps deciding to act out in their homelands." History repeats itself in many situations."
Sources are of no matter itself. Only the credibility counts. You can have 50 sources with no credibility, and 1 source with crediblity would beat it. Using statistics from CNN, which is a biased news source, is of no use.
My opponent has failed to CITE his sources, and any quoting can be rendered useless unless there is citations.
"While not fighting ISIS with force, we are instead fighting them in a completely different way: we remove their supporters and potential supporters in a peaceful way, and they will have fewer supporters. If you cut off the snake's head, the rest of the snake will die. In this example, the snake head is represented by ISIS supporters. Without enough supporters of terrorism, ISIS will eventually be removed. This process, while taking a very long time, will be very effective against ISIS. "
My opponent has revealed an interesting revelation in his own argument, which practically contradicts his original statement.
It is true that showing hospitality towards the victims of these attacks will deter people from joining ISIS, but it will deter very few. There are many individuals who are already hateful towards ISIS, especially people who disagree religiously, or at least find that their extremes are too much.
ISIS isn't made of 85 year old men who will die next week. It's made of young people, both men and women, who are free to reproduce to their hearts content. Their numbers keep growing, and showing mercy or hospitality to people who ARE NOT part of ISIS is practically useless.
It may be effective in 50 years, but it won't be effective today.
The will of Allah is strong with these people. They won't seclude themselves because they feel that they are in the wrong. They follow their guidance to the very extreme reaches of its borders, so showing hospitality doesn't help. War isn't a game of peace.
"Also, there are literally NO US officials that vote to send ground troops to fight ISIS."
There are no officials who VOTE, yes, that is true. There are quite a lot of officials, being high ranking military officers, who state that in order to beat ISIS, some amount of ground troops have to be deployed.
Ground troops offer precision, while air force attacks in bulk. A bomb may take out 19 out of 20 men, but it will be awfully hard to minimize innocent deaths and not destroy infastructure if the air force were to bomb each person individually.
"Many of President Obama’s critics believe the Islamic State will not be defeated without U.S. troops fighting on the ground (beyond special operations forces already conducting direct-action and train-and-equip missions). With the deployment of approximately 50 special operators to Syria, stepping up the U.S. ground presence in Iraq seems even more likely. But this would be a severe mistake. The current plan — which involves training, equipping, and otherwise supporting the Iraqi Security Forces in a way that is contingent on the political reforms necessary to resolve Iraq’s conflicts — is the right one, although there are certainly improvements to be made in terms of execution." 
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Vox_Veritas 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.