BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

I as side affirmative firmly believe that this resolution will and must stand. I has already explained in great detail the extremist group that is the Islamic State, and the need for military action. I will be talking mainly about why America should participate in this military action. Before I go onto my constructive points, I would like to refute everything said thus far by the opposition. I would like to first point out that due to my first speech where I outlines possible ways to resolve this issue. Although I cannot fully argue those points as I have not heard your side of the argument so I will hold on rebuttals on those points until I have heard your side of the argument. I would like to pose these questions as you confront those arguments though. My questions would be: "How do you propose you defend large scale humanitarian aid?" "How can you guarantee that the humanitarian aid will get to the people who need it?" "How can you ensure that the humanitarian aid will have a meaningful long-term impact when it is only intended as a very short-term solution?" The United Nations does not have exactly the best track record on fighting ISIS attacks. Considering the recent attacks on the Canadian parliament, and multiple attacks on Paris soil, and the United Nations have not forcefully interceded, it is rightful that the United States and other countries intercede to protect their interests and their citizens. I would next like to ask the question, how do you propose national economic development when ISIS exists? This is impossible. To make the point I would like to point out that since ISIS is attacking civilians and blowing up national landmarks and working buildings. Now onto my constructive points. There are many reasons as to why America should be participating in the fight against IS. Firstly, we are already backed by overwhelming support by the public. A recent poll done by "The Hill" on November 20th, stated that 73% of those polled supported the use of American fighter jets in airstrikes. This is more than the 2001 Afghanistan role at 61%, as well as the potential Iraq mission (44%). In addition, America is a well-developed country in the international community with a reasonably advanced military. Unlike many of the countries, we are perfectly capable of effectively delivering airstrikes. In the interest of the stability and future quality of life in the Middle East, we must deploy these offensive military assets. defeat this obvious and blatant disregard for overall stability of the region. To preserve the stability of the world, we must make the greatest effort to first contain, and then destroy IS. As America, we also have a moral responsibility to address the problem with assisting in the fight against IS. They are an extremist group, which by definition, consist of radicalized fanatics. Fanatics are not reasonable people. History has shown that they cannot be negotiated with, they have no desire for peace, and they have absolutely no regard for those who fall outside their narrow fundamentalist circles. The situation we are confronted with regarding IS is military in nature, and requires a military resolution. The situation at this point means that anything short of direct action will fail to have a meaningful impact. However, even still, you could still be of the opinion that America shouldn"t help. Why should we be joining a war that doesn"t even concern us? However, America has been threatened, targeted, and even attacked. In a recent 42 minute video released by IS, a spokesperson for the fanatical group that goes by the name of Abu-Muhammad Al-Adnani has stated "Rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone"s advice and do not seek anyone"s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling." On November 13th, just a mere 3 months ago, a group Islamic convert, seemingly heeding the call to arms went and killed 130 people in Paris. A photo of the incident was then posted on an IS media outlet. To state that IS doesn"t affect us is an outright lie. Although this is not an attack on U.S. soil, 83 percent of registered voters say they believe a terrorist attack in the United States resulting in large casualties is likely in the near future, rising from 73 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll earlier during November asking the same question. Forty percent say a major attack in the United States is "very likely," which match the record level of concern recorded after the 2005 subway bombings in Britain. America must act in order to prevent the situation from worsening. If not, the future of the entire region has the potential to become more dreadful than anything we could possibly imagine. And this, we cannot accept. It is for these reasons that this resolution must stand. I am now poised to hear your rebuttals, and I look forward to the third and final round of our debate. Thank you and good day! Poll links: https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://thehill.com...