Fighting ISIS

RebuttalsISIS is weak and we can easily stop them nowSummary: Pro claims that ISIS can be easily be eradicated if we send ground troops. He then goes into statistics that show the state of ISIS at the moment, and doesn’t go into detail on how we would eradicate ISIS. Pro also shows no evidence that ISIS is weak, if anything his evidence shows ISIS is strong. ISIS has an estimates force of 31,000. Imagine this figure in the next 2/3 years!Isis has been losing troops, we have killed 45,000 troops in our airstrikes against ISIS(1). In the next 2 or 3 years (or U32; i’m not too sure) ISIS won’t be able to gain too many troops. They will certainly not be able to “double, or more”.“They're running riot murdering, everything in it's way. ISIS militants separate the boys from the girls and rape girls as young as age 12.”The contention here is “ISIS is weak and we can easily stop them now. This is irrelevant to this contention. Nobody is claiming that ISIS is not doing horrible things, but because they are doing horrible things we cannot get rid of them easier. It is also estimated that it could take 3 years to legitimately eradicate the threat ISIS poses to the US and the rest of the world.We could do this in a matter of months, not years.This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Pro does not cite any sources, so I cannot know which is true. I did my research and the first quote seems accurate, so the second quote is irrelevant. ISIS has an estimates force of 31,000. The estimation that Pro is using claims that ISIS has 20,000–31,500 troops. Pro is using the higher end of the estimation to try to prove his point. It is probably more reasonable to assume ISIS has 26,000 troops, 5,000 less than Pro claims.Make good on our promise to fight terrorSummary: Pro goes into how ISIS is a terrorist organisation, and how we declared war on terror. He then claim that because of this we should send ground troops to fight ISIS or terrorist organisations won’t take the US seriously.First off, a war on a noun never works out. Second, we are fighting ISIS. This debate is not about whether or not we should fight ISIS, but whether or not we should send ground troops. The US has taken part in more air strikes than the other nations fighting ISIS combined. We are wearing ISIS down, and is is very unlikely that the US will be taken lightly.\The United States needs to take accountability and fix our mistakesSummary: Pro claims that it is our fault ISIS is a thing, and how we should fix it.I will concede to the fact the ISIS was created because of us taking troops out of the middle east. But the last part of that sentence is key. If we send troops into the middle east, then pull them out again we are just repeating the past. If we send ground troops to fight ISIS we will just create another terrorist organisation.Most of the IS tech that they use, including weaponry, machinery and ammunition has all arrived in some way from the U.S. If someone in the US sent guns and ammunition to ISIS, the federal government does not need to take the blame for it.Once we fight ISIS we can combat other threats in the regionSummary: Pro Claims that after we defeat ISIS we can take care of Assad.I will concede that Assad has done some horrible things, but there is a difference between fighting Assad and fighting ISIS. ISIS is a terrorist organisation, and Assad is a legitimate government. If the US trys to topple Assad we get into questions about state sovereignty and whether or not we have a right to try to take down Assad.Citations1: http://thehill.com...