Should the US attack ISIS with force?

Firstly should USA attack ISIS at all, secondly should it be with force.

I would like to point out that the latter debate is near-impossible for Con to win so I will not bother going into it unless Con wishes to challenge it.

USA attacking ISIS is a necessity for reasons as follows.

USA and Saudi Arabia have been longstanding allies [http://www.cfr.org/saudi-arabia/us-saudi-relations/p36524] Saudi funded the original ISIS with USA's full informed consent [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis] While they admittedly did not know what they'd become they were significantly contributive to the origin of the organisation.

So what is clear is that the actual origin of ISIS was largely the fault of a close ally of USA. Nonetheless, this is not sufficient reason for USA to feel responsible since ISIS/ISIL went rogue and had an entirely new agenda all of a sudden. The actual reason USA should feel responsible is that, knowing exactly what ISIS had become long before they were worldwide news and had got to the level they are now, USA chose to engage in war with Syria.

The war was the acting upon a threat made back in 2012 by Obama [http://www.news-decoder.com/2015/10/06/why-syria-is-so-important2/] that if Assad were to engage in chemical warfare, a 'red line' would be crossed. In August 2013,a Damascus suburb was attacked with sarin gas and 1,400 civilians were killed. The White House blamed the attacks on the Syrian government, but to the surprise of many the United States did not intervene immediately. [http://www.news-decoder.com/2015/10/06/why-syria-is-so-important2/] 

Instead they funded the rebels, the "Free SYrian Army" as well as the rest of the National coalition.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587?source=pepperjam&publisherId=41543&clickId=1486435415] The only other way they've helped is by sending drones.

What is important to understand is this, the only reasons they went in were moralistic and the only people they have helped, other than the Syrian rebels are ISIS/ISIL. ISIS needed Assad out badly as he was a major person keeping them under control in the Middle East with Russia's assistance but ISIS began recruiting faster and fighting harder once they realised USA and Saudi were helping them take his army out.

Since USA was a huge factor in ISIS successfully gaining ground in Syrian territories and hence others in turn (due to having more training grounds and members due to the lack of opposition they face now) US should take out ISIS. They only fought Syria for moral reasons so where are their morals at now?

Before I argue against any of your points, I would like to quote you on one of your statements: "I would like to point out that the latter debate is near-impossible for Con to win so I will not bother going into it unless Con wishes to challenge it." Indeed, I would like to challenge this. Not because I am stupid (although that is debatable) or because I like a challenge. It is because this is an incredibly debated issue (should we attack ISIS with force) among people, and I would enjoy seeing both sides of the argument. Because of this, I will not rebut against your points. I sincerely apologize for your minor setbacks, and lost time. Seeing your evidence and your source, I have no doubt that you are a very learned person and I acknowledge that. Thank you for your patience.

"Be so subtle that you are invisible. Be so mysterious that you are intangible. Then you will control your rivals' fate." -Sun Tzu.  According to the legendary Sun Tzu, a master military general and strategist, you should never be so obvious that your opponent knows what you will do. Why do you think terrorists kill people and anger America? Is it to spread widespread terror? That is one reason. Is it just to kill for the fun of it? Maybe, but it is not their motivation. Perhaps you might be thinking this. And maybe you think that since America has so many soldiers in its armies, they can easily crush the terrorists under their foot. Being the incredibly smart debater (or judge) that you are, I am sure that you have maybe thought of this. But the terrorists have people almost as smart as you, and they have probably come to the same conclusion. What is the point of spreading terror if you know you will fail immediately? There is no point. That is why America has not completely destroyed ISIS. They know that ISIS wants them to be angered. ISIS is just goading us. Unfortunately, ISIS is the very idol of Sun Tzu's quote. They are subtle, and mysterious. If we were to destroy ISIS, we don't know what would happen. No doubt they have some other plan to destroy America, and they won't be using pure force. But America won't be using pure force either. Instead, this is an opponent that you can't defeat with might. Only with much skill and intelligence will we be able to destroy them.

Collateral Damage: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target;specifically: civilian casualties of a military operation (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). To simplify, it means that you did not mean to break something, but it still broke by accident. Some people have thought of the idea of completely destroying all the terrorists by using several atom bombs to completely wipe out the terrorists. Including Donald Trump. That should give you an idea of how stupid this idea is. His plan is to completely destroy all of ISIS and all Islams to completely eliminate any threat of terrorism. Well, to be fair, that would be an excellent idea, if you weren't afraid of ending thousands of innocent lives in the process! Assume that we use atom bombs to wipe out all of ISIS. Approximately 140,000 people died from the dropping of the atom bomb (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html). Almost all of them were innocent lives. Now pretend that we dropped an atom bomb right on the HQ of ISIS(assuming we even know where it is). Collateral damage. First of all, the bombers might die before they even got to drop the bomb. Also, the radius of the atom bomb would at least kill over a hundred people after it struck. A better idea, you might be thinking, would be to just send in ground troops. Send them in, eliminate all the terrorists, nice and tidy, right? Since there are often civilians in the area that terrorists are in, there will still be lots of accidental deaths. There is also the large possibility that lots of the terrorists might get away, and the threat of terrorism still hangs in the air. The only thing that you accomplished was killing some terrorists, and also ending some innocent lives in the process. Yippee (sarcasm).

Pretend that your poor mom was an innocent that died in the assault on ISIS, and you are mourning for them. Heartbreaking, right? Then, it hits you: who is responsible for this death? Well, of course, the people that sent the soldiers in. That just so happens to be America, the grand country you once heard of. The anger that was once directed towards the terrorists is now being directed towards America. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of people who are just like you: mourning for their loved ones, and hating America. Lots of people will join ISIS, and want to avenge their dead family. Destroying members of ISIS will end up creating more than there ever were. Instead, something that we can do is take in orphans from the victims of ISIS, and show them much hospitality. Show them that America is not the bad place that they imagined. If they one day go home,  they will one day spread the word. We don't even need to wait to do this. We can even do it right now. Instead of raising a new generation of terrorists unintentionally, we can create hope for the victims of ISIS.

Thank you for your time and consideration, debater and judges.

Since my opponent does not give a rebuttal, neither will I. I guess I just automatically win this round.

Thanks for the video, debater. 

Feel free to let me win the debate, judges. ;)