In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists

I want to apologize beforehand, my original response was much better and more thorough, however, due to a computer glitch, all of my work was lost and so I had to start over. My original response was much better, in my opinion, however, now it is gone forever.Cause of TerrorismThe Pro states that Anti-Imperialism and the Clash of Civilizations are not contradictory. However, this is simply false. The two theories are competing theories within the academic community and are a major point of debate. The Clash of Civilizations stipulates that conflicts in the post-Cold War world are the result of religious and cultural identities, while Anti-Imperialism states that conflicts are the result of western imperialism and colonials and failed interventionist policies. To put it simply, one is based on culture, and the other is based on politics. While the Pro does cite the works of Salafist thinkers like Qutb and Bin Laden (he also cites Khomeini who was not a Salafist), who did believe that Western Culture was corrupting, it must be noted that these beliefs only became popular because of Western Interventions in the middle east. According to Foreign Policy magazine "...if we want to get rid of terrorism or greatly reduce it to what it was before, we need to stop blaming religions, history, culture, etc. but look at our own actions and begin changing our ways because it has obviously created a long history of blowbacks and other failures." [1]Furthermore, the book he cites, Why Jihad Went Global, actually negates the clash of civilizations theory and argues that it was because of the politics and strategy of the Jihadist movement led by Al-Qaeda. [2]Drone StrikesWhile the Pro does clarify his position in regards to drone strikes, he states that in addition to the terrorists who are already being targeted by drones, the families would be added to the kill list as well. What this would inevitably mean is that the number of drone strikes would need to be increased, only making the problems I have demonstrated exponentially worse. The Pro has not responded to this contention, and thus we must assume he, therefore, concedes this contention.Examples Given by the ProThe Pro has given two examples of how the resolution would be effective. The first is the KGB response to the Lebanon Hostage Crisis. The Pro Criticizes my rebuttal of this example, claiming I "erroneously" depicted it. While the three remaining Soviet Hostages were released after the KGB's brutal actions, the goal of that operation was the release of hostages. The goal of the proposal we are debating is the complete destruction of ISIS. The Pro does not want to kill the families of terrorists to force them to acquiesce to specific demands, the goal is to wipe out the terrorist organization. The pro has thus far failed to show how this example of what you could call "negotiation through intimidation", for lack of a better phrase, demonstrates the effectiveness of killing terrorists' families.The second example given by the pro is that of Nazi War crimes committed following the Murder of Reinhard Heydrich. The con criticizes my response for being shaming, however, the point that I was making is that it was acts like this which ultimately inspired the adoption of the Geneva convention, in order to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.Immigration and RefugeesThe issue of immigration and refugees has once again been cited by the pro, however as I have previously stated, the pro has failed to show why this is relevant to the debate that is being had. The Pro claims that I have failed to respond, however, this argument is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract from the resolution of the debate. It is simply irrelevant to the current debate. As it is not relevant, I will not waste characters on responding to the claims.The Pro then against attacks my personal political views and support for Jeremy Corbyn. The Pro attacks Jeremy Corbyn's views on Syrian refugees and says that by extension, I must have the same view. However, this claim simply does not hold any bearing as I have not once in this debate expressed either support or opposition to Corbyn's views on Syrian refugees. The fact is that this issue is also irrelevant to this debate. While the Pro states that this is "not an ad hominem" because he is addressing the fact that I support Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race, and this thus undermines my claims, however, this is the very definition of an ad hominem attack [3]. The pro is casting doubt on me personally as a way of undermining my case, but without actually addressing my arguments or sources. As I have previously stated, this is both irrelevant and a violation of the rules laid out in round 1.The Pro then claims that he cannot find the 51% figure I gave in the last round. This figure came from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) [4]. The source was provided as source 2 in the last round but is also included as source 4 in this round. All of my sources may be found at the end of my argument.International LawIn the last round, I demonstrated how the Geneva Conventions are legally binding and are considered the law of the land under the US constitution. While previously the Pro's argument has been that the Geneva convention is not relevant in 21st-century warfare, he now argues it is not relevant to this debate at all. This argument is a prime example of moving the goalposts, the Pro has moved the parameters of the argument in order to better suit his conclusion. As he does not actually address the arguments I have made, and rather attempted to move the parameters of this topic of discussion, the contention still stands. IneffectiveThus far the pro has failed to give any reason as to why this strategy would not create more terrorists, and has only argued that terrorists would be scared from committing future acts, however, he has not demonstrated this or given any credible evidence to support this claim, and thus the contention stands as is.Sources1. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...2. http://www.cambridge.org...3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...4. http://data.unhcr.org...