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

Before I begin, I would ask the pro to Organize his responses from here on out as I have organized mine.Response to Pro's Round 2 Argument The Pro initially argues that US foreign policy in the middle east is responsible for inciting terrorists, however in the next paragraph, he argues that terrorist attacks are the result of a Clash of Civilizations. These two theories are contradictory. One theory states that terrorism is the backlash against US policies and perceived western imperialism, while the other states that terrorism is simply the result of cultural divisions and a hatred of western democracy. This contradiction is a serious issue, as one argument would indicate that further intervention would only make things worse, while the other promotes further intervention.The Pro then states that the War on terror has failed as the number of terrorists has swelled. This is because of what I stated in the previous round, that US strategies such as, Drone Bombing, have increased animosity towards the US and increased sympathy towards terrorists and increased recruitment. By making this argument the Pro has effectively conceded one of my main contentions before it was even made.The Pro goes on to state that he considers the Geneva Conventions null and void because they do not account for the realities of modern war. While the rationale behind such a claim can be debated, it does not change the fact that the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, under Article VI, Section II of the US Constitution [1]. The argument made by the Pro simply does not align with the legal reality.The Pro then claims that there is reasons so many of ISIS's recruits are from the former soviet states, and then cites the brutality used by the KGB against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and thus brutal strategies get results. There are several problems with this argument. First, the Pro fails to provide a link between KGB tactics and ISIS recruits beyond basic geography. Secondly, the argument does not make logicla sense. Thirdly, while the KGB may have obtained the release of 4 Hostages thanks to their actions, it did not result in the destruction of Hezbollah or deter people from joining Hezbollah, as the organization still exists and continues to gain strength. It did not even result in the end of the Hostage Crisis, as the crisis continued for another 6 years. Lastly, it does not in anyway show how killing the families of terrorists will stop terrorism.The Pro then argues that we must strike fear into terrorists, but fails to show in any way how it will actually stop terrorists. And as I have shown in my argument, such strategies only create more terrorists.The pro then goes on to argue against allowing refugees into Europe, however, he does not show how this is at all relevent to the debate that is being had and argues that "75%" of immigrants are "able bodied men". The source for this claim however is from "Refugee Resettlement Watch" a blog which opposes asylum for refugees, which is not in any way a reputable source. While it does provide a link to the UNHCR website, the actual number giv oen by the UNHCR is 51% of refugee arivals in Europe being men, the word able bodied does not appear, and only 33%f all the refugees (including women and children) are from Syria [2]. Not only are the claims by the pro false, they are irrelvent to the debate. Throughout the rest of his arguments, the Pro never once shows how the strategy would be effective at all, claiming it would be a deterrent, but fails to show how. He challenges me as to how I would stop terrorism, however, this is not what the debate is about. The resolution states "In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists", not "How should we defeat ISIS". Connection 1: International LawThe Pro opens his round 3 arguments by again claiming he does not recognize the Geneva convention. Again, this does not change the legal reality of the situation, as I have already stated.The Pro's emotions towards the actions by terrorists do not change the fact that there are law and rules that the United States has agreed to abide by and are considered the supreme law of the land. While the videos of ISIS actions may work as propoganda, video of American War Crimes works just as effectivley as I have shown.The Pro cites Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Dresden as why nations must do cruel things to win, however, it must be remembered that in all of those cases occurred prior to the Geneva Conventions.Contention 2: IneffectiveThe Pro claims that I compare apples to oranges in regards to drone strikes. While on the surface this might slightly make sense, if my actual argument is examined, you will find that my contention was not simply that it pushed family towards terrorists, it also push friends, neighbors and relatives towards terrorists and inspired animosity towards the United States. He claims drone strikes are random, however the actual name of the strategy is 'targeted killing", and Drone Strike are used to take out suspected terrorists, not just willy nilly.The Pro states that his strategy is extremely different from drone strikes as those are not "retaliation", however, given the definition of retaliation is "the action of returning a military attack; counterattack...", the War on Terror in its entirety could be considered an act of retaliation [3]. On the issue of Guantanamo bay, the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo bay has likewise increased animosity towards the United States because it has been used extensively by ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in it propoganda[4]. The Pro cites the fact that waterboarding is no longer used, and the fact that a football field was recently built as reasoning as to why it has not ineffective, saying more torture should be used. This does not change the fact that Guantanamo Bay has become synonymous around the world with American human rights abuses and has become free propaganda for terrorist groups.The Pro never shows how his strategy would not create more terrorists or that it is not ineffective, instead highlighting the crimes committed by ISIS. He openly admits his case is based on emotion, not in facts. He cites the case of Reinhard Heydrich's murder and the response by the Nazis as to why brutal responses work, however in doing this the Pro has effectively stated that the US military should look to the Nazis for inspiration. It must be remembered that it was the crimes committed by the Nazis that inspired the Geneva conventions in 1949. He never actually responds to the modern day examples I have given, and never actually answered the contention.The Pro concludes by attacking me, and my support of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership election, claiming that therefore I do not care about my own safety. Not only is this an ad hominem, it is a violation of the rules I set out and the Pro agreed to, which states, "No Trolling". Bringing up something irrelevant such as my support of a candidate is not an issue in this debate and should be considered trolling. Sources1. http://avalon.law.yale.edu...2. http://data.unhcr.org...3. https://www.google.com...4. http://www.theatlantic.com...