I believe that the U.S. Should do more than it currently has. this includes selling small grade weapons to the Iraqi gov't and bombing high profile ISIS terrorists.
I believe you're insane. Haven't you done enough damage to that country? Iraq had no problems with terrorism until you invaded it, which is pretty ironic given that the US claimed it was going in to fight terrorism. I've given up even pointing out the absurdity of the things people in the US and the UK have been convinced of.
The US should mind its own business and worry about its own borders. Leave other people's alone.
Iraq had no problems with terrorists? Are you kidding me? Saddam Hussien himself along with Basar Assad and Momar Qadaffi created places where terrorism could flourish and spread. The only reason Qadaffi stopped was because Ronald Reagen bombed his palace not one but almost 18 times. If the U.S. doesn't get involved what would happen? Will we have another Nazi style run country where my Jewish Brothers and Christian Kin are murdered simply because the disagree with the government, this is a problem in Egypt a country the U.S. has not invaded. The U.S. Is fighting terrorists unless I.S.I.S. Is just peacefully protesting with rocket launchers. So tell me again what will damage the country more a terrorist run government set on destroying all non Muslims or a pro U.S. Govt tolerant of other religions, supported by the U.S. If it goes on doing nothing this world will become far more dangerous than ever.
Alright Siedo the Burden of proof is on me. Each round will consist of pros and cons, why military action is nessecary or not, and finally why this affects us individuals. The position the con person can take is no involvement if they like.
I'd like to accept the debate, but I need to know some of the details before I do.
1) What does each debate round consist of?
2) Who has the burden of proof?
3) What position can the con person take? Are they only allowed to argue that what is currently being done is perfect, or are they allowed to argue that less should be done?
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.
1) What does each debate round consist of?
2) Who has the burden of proof?
3) What position can the con person take? Are they only allowed to argue that what is currently being done is perfect, or are they allowed to argue that less should be done?