The U.S. should leave south Korea

I am elated that someone posted this particular subject, as I too am using this resolution in policy debate. First of all, I'd like to point out that the resolution also includes the countries of Afghanistan, Turkey, Japan, Iraq, and Kuwait. My opponent should realize that in a tournament, these other countries will be included. But because he didn't mention them, I shall mention them no longer. I am assuming my opponent is new to policy debate, as he does not understand what inherency is. Inherency is what is in the status quo that is preventing the plan from going into effect. While you did not know the definition of inherency, you certainly did have an inherency card, so there is nothing to attack here yet. CONTENTION 1 A: My opponent states that the North Koreans are angry at South Korea for the US presence, but when you look into the evidence my opponent used to back this up, you see it is not directly because of the US. Therefore, removal of US troops will not solve this. Luckily there isn't much of a harm here. It also says in my opponents evidence that the 1.2 million NK troops have shown no signs of mobilization, showing this threat is greatly exaggerated. Also, according to the CATO institute [www. campaighnforliberty. com/article. php? view=100] the US has nuclear weapons that greatly deter NK from making a move. Removing troops from would lull NK into a sense of security, and may decide to show physical aggression toward SK. B: This is also in the evidence that was provided, and my previous attack applies to this as well. C: This card explains the devastating effects of nuclear war, that are very real. The problem is that my opponent can't solve this harm. What he can and is trying to do, though, is make it worse. Removing the US presence, as previously stated, will remove the deterrent effect we strongly have on North Korean violence. The US presence is an integral part of SK's and the US's safety. D: This was simply a definition. E: First of all, I'd like to point out this card had no source. The most important thing in policy debate is evidence. In fact, many say to winner of a policy debate is the one that can create the biggest ball of evidence and throw it at the opponent. I myself feel strong arguments are better, but nevertheless evidence is an integral part which my opponent does not provide. Without evidence, his claims are merely assertions, assertions with no ground whatsoever. I'd like to point out a logical flaw in the card itself. My opponent asserted that sex trafficking lead directly to nuclear war, and fails to realize that sex trafficking has always existed in the country and that nuclear war has not yet happened. While the mere suspicion that a few US troops are going to brothels and are involved in prostitution might possibly be true, it does not give us any reason to pull out. I would like to point out that my opponent stated that the US were directly buying prostitutes, but how is this possible when no US soldier has ever come home with one? If the US aren't buying prostitutes to keep, then this is not called sex trafficking, but merely prostitution. This in itself should show that the US presence is in fact not pushing the country to war AT ALL due to sex trafficking, but I feel it's not enough. Seeing as the US troops are involved in prostitution, it should be noted that prostitution is good for the economy. [. http://www.forbes.com...] So the US presence is not only not harming the SK NK relationship, but is in fact boosting the economy. Now that I have refuted my opponent's harms, I would like to point out that my opponent failed to include Solvency, which is the stock issue that actually solves the Harms. Also, he forgot his plan, source of funding, and agent of action. Without these parts of a case, his case simply lays out some of what he believes to be harmful to the world, and doesn't solve it. At this point, I feel I can say no more.