Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Thank you for your swift response, I shall start with refutation of your points. Rebuttal 1: Military strength a. Conventional military prowess My opponent has claimed that the military of the US is strong and capable of defeating ISIS. However, we need to keep in mind ISIS’ strength as well. My University of Texas statistic shows that ISIS is more capable given its location overseas giving it an advantage since our troops are unfamiliar with the territory (2). Not only this, but ISIS is well funded and has over 200,000 troops as shown in my previous Independent article (3). Sending in enough troops to counter such a threat is simply ludicrous given the recruitment factor that American troops and presence add to the frenzy. Remember, the Middle East where ISIS is involved hates US influence because of the human rights abuses that occur there. Not only this, but US influence solidifies us as the “western boogeyman.” I have already empirically have shown that US influence does add people to the ISIS terrorist group through anger and resentment of the troops already there. This remains unrefuted by my opponent and is extended. With this, we see that military presence is going to actually strengthen the ISIS initiative and weaken our stance in the region due to more people joining ISIS, meaning more people for us to fight. b. Air strikes I will concede that strikes on ISIS militants will only exacerbate the issue as it will kill innocents, sparking radicalization of the population, however, this problem should not happen if we were to bomb the many revenue makers for ISIS including oil reserves, agriculture used to beef up ISIS revenues, and other such money makers for ISIS. This would lessen the chance that terrorist plots would occur, as well as make sure that ISIS cannot expand. In fact, turning toward a recent CNN article tells us this: “In 2015, ISIS lost about 40% of the area it held in Iraq, as well as parts of northeastern Syria that have both good farmland and oil. Airstrikes on the oil infrastructure it controlled have further diminished the balance sheet.” (1) We already see proof that ISIS loses money with airstrikes on oil infrastructure and other such money making schemes from ISIS, so increasing the amount of strikes on oil infrastructure would work. Rebuttal 2: ISIS’ motives This is unrelated to the debate. Regardless of the motives involved, we are discussing whether a ground force is the best way to defeat the ISIS menace. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Anti-American sentiment My opponent attempts to refute my point about the radicalization of people in the Middle East but misses the point entirely. If Anti-American sentiment is still present in the Middle East, then we would be seeing increased radicalization of the population of whom would join the fight on ISIS’ side. Yes, disciplining US troops could help, but it has not worked yet. Under law, the US military cannot commit human rights abuses. However, it still occurs, which tells us that we need to enforce law that would stop the human rights abuses. However, keep in mind that this point is non-unique as it could happen regardless of regardless of whether we add a ground force to destroy ISIS or not. Yet, the fact that the US has stepped in is already a symbolic sign that US influence is still imperialistic and destructive, which leads to people joining ISIS. US presence is as much of a problem as the abuses on citizens because the same effect happens whenever US presence exists in the Middle East, which is a more radical population that gathers against US influence and joins equally destructive organizations that are against US influences. Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan My opponent’s counter plan is dangerous. Not only is spreading pro-American propaganda and trying to silence ISIS propaganda nearly impossible given the amount of media that ISIS is involved with, (books, websites, video etc.) but doing so solidifies the image of America as a “western boogeyman.” This will add to the propaganda, not take away from ISIS propaganda. Also, we are suppressing the right of free speech under the UN Declaration of Human Rights which I cited in my case. Finally, even if the air force would get involved, my opponent has already stated that airstrikes would harm innocent civilians. Not only this, but let us look toward my opponent’s point in his case. “A complete air raid can't combat ISIS as it poses danger to civilians, is hampered by anti-aircraft guns and would eventually require ground force to recapture the base.” If ISIS has anti-aircraft guns, then any aircraft is in danger of being destroyed. My opponent also needs to take into account the radicalization of the populations in the regions where ISIS is. As I have shown, radicalization of the population is a real threat that will add more people to ISIS, which is the last thing we need since strengthening a terrorist organization is always against global security and the US interests that we need to see. Also, extend my counter plan as my opponent has yet to refute why the plan is flawed. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)