Attacking ISIS on the basis of their humanitarian crimes is a bad argument.

Framework Let’s talk about what this round will be as my opponent seems to have seriously missed what the point of the match is. If you refer back to the very first paragraph I make it clear that I instigate this debate in order to improve my PFD ability, that being the case I obviously would need to work on the PFD resolution which I presented as “Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops to fight ISIS is in the best interest of the United States. ”, thus it would only make sense that we are debating this as the resolution. We are simply debating a single argument which comes from the con side, relating to the aforementioned resolution. So in essence what I’m saying is that the PFD resolution above must be considered as the, overall, real resolution. The debate is concerning a specific con argument about that resolution, therefore everything in our arguments needs to be framed in that point of reference. I think this is a reasonable, I realize I never explicitly said to frame this as a PFD round so I wont request that so this is a very reasonable mediation. Also con, given the above it should be clear that you can’t advocate a plan. This is simply a yes or no question to the full resolution which weighs all likely outcomes of the resolution. This is not a policy debate just to be clear. I would also like to clarify that the list of statements in the first round is not a list of arguments, but a logical proof. Definitions Ground troop: -The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot. [1] - Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot [1] Combat (attack): -fighting between armed forces. [2] -take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). [2] Ground Combat Troop: To get this definition, being that there is no direct definition I combine the definitions of ground troop and combat. -Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot in order to reduce destroy or prevent the advancement of the enemy and who are designated to participate in fighting between armed forces. *Prefer this definition because the framers of the debate resolution most likely wanted to talk about the implications of putting more soldiers, as we have before, into the middle east, which is probably because ISIS is becoming a greater threat. This is opposed to my opponent’s advocacy, I content that this debate is too wide to talk about ALL types of attacks, especially being that the greater resolution suggests that ground troops will be doing the attacking. ISIS: All of the members who compose of the current ISIS group and anyone who joins in the future. *This definition simply builds on my opponent’s definition except it makes clear that the ISIS to be combated is not JUST the current members of ISIS, as this would undermine the very purpose of defeating ISIS. Grant Con’s definition of Humanitarian crimes. “as we need to protect the National Security…we need to have some form of attack” - You can’t just add your own justification to saving innocents, the resolution as it is presented at the very top of this debate mandates nothing more than justifying that attacking ISIS for the SOLE reason of their humanitarian violations is a bad argument, the debate is Not ‘is humanitarian violations a good reason to attack ISIS’ its very different. You have accepted that we are debating whether moral crimes are justifications of attacking, not if we can justify using humanitarian crimes as the basis of attacking ISIS, I’m not sure if you caught that but you are trying to justify a different thing than the resolution. “By my criterion, we can attack the Mexican cartels with military force or other attacks at the same time or in different time frames” -This takes away resources from the bigger humanitarian issue at hand (cartels) which also happens to effect America More than those smaller humanitarian issues overseas being that it is closer and effects more Americans, con concedes this is true. This means that it is in the best interest of the US’s moral AND personal interests to fight the cartels over ISIS. Please remember this is Not a plan to take on the Cartel, instead, it is simply made to turn the argument of moral crimes against itself using its own logic. In essence I have used the example of the Cartels to show that this argument cant be used in the case of ISIS because according to its own reasoning, the biggest issue comes first. “Also, my plan does not take away any significant amount of resources. ” -no plans man “the US was started to protect Human rights, especially Freedom of Speech and Liberty. ” -As the US we protect Only US citizens, con must show that the rights of our constitution applies to a people who are under a completely different country and constitution. Observation 1 “The resolution gives no inherent timeframe for the attack on ISIS. ” -one is not necessary Observation 2 “an attack could mean sanctions, the military, verbal reproach, etc. ” - I have defined attack differently so I disagree and this will not come to a preference debate, however I will point out that this doesn’t affect my case because the resolution is solely about the relationship between moral crimes and their implications on being used to justify whatever attack may be put upon them, whether they be military or nonmilitary. “Verbal Reproach” -can’t be used because the definition of attack is not as you deem it. “To be silent means to agree” - I think rape laws would disagree. What about all of those deaf people man? ? Just kidding haha. I don’t really understand your point here though. - this argument can’t be used. Your job is solely to negate the logical proof and nothing more. Your job is not to justify attacking but to justify the logical proof. “If we don't who will? ” - this argument can’t be used. Your job is solely to negate the logical proof and nothing more. Your job is not to justify attacking but to justify the logical proof. - If you disagree then please read the section of the first round “Rounds Rules and Regulations” which states: “6. ) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con loses his argument then he automatically loses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated. ” Summary: Con has basically ignored or simply misunderstood the majority of the framing of this debate, some misunderstanings are resonable other completely unreasonable however, it is what it is so we can either fix it and move on or argue about it and get nothing done. Con cant make plans, that should be understood, and furthermore as has been explicitly stated the purpose of this debate is to examine the logical proof. We have talked about the moral argument a little bit so to summarize this I will point out that according to the argument's own logic, mexico take priority, meaning according to this very argument all of our efforts should be turned to mexico right now, not only do they prose a greater amount of humanitarian crimes than ISIS, but they are also closer to the US and actively destroying it and thus, they are also a greater direct threat to the US. Thanks for reading, I pass the pen back to con. Cites [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com...