The United States Federal Government Should insert ground troops into Iraq to Fight ISIS
Debate Rounds (3)
1AC - 1st Affirmative constructive
1NC- 1st negative constructive
2AC - 2nd affirmative constructive
2NC- 2nd negative constructive
1NR- 1st negative rebuttal
1AR- 1st affirmative rebuttal
2NR- 2nd negative rebuttal
2AR- 2nd negative rebuttal
Resolved: The USfg should insert ground troops into Iraq
As the Affirmative, I define USfg as the United States Federal Government
I define ground troops as any combat unit meant for fighting on the ground
I define Iraq as the middle eastern nation near Iran
This will be a policy debate
The criteria will be net benefits and proper policy debate procedure
Observation 2: Background: Iraq has been attacked by a terrorist group called ISIS
ISIS has taken the city of fallujah and has almost made it to Baghdad
Observation 3: Plan
Plan Text: The U.S military will insert ground force into Iraq
Agent: United States military
Funding: USfg (taxpayer dollars)
Timeframe: Right now
Solvency: 1. This will get rid of ISIS
2. This will get rid of anti western sentiment
Advantage 1: Harm: ISIS is in Iraq
Solvency: U.S forces will go overseas from bases all over the middle east
Impact: Iraq will be free
Advantage 2: Harm: Iraq is close to losing it's independence
Solvency: With U.S forces freeing Iraqis from ISIS anti-western sentiment will go down
Impact: There will be less hate for America, thus less insurgents
I strongly negate the resolution aiming to insert United States ground forces into Iraq in order to combat ISIS aggression.
The definitions I will be using are the same as my opponents.
OBV 1. I would like to state that the Affirmative party in this debate must prove that their are significant gains that the United States will be giving upon the completion of the desired action, that will counter the plethera of losses that the United States will also be accumulating.
Contention 1: Not our Job
As a Nation we must ensure that any war partaken in, must have a justifiable cause or reward. To simply put it there is neither a single thing that warrants U.S action against ISIS or a specific reward that would come from a war against ISIS.
Contention 2: We must learn from our mistakes.
I will be referring to the Iraq war for the bulk of this contention. The first Iraq war actually had a warrant for U.S action but was still an economic disaster that the U.S was not ready for. Why should we be putting ourselves in the same situation for a war that doesn't warrant action.
Next round we will take a more in depth look to the issue.
Harms: ISIS has taken half of Iraq and is getting close to baghdad. If we let this go on, the money and lives will be made void and it will cost. And you cannot put a price on human life.We have already started air strikes against them but we will never truly defeat them unless we take back Iraq.
Solvency: Having a military presence will help stabilize Iraq
Impacts: It will be cheaper to insert ground troops now then to re-invade Iraq.
Harms: In the previous Iraq war, the U.S went in with very limited foreign support.
Solvency: This war is worth American attention because the international community will contribute too.
Impacts: The Iraqi people will see that the entire world is trying to raise them out of oppression.
Harms: ISIS is not a terrorist group but a group of revolutionaries trying to take Iraq and have already formed an Islamic state.
Solvency: We can quickly defeat them because we will be fighting another country, not a non-state combatant.
Impacts: Iraq will be free. Anti-western sentiment will go down because we will bring rights for all along with freedom from oppression
Harms: Women's rights are being affected and they do not have rights under Sharia law.
Solvency: Women's rights will stay in place under the constitutional government instead of an a theocracy.
Impacts: Women will be able to read, write, and vote freely in a free and independent Iraqi society.
Harms: Sunni and Shiite prejudice will continue fighting
Solvency: When the U.S gets rid of ISIS, a free state where all have equal rights will drastically bring down sunni-shiite violence
Impacts: Sunnis and Shiites can live in peace. This is in turn will make the government more stable.
These two very simple statements combat every sing thing that the pro advocates for.
1. Women's rights will be protected
2. This is not America alone, the other nations contribute too
In the neg's world, we have an Iraq where we there is unfree and all the lives America lost in the first Iraq war was lost. In the Aff's world we have an Iraq with no central governent. This is not a new arguement because I am refuting the Neg's arguement. First off all. The neg's view is very unrealistic. We are already involved with airstrikes.
As for the significant gains. The neg's idea of ethnocentrism is wrong because it the U.S's duty to the United Nations to fight ISIS. Going back to advantage 4, We can fight ISIS as another country. It will not be another Iraq war. This will benefit the U.S going back to advantage 6 because once Sunni-Shiite violence is down, we can trade with a stable Iraq because ISIS has been selling oil through the black market.This in turn will effect the U.S by raising prices because much needed Iraqi oil.
Vote AFF because AFF has the most net benefts.
1) I will state why this does not provide any benefits to the United States.
2) Why the aff has failed to attack any of my points and why the NEG has one the debate.
So my oppents case does not warrant direct attacks on their individual harms because none of them pertain to U.S. benefits.
We can all agree that the AFF writes their whole case around protecting the rights of the people in Iraq.
I'm not sure as to how this would directly benefit the United States and I certainty don't see how it is the duty of the United States to protect the rights of ANOTHER COUNTRIES citizen's. Why would we risk even more blood to uphold the rights of another countries citizens, The answer, We shouldn't.
Regardless of what the AFF states a simple minded person is able to determine there are no benefits of going to Iraq for a SECOND time.
2) The unrelevant attacks made on my case.
So the AFF states that it is our job because Iraq is Un-free. Well based on the AFF's world, they would want to go to every countries government that is un-free, Attack them and hope they learn their lesson, Not caring how many lives will be lost. The AFF cares more about upholding the rights of citizens in other countries over the lives of the citizens in our country. There is another word for this... its on the tip of my tongue... Oh yeah... Its imperialism. Which has proven to not be beneficial.
The second AFF attack is that the First Iraq war will have been fought for nothing if we dont go to war.
This is the exact reason that we should not go back because the efforts and programs that were set up were completely taken away in the two years following the war... Meaning the first one was Useless and had no benefits. And this exactly why we cannot go back.
Do the fact that the AFF never really attacked my case so it flows through the whole round of debate.
So we can clearly see that the aff has provided absolutely no benefits that will effect the U.S in another war in Iraq.
I have stated the simple and most important facts that this war will lead to ... MORE DEAD AMERICANS and the other fact is that IT IS NOT OUR DUTY TO SERVE THE CIVIL NEEDS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.
It is for these reasons that the entire NEG/CON side has Flowed across the bored meaning it is the winning side in this debate.
I would like to thank my opponent for a mediocre debate.
I urge a vote in the negation
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.