ISIS is the Modern Version of Early British Colonialism

**Due to some confusion regarding structure, my opponent and I have agreed to continue the debate here**Preface:I'd like to extend my gratitude to my opponent for opening this debate with a truly intriguing and controversial topic. I look forward an engaging and civil discussion!Framework:The debate should be largely based on historical significance, truths, and a representation of what the Islamic State is doing currently. I'll be pursuing a more contrasting view of the two, while my opponent should be seeking to closely compare the Islamic State and British colonialization. Without further ado, let's begin!C1) IntentOftentimes, British colonialism (and European colonialism, for that matter) is quickly thrown under the bus as unjustified and immoral to the Natives already living in the New World. While some atrocities were undeniably commited, it's essential to realize the intent of European societies in doing so. This is especially imperative when making absurd comparisons between their actions and the actions of the Islamic State. First of all, the intent of European society was not to "steal" Native lands. As it initially took place during the Renaissance Period [1], the primary driving force behind the exploration was solely economic. [2] The new land would be a tool by which the European countries could gain capital, resources, and spread their influence. All of these were benefits to their economic standing. They had no inherent desire to harm individuals in the New World. The Natives were only inhabitants of the land they had "discovered," not targets.The comparison of this nature to that of the Islamic State and the terrorist acts they have perpetrated are pale. Murdering innocent people in the name of their god is not synonymous to desiring terrority to benefit economy. The comparison between the two is already straining. In fact, "In June 2014, the group [Islamic State] formally declared the establishment of a "caliphate" - a state governed in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph." [3] The article further expounds on their intents and what they want. It's not anything economic, it's a religious movement; essentially a cult. However, they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. This ideology is demonstrated by the numerous terrorist attacks they have executed. [4] [5] [6] The following shows a disturbing infographic denoting the horrific acts commited by the Islamic State. [7]These heinous acts of terrorism are not even remotely close to what British colonialism facilitated. Moreover, most of the harmful consequences were unintentional. This, however, does bring up a good point: the results and aftermath of British colonialism and Islmac State actions.C2) ConsequencesThough intent is a large factor of justification and represents a relatively accurate system by which to compare two actions, the ultimate conclusion must be based on consequences. In that regard, there is overwhelming difference between British colonialism and the Islamic State.Though widely interpreted as the contrary, the consequences of European conquest were largely beneficial. Pragmatic benefits were subsequent results, and renders British colonialsim as a positive consequential historical course of events. For example, one of the results of colonialism are some of the world's most stable democracies. [8] The United States is a prime nation to measure the long-term effects of British colonialization, and ultimately justify its aftermath. Because of British colonialism, we are able to participate in an active and successful economy and ensure our security because of the biggest military superpower in the world. [9]It's illogical to cast aside all these benefits simply because there was some injustice served in the process. Furthermore, these results are quite different when juxtaposed to the effects of Islamic State terrorism. The opinion, even in Muslim countries, is largely unfavorable. [10]Refer back to the overview of a year [7]; there's a plethora of unwarranted deaths because of the Islamic State. And in reality, there's been no noticable economic, political, or social gains from these events on an international basis. The only individuals it seems to benefit are the perpetraters themselves. Those of the same religion have pushed them away, as evidenced by the poll. Measurable effects, on balance, have overwhelmingly indicated that the results from the actions of the Islamic State are detrimentl, whereas I've demonstrated that British colonialism has had a net benefit to society, the world over.Conclusion:As I've shown by way of multiple arguments, there is a vast difference between British colonialism and the Islamic State, leaving you with no option but to vote CON.Sources:[1] http://www.britannica.com...[2] http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu...[3] http://www.bbc.com...[4] http://www.bbc.com...[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...[9] http://www.globalfirepower.com...[10] http://www.pewresearch.org...