The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

Nice debate ;). I thank my opponent for a great time. Anyways, I will not post any new arguments, and I will mainly use this debate for summarizing and somewhat justifying/defending my arguments.Reading over my opponent's summarization of the debate, I agree with him on the idea that suffering is needed to protect life. The disagreement within this debate is on exactly how much suffering is required in order to protect life.==Summary==My opponent's case as he said this round is, "I think that preventing the LOSS of suffering while not increasing it is how it will [should be?]."One thing that I'd like to note is that his R2 post, aka his constructive speech, is specifically advocating that the minimization of suffering is wrong."I affirm. The thesis of the affirmative case is that acting on the basis of minimizing suffering via assisting others is wrong...."-My opponent said in R2At its core, the debate comes down between either lowering suffering (by removing aid) or increasing suffering (by continuing to give aid).The flip of my opponent's statement would be that an increase of suffering is justified. Whether or not my opponent agrees with this statement is not relevant, because the other option (lowering suffering) is not a path we should take.In the end, the only logical path for the US to take is to increase suffering.Let's take some time to analyze why there are only two outcomes and what they are.Apparently, both my opponent and I agree on the notion that the choice is split between stopping aid or allowing aid to continue to be delivered to Pakistan.One important fact that I brought up in round three is that government naturally lower spending in areas that foreign aid is "helping".What this means is that Pakistan's leaders will slowly reduce spending and the local government will help its people less.I've also established that most of the aid is sucked up by corrupt officials, mismanagement, etc, and usually never actually reaches the people (proved earlier). Also, aid encourages more and more corruption, which will stop even more aid from achieving its original purpose.Furthermore, when the aid actually reaches the average person, they usually are afraid/suspicious of it (proved earlier in the debate). This means that even more aid is lost due to the fact that the average person might not even accept it.In the end, US aid is just a false hope.Normally, the public receive help from the local government and their economy will gradually improve (but is currently dependent on aid and not improving) but even these benefits that are naturally given are taken away from the public with aid.Aid robs the people of what they should get and barely gives them anything in return. My opponent has been trying to say that aid will help to some extent, which is bad. However, the alternative, whereas Pakistan will undoubtedly improve from its current state without aid to hold it down, is even worse.Basically...Stopping aid will reduce suffering, because the burden that aid imposes is removed and the local people can recover. Continuing to give aid will increase suffering, because as more and more corruption is introduced (and as the government's responsibility is taken away), war, genocide, etc is more likely to occur. The suffering of the people is also prolonged as aid steals from them.**My opponent's plan fails at this point. He claims that stopping aid will neither increase or decrease suffering, but keep a natural state, is no longer possible. The solvency of his case is unlikely and disproved. **My plan to increase suffering still stands, not to mention that my opponent has apparently accepted the reality that aid will increase suffering.Now that has been established, let's continue.Why prefer an increase in suffering in Pakistan? I've explained before to as why an increase in suffering is preferable. I stated that humans are progressively reducing suffering through various methods, which is why an artificial increase in suffering is needed to balance the state of things.*Note: I also added the fact that Pakistan is an enemy as an added benefit What this means is that because humanity is improving living standards, less suffering is occurring.In order to retain these benefits and our value for life at the same time, we should preferably increase suffering in Pakistan.My opponent's own case also proves that a minimization in suffering is a bad option. ==(Somewhat) Defending my Case==To be honest, my opponent is almost abusive when he claims that my case has to follow his almost "TO THE LETTER". The only part of his case that I supported was his round 1 argument - that lowering suffering is not right. Furthermore, even his plan doesn't follow his case (where suffering shouldn't be lowered). I've expained why earlier in this post...My opponent claims that the plan will follow his case - which is false. Stopping aid will not continue a balance in the flow of suffering, but actually lower it.His later claims that "increasing suffering is bad" is another subject we disagree on. He claims that my plan/case will not actually maintain a balance in suffering, however I've shown why my plan/case is the best possible path. Also, my opponent also tried to say that a major fault in my case is that I "occasionally help people". What my opponent does not understand is that this is the best possible choice - there is no other way to increase