The United States should go on the "attack" against ISIS

Thanks to my opponent for his opening case. My opponent didn't seem to refute my arguments rather they instead created their own. I understand this as it was never clear to ask for a direct rebuttal to my case in the second round. My arguments therefore if my opponent so chooses to argue them will remain open until the end of the debate. Instead of piling on more to my opening arguments I will discuss my opponents and prove in favor that going on the defense will be the wrong choice in dealing with ISIS.STRENGTHENING THE CAUSE OF ISIS-My opponent claims that ISIS is orchestrating intervention, and I agree, but that doesn't not mean we should go on the defensive. ISIS is showing propaganda to get us angry and dig deep in to our spirit and nationalism to pull out conflict and I agree with my opponent that this is happening. IF WE DO NOT for say pursue this conflict though, ISIS will have to dig deeper. Right now it's videos to get our angered attention, but if they never receive our attention because we fall in to the viewpoint of my opponent and do nothing, that's not going to make ISIS stop going for our attention. They will possibly go for home soil attacks and more extreme measures to get us involved. If we do not give them attention now then we are inviting a serious, dangerous problem unto ourselves that in hindsight could have been avoided. As to my opponent's points about us getting involved and that provoking a quicker spawn rate of terrorists and giving young people an escape to terrorism I unfortunately have to say that terrorism, as long as the Middle East remains a hot spot for various religions, will always produce terrorists and those terrorists will have ties to previous terrorist groups. Unfortunately when you have so many religions in a confined area intimidation and violence will result, and terrorism will always exist. These terrorist groups will have roots to others, and always go back to a hatred of the west.I guess what I'm trying to say is us not attacking ISIS is not going to stop the spread of terrorism in the Middle East and a thought that it will is false. Optimistic, yes, but unfortunately there's an ugly truth.WE ARE LESS LIKELY TO END SUFFERING THAN TO COMPOUND IT-My opponent makes a point to say that a military of great size and force pursuing ISIS would case more harm than good. I agree, and I'm glad I made a point in my opening argument that when I say attack ISIS I do not mean an invasion of great force. I mean small Intel gathering and reconnaissance, not an invasion. So my opponent's claim of that being an issue is resolved, I agree it is and never said otherwise.My opponent bases the next point on that permise that I just concluded as resolved, so my opponent's next claim is assumed to be resolved as well, nontheless for the sake of the debate I will refute it. My opponent says that "the civilian population will be in greater jeapordy in the immediate presence of the US Military." Also possibly true, BUT is the civilian population not already in danger? They have a world wide known terrorist organization toting guns throughout their streets and beheading journalists from around the world in the neighborhood, are they not already in danger? And another point, aren't we in danger? There have been calls to action to bomb our Mall of America, should we worry about the foreign well-being of a small Islamic town more than we should one of our own? That's just assuming I was in favor of an immediate US military presense, which I stated above I am not. Just because I am in favor of going on the offence does not mean I'm in favor of deploying units to charge in to battle.FINAL POINTS-My opponent gave some good points and summed up their debate with the idea that ISIS is a force that is something to be taken with care, and what we should do about them is not clear. (That is not a direct quote, but a summed up interpretation). I refute that taken a defensive, "not clear" idea to a serious threat to our citizens is dangerous and even more clear in itself. Sitting back and waiting for ISIS to strike US in a sensitive spot is a ticking time bomb, and when it goes off citizens will call for a serious call to action and a serious need to go on the attack, more than I would agree with!I am in favor of oppressing this issue with offensive style, but if we wait to get attacked, the American people and government will be so overwhelmed with emotion (much like 9/11) that we will call for something me and my opponent both disagree on, a war! We need to start the offensive now before it's too late and the offensive style is lost to an extreme. It's time to act before it is too late and protecting the lives and soil of our homeland is easily exchanged for a foreign presense, not war, but presense and investigation in to ISIS.