The United States should go on the "attack" against ISIS
I would like to debate a current "hot topic" in our political military world, ISIS! I believed that the United States should actively persue ISIS members and territory both with military force and with foreign influence.
When I say persue I mean actively start advancing an attacking style front on ISIS. I believe and will argue the current state of ISIS is not one that should be taken defensively, but on the attack.
My opponent will argue to opposite, that the US should take a defensive style approach to means of dealing with ISIS.
First round is for acceptance.
PS - Offensive style / defensive style are battle terms relating to combating an enemy and approaches as to which is strategically better based on opinion. Both terms are opinion and cannot be easily defined, therefor the best I can say is use common sense. We are all smart here, let's stay away from semantics on what is an offensive approach and what is a defensive approach, don't be that guy/girl.
Thank you for to my opponent for the acceptance, I look forward to a great debate.
There is some confusion in the comments that I would like to clear up to start off my opening argument.
Should VS Will
There is a huge difference between the US making a decision to go on the offensive against ISIS and the conclusion that they actually will. A few comments suggest that the US never will go on the attack and most likely they won't in my opinion, but that doesn't change fact that they should. Yes, the US most likely will not, but no, that is not what they should do. And that is what I'm arguing, look at the title of the debate, "The United States Should" this doesn't mean that they will, but they should.
An Offensive Strategy
So, what exactly do I mean by the US' offensive strategy. When I talk about offensive I certainly don't mean an official decleration of war, that would be absurd considering this is simply a group. not a country. My idea of an offense is the idea of US presence and monitor in ISIS claimed terrority, in allied nations with their consent, and even on our soil. Once, again, this is not an all out war on ISIS, just a progressive approach to an inevitable conflict.
Inevitable Conflict, and avoiding the avoidable
It is no secret the US is a target for ISIS. Just yesterday Al Shabaab of ISIS called for an attack on the Mall Of America in Minnesota (1). ISIS is a direct threat to America, (2) and who knows what they are capable of producing. The problem with ISIS is that they are not confined in one region, they are mobile and have "pockets" around the globe. The fact of the matter is that ISIS influence and informants could be here in America, the influence of ISIS is near impossible to stop but we can hunt down and stop any ISIS soldiers or informants in America, which I think would be progressive and beneficial to public safety, if we go on the offensive. We cannot sit back and wait for a MOA bombing, in my opinion it would be much safer to avoid the avoidable. Nobody is stopping us from persuing and watching over possible ISIS members that are living here in our homeland, but if we take on defensive approach we are inviting pressure and possible terrorist attacks on our nation.
Monitoring of ISIS Teritory and Allied Nations
ISIS is hunting down people all over the world and publically slaughtering them on film. Yes, including Americans. I think that once ISIS has started killing US Citizens, then they become not only a threat to national security, but also an enemy of our country. Yes Americans die in foreign nations often, but not by terrorist groups who video it and then mock our country by killing our people. ISIS has become an enemy to the US and a defensive approach is inviting more gruesome online beheadings of our people. The US would receive great benefits by mobilizing in to regions of ISIS control, not necessarily by moving in an army, but by using technology and other forms of intelligence gathering to know more about this group. If we know more about them, we then have a stronger defense, because we can predict what ISIS may do next. If we link up with allied nations, we can have the same benefits in a way. ISIS have claimed attacks on nations like France and England, and if we go to those nations to provide support we may also learn more about the attacks, and then learn more about ISIS' attacks and better prepare ourselves for a possible attack on our soil. (3)
ISIS is a national threat. They have killed Americans, threatened America, and an attack on our soil is hanging over our heads. If we go on the attack and monitor incoming possible ISIS members in to America, go monitor their claimed territory, work with nations already attacked, we can go on the progressive front and move towards either stopping an attack completely, or better preparing ourselves for one. A defensive approach where we sit back and wait for an ISIS attack is dangerous to our citizens. We need to actively persue and hunt out possible attacks before it's too late. Once again, this is not a call to war, rather a call to action to go on the offense against someone who is going on the attack against us.
Thanks to everyone for reading and I look forward to hearing from my opponent.
