Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

Thank you for the lengthy response, we will address our defense and combine rebuttals to solidify our stance and prove all our contentions and debunk theirs.Rebuttal & Defense - Ineffectiveness/EffectivenessOur opponents have completely misunderstood, at no point did we ever say that the War on Terror was 'inadequately funded' as the affirmative have put it. As we mentioned in round three, the only problem that was faced with facing Boko Haram was that the US deployed a MONTH AGO, what was inadequately funded was the Multinational Joint Task Force, which is an alternative form of dealing with the situation, which is why we're arguing that while a decent alternative can be effectively prepared, the US should not abandon the War on Terror and it's effectiveness cannot be judged considering how recently it was deployed.The affirmative then stab themselves when they state that it's ineffective as it cannot "fund support against Boko Haram" when we'll have to make it very clear to the affirmative that alternatives, something that our opponents have vaguely elaborated on with practicality is exactly what 'funding support' against Boko Haram goes to. Funding support is a political approach, something the affirmative has highlighted in their very vague premise regarding alternatives, and it came as a surprise to us that our opponents would attack their own solutions to the crisis, as the 'War on Terror' was designed for direct engagement of the US military against terrorism, and it does not comprise of 'funding support' for countries to fight against it themselves. As we highlighted that alternatives were not adequately funded, and we just began our 'War on Terror' against Boko Haram, it is not ineffective. We never bypassed the Islamic State, because using the attack on Bangladesh as an example, the Islamic State WAS not responsible for the attack. Claiming that someone is a part of the Islamic State does not make them members of the Islamic State, if they pledged that they were, they are not officially members and this is unreliable. Their own source further supports this. [A]Our opponents inaccurately claim that we have to deal completely with prominent terrorist groups in order for this to be effective, The War on Terror main purposes were already achieved, one of it's main purposes was to prevent further foreign attacks on US soil, which it has done so. Along with the recent November 2015 attacks, a further intensified War on Terror successfully prevented extreme measures to be carried out against the refugee crisis by suppressing terrorism. [B] [C]Here's why you shouldn't let your sources do the talking. First of all, the sources for the graphs lead to absolutely nothing. No information on who carried out this report, and specifically for the first graph, when exactly it was carried out or for how long it was carried out. Essentially unreliable, this shouldn't even be considered helping your argument. The statistics they further threw in doesn't exactly even specify who carried out the attacks half the time. And considering this is especially ironic, as the affirmative want us to deal with the "biggest, most active terrorist groups" so that it can be effective and then put sources showing how a majority are carried out by groups that are not major terrorist organizations and henceforth the War on Terror is ineffective. And considering how US forces pulled out of Iraq years ago, and they put in a terrorism increase for Asia when almost all the attacks are not carried out by terrorist groups we are currently facing, further supporting that even if we abandon the War on Terror, terrorism in countries that we have pulled out off will not cease and further defends the necessity of the War on Terror.Rebuttal & Defense - State Security1) Our opponents start off by stating that 9/11 wasn't proven to be connected by any terrorist organization, which is simply untrue. Putting aside the fact that al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks, investigations from both the Federal Bureau of Investigation along with help from multiple governments, notably the German Intelligence, pinpointed that the hijackers were connected to the attacks of 9/11. [D] [E] [F]It's almost hilarious that our opponents put forward that it's not proven and then, from all the sources they could have used, they use one source to back this up leading to an article made by a CONSPIRACY THEORIST. Conspiracy theories are naturally simply theories, and since this was posted by one person, and not a study, it further proves it's unreliability.2) The War on Terror plays a role for state security, which is often compared to traditional security or national security, and henceforth it is included. Our approach was that the War on Terror will protect the state from foreign attacks, but as our opponents have addressed a situation that an internal attack does not preserve the US in the contention of global security, we will address this later. The War on Terror HAS effectively defended the state, as we have mentioned as there was no foreign attack, either direct or arbitrary on US soil. Again, our opponents once again assess the importance of adopting 'political means' that will prevent the deaths of millions of troops. First of all, the deaths of these troops have provided state security for the United States, secondly, there is once again, nothing pragmatic about stating that we should use political means and there is no guarantee that this will prevent further deaths worldwide anyway.Rebuttal & Defense - Global Security/United NationsOnce again, our opponents have come across a factual error along with taking what we said out of context. At no point did we ever say that we were "bound" by international law to carry out the War on Terror, it has become clear that the affirmative do not have a thorough understanding of how the UN works, the UN CANNOT use international law and the obligation for the US to start the War on Terror successfully maintains international security under the United Nations Charter.Once again, the term 'political approach' comes up, but this time, they state that we should perform it under the UN as an alternative. First of all, if our opponents had even a moderate understanding on how the UN works, they would know that 'political approaches' are divided into special political missions and peacekeeping missions, [G] [H] both of which DO NOT apply to terrorism, and only apply to states and/or rebel groups. Henceforth, this approach made by the affirmative is invalid as there is no such thing as a political approach against terrorism under the UN.Our opponents have exaggerated the importance of the San Bernardino shooting and maintaining peace in the US. Based on one shooting, the affirmative asserts that we should "prioritize itself over global assistance" and it doesn't take long for the average person to realize how ridiculous this is. Essentially stating that we should throw away the importance of maintaining international peace and security in the UN for, in the grand scale of things, insignificant attacks simply cannot stand. The US is not going to fall from these attacks, this is patronizing the Department of Defense on levels that we can't even believe. How exactly does a shooting cause anarchy in the US when we the War on Terror is active and doesn't when the War on Terror is inactive? The US military aren't the police force in the US, each department should be able to prioritize it's own security without having to completely shut down one for the other. Once again, the two shooters pledging allegiance to the IS doesn't make them members, so the threat is not 'slipping' into the US, there is no way anyone could have predicted this would have happened.Rebuttal - MoralitySince this premise is based on the previous one, we have effectively proven how the War on Terror is effective for that contention and this price to pay is overall achieving positive goals, and what of the morality of those suffering from increased terrorism? Do we abandon that? And the situation regarding morality in the US IS infact being dealt with by the Obama administration, which the affirmative have not challenged whatsoever. Rebuttal - Support/EconomyOur opponents have now shifted their stance, stating now that we should 'value' utilitarianism compared to earlier when they said it is 'mandated', which we effectively rebutted. As we already expressed the unchallenged point about the poll's reliability, the US now does not LACK the necessary support it needs for the war. This is now proven. Our main argument about the support in a economic point of view is connected to the economy premise, which our opponents expressed a rebuttal based on the same motive, that the War on Terror has not achieved it's goal and we shouldn't put such burdens on the American people, but we have made it pretty clear that this is a weighted cost. No more time needs to be spent on this repetitive rebuttal.But quickly addressing one more point, you could not use poverty to exemplify where the money should have been spent considering how this completely undermines terrorism and security as a whole in the international community. This is NOT a reasonable alternative.Rebuttal - AlternativesWe have attacked your approaches for political alternatives, you cannot simply argue repetitively once again for a pragmatic alternative when it's very clear that this is THEORY put forward and hence there is no reliability to this and no alternative to the War on Terror at this time. Our points still stand.To conclude, we have effectively debunked the premises put forward by the affirmative and we have effectively reinforced our own contentions put forward that stand, which is why we SHOULD NOT abandon the War on Terror at this current time. Our points that stand -* Effective* Protects the State* Has necessary support* No pragmatic alternatives* Economically stableSources in comments