The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

I'll refute my opponent's arguments statement by statement."We are in an astronomical debt crisis in our country"We gave Pakistan about $4.3 billion dollars in 2010, and $2.4 billion in 2009. (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) By the figures I supplied in round one, alternate supply routes to Afghanistan cost $3.15 billion dollars per year. This is, however, with certain non-combat supplies still being sent through Pakistan. Should Pakistan completely shut down their supply routes, the U.S. will incur additional costs of up to 4 billion dollars per year. The actual amount of money being saved by suspending assistance is minuscule at best."What assistance does Pakistan need?"Humanitarian and economic assistance, as discussed in my first contention. Pakistan's economy was only prevented from collapsing by an IMF loan in 2008. They are very dependant on foreign aid, especially in 2012 with IMF repayments soon coming due. U.S. aid works from the ground up to help stabilize the Pakistani economy, mostly through the creation of jobs and the support of individual industries. "USAID has trained 70,000 women micro entrepreneurs from Punjab and Sindh in basic financial literacy and enterprise management training... Since 2003, USAID’s health program has trained 11,000 health care providers, provided 126 ambulances, and upgraded 89 community healthcare facilities... USAID has trained more than 10,000 school administrators and teachers ..." (http://transition.usaid.gov...) Humanitarian assistance is also vital. Health care services, polio vaccinations, flood response programs, etc. are all given by the United States directly to the citizens who need them the most. This aid is vital not only to help stabilize Pakistan, but also to maintain a positive U.S. image. "They had bin Laden hiding under their noses, most likely knew about it, and didn't say anything, but rather condemned us for getting him"I would like to see a warrant for your second claim."The Americans who deal with Pakistan believe that General Kayani and the director of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, were genuinely surprised and embarrassed that Bin Laden was so close by, though the Americans fault the Pakistanis for not looking very hard." (http://www.nytimes.com...)However, even if Pakistan intentionally hid Osama Bin Laden, suspending assistance isn't going to change their general attitude towards terrorism. Past aid cuts have always lead to Pakistan pursuing ties with other terrorist networks. As of right now, most of the ties have been successfully broken off with U.S. pressure. If my opponent believes that sheltering Osama Bin Laden is wrong, then he surely agrees that the U.S. should do everything in its power to prevent Pakistan from sheltering other terrorists.Speaking of Osama Bin Laden, remember that “through bilateral cooperation, more al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed in Pakistan than in any other country.” (http://www.cfr.org...) "They serve no purpose for us"The entirety of my second contention refutes this. Pakistan allows us to use their supply routes, shares counter-terrorism intelligence, allows drone strikes within their borders, and has large counterterrorism operations of their own. Assistance to Pakistan also prevents alliances with Iran and terrorist networks, and helps to prevent nuclear proliferation."they can defend themselves"That's not relevant to this debate. Our aid is primarily given to further U.S. foreign policy goals, meaning we don't give aid to assist Pakistan in defending themselves, but rather to encourage Pakistan to take action against terrorist networks. Our aid is successful in this goal.