I appreciate Samyul for opening this debate topic. The impact of the decisions that are made around this topic will effect real people in the most fundamental ways. Going on the "attack" is not a subject to take lightly, and I expect neither of us are.
Thanks to my opponent for his opening case. My opponent didn't seem to refute my arguments rather they instead created their own. I understand this as it was never clear to ask for a direct rebuttal to my case in the second round. My arguments therefore if my opponent so chooses to argue them will remain open until the end of the debate. Instead of piling on more to my opening arguments I will discuss my opponents and prove in favor that going on the defense will be the wrong choice in dealing with ISIS.
STRENGTHENING THE CAUSE OF ISIS-
My opponent claims that ISIS is orchestrating intervention, and I agree, but that doesn't not mean we should go on the defensive. ISIS is showing propaganda to get us angry and dig deep in to our spirit and nationalism to pull out conflict and I agree with my opponent that this is happening. IF WE DO NOT for say pursue this conflict though, ISIS will have to dig deeper. Right now it's videos to get our angered attention, but if they never receive our attention because we fall in to the viewpoint of my opponent and do nothing, that's not going to make ISIS stop going for our attention. They will possibly go for home soil attacks and more extreme measures to get us involved. If we do not give them attention now then we are inviting a serious, dangerous problem unto ourselves that in hindsight could have been avoided.
As to my opponent's points about us getting involved and that provoking a quicker spawn rate of terrorists and giving young people an escape to terrorism I unfortunately have to say that terrorism, as long as the Middle East remains a hot spot for various religions, will always produce terrorists and those terrorists will have ties to previous terrorist groups. Unfortunately when you have so many religions in a confined area intimidation and violence will result, and terrorism will always exist. These terrorist groups will have roots to others, and always go back to a hatred of the west.
I guess what I'm trying to say is us not attacking ISIS is not going to stop the spread of terrorism in the Middle East and a thought that it will is false. Optimistic, yes, but unfortunately there's an ugly truth.
WE ARE LESS LIKELY TO END SUFFERING THAN TO COMPOUND IT-
My opponent makes a point to say that a military of great size and force pursuing ISIS would case more harm than good. I agree, and I'm glad I made a point in my opening argument that when I say attack ISIS I do not mean an invasion of great force. I mean small Intel gathering and reconnaissance, not an invasion. So my opponent's claim of that being an issue is resolved, I agree it is and never said otherwise.
My opponent bases the next point on that permise that I just concluded as resolved, so my opponent's next claim is assumed to be resolved as well, nontheless for the sake of the debate I will refute it. My opponent says that "the civilian population will be in greater jeapordy in the immediate presence of the US Military." Also possibly true, BUT is the civilian population not already in danger? They have a world wide known terrorist organization toting guns throughout their streets and beheading journalists from around the world in the neighborhood, are they not already in danger? And another point, aren't we in danger? There have been calls to action to bomb our Mall of America, should we worry about the foreign well-being of a small Islamic town more than we should one of our own? That's just assuming I was in favor of an immediate US military presense, which I stated above I am not. Just because I am in favor of going on the offence does not mean I'm in favor of deploying units to charge in to battle.
My opponent gave some good points and summed up their debate with the idea that ISIS is a force that is something to be taken with care, and what we should do about them is not clear. (That is not a direct quote, but a summed up interpretation). I refute that taken a defensive, "not clear" idea to a serious threat to our citizens is dangerous and even more clear in itself. Sitting back and waiting for ISIS to strike US in a sensitive spot is a ticking time bomb, and when it goes off citizens will call for a serious call to action and a serious need to go on the attack, more than I would agree with!
I am in favor of oppressing this issue with offensive style, but if we wait to get attacked, the American people and government will be so overwhelmed with emotion (much like 9/11) that we will call for something me and my opponent both disagree on, a war! We need to start the offensive now before it's too late and the offensive style is lost to an extreme. It's time to act before it is too late and protecting the lives and soil of our homeland is easily exchanged for a foreign presense, not war, but presense and investigation in to ISIS.
My opponent has presented a compelling case. Compelling cases got us into a number of devastating wars without a productive resolution. One of these pervious devastating wars is almost completely the cause of the current ISIS conflict.
Samyul forfeited this round.
|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||6|