ISIS is the Modern Version of Early British Colonialism

R1) Intent:I have a couple of responses to your attacks here:A1) Religious freedom =/= religious dominance>> You assert another big reason for the colonialization was religious, to which I agree. However, these people were simply seeking freedom from religious oppression. They were escaping a place where it was believed religious uniformity was necessary for societal success, similar to the beliefs of IS. The Islamic State affirms there must be one religion and one religion only; Islam. However, the colonialization of colonies, and the flee from religious oppression is the opposite. The pilgrims settled to escape the uniformity and came to settle in the New World and establish "plantations of religion." [1] Instead of enforcing religions, they sought new land to cultivate open religion, not oppressive.>> The Islamic State, on the other hand, is operating under a policy of "convert or die." [2] Fleeing from oppression can be accurately likened to the British colonialism, but the spread of oppression is equally linked to IS. They are asserting power to convert anyone who isn't Islamic, and kill those who do not. One group (IS) is seeking religious dominance, while the other event is seeking religious freedom. The two are not even close to comparable. A2) Monetary gain>> The monetary gain premise is faulty. Regardless of whether or not IS is taking (which happens to be bad) oil, it doesn't flow under intent. Their reason, again, is religious, not economic.>> On the other hand, it's only logical to conclude this was the primary driving force for colonialism and flee from Europe. New worlds offered the desirable prospects of a country by which they could gain profits with little cost. Joint-stock companies proved quite beneficial even then [3], affirming that colonization was good not only then, but now. The same is not true for the Islamic State, whose actions have no apparent positive consequence. By reason of pragmatism and logical consequence, we need to reject the notion that the Islamic State is a modern day representation of British colonialism.A3) General Intent>> My opponent's assertion here operates under a failed and fundamentally flawed premise; that colonization was a resultant of seeking religious freedom alone. Instead, economics was the driving force behind the colonization. This argument is really a mess when you get into it. I'll note a few key problems: + Refer to A1 -- IS is spreading religious dominance, while colonialism diverged from oppression to freedom. This can mean only one thing: their intent religiously is not synonymous. This alone disproves the false claim typified in the resolution. + Economically, the impacts between IS and British colonialism are incongruent. While the territorial claims benefited the global economy, IS has not. As my opponent mentioned, IS steals oil, not benefitting economy in any way. Again, this renders the assertion false. + The goal to spread influence is something shared by both groups. However, the type of influence to be spread mandates the two not be considered similar. While British colonialism sought to develop the world, benefit global economy, and settle rugged land, IS only does the opposite. They seek to spread violence to those who do not bend to their will. >> The good of the world is by far more important than a dominant religion. The means to achieve the ends of a global religion have been all but good. With British colonialism, there was great good brought about.R2) ConsequencesAgain, I have a couple of attacks in this response:A1) Global Benefit>> As I mentioned before (and my opponent conceded) the aftermath of British colonialism was "largely good." However, the qualifier of those "dependent on democracy." This lens is transparent, but also fits to the world. Obviously, some specific events weren't positive, but the net benefit is overwhelmingly obvious.>> There were quite a few benefits of British colonialism. For example, fur trade (practiced by both French and Brits) was essential to a the Natives themselves. They were able to trade their fur for other ittems they needing, including: "Knives, pots, and kettles facilitated food preparation, and nets, firearms, and hatchets made hunting easier and more productive." [4]>> Europeans (largely Britain) brought a lot of things to the New World, and they can be classified in four predominant categories:=1) Non-human organisms -- Plants, microbes, and new animals were introduced because of colonialism.=2) Trade -- Europeans were able to trade with Natives for various different things that each group thought was necessary.=3) Settlement patterns -- Prior to European influence, there were only small tribes. Colonialism solidified areas and established more firm settlements in which people could live more safely. [5]=4) Supplies -- There were new supplies and such the Natives had never seen, like rifles ("fire sticks"), big ships, etc. These not only helped cultivation in the New World, but also benefited the group it was most largely affecting.>> The assertion that they have the same goal is quite far-fetched. Besides, this assertion operates under the premise that Islam is a true religion, another whole premise entirely.>> We have to weigh this debate on the tangible, measurable benefits and harms, not simultaneously accept Islam as the entire truth. Moreover, even if their objective is somewhat similar (it's really not), they are going about it in totally juxtaposed ways. This solidifies and backs up my stance that IS is not a model representation to any degree of accuracy of British colonialism.Underview:There's a couple of things that require mention here, along with my conclusion.Conclusion:I've continued to demonstrate vast differences between the Islamic State and British colonialism. Throughout this discourse in particular, I've strongly rebutted each of my opponent's substantive arguments with factual representations of their differences. Right now, you can only vote Con, and here's why: the intent is different, the global impact is different, the consequences short and long-term are different, and because I've also shown that IS lacks support from it's very own religious counterparts -- affirming their actions aren't necessarily correlated to the Muslim religion with any strong bond.Clarifications:There were a few arguments mentioned by my opponent that were not topical. Specifically, the mentions of Spanish violence are not pertinent to the resolution, which specifies *BRITISH* colonialism. I am not obligated to respond to these, and they are likewise not impactful to the resolution.To add a jpeg or png, simply copy and paste it across platforms.NOTE:I think this debate has an important qualifier. The actual colonizations from Britain came after the migration to the New World. The people left of their own accord, and were then colonized by Britain. Really, much of the harms about which my opponent speaks were not actually resultant of the colonization, but the actions prior to them.Sources:[1] http://www.loc.gov...[2] http://www.express.co.uk...[3] http://www.mysocialstudiesclass.com...[4] https://www.boundless.com...[5] http://people.umass.edu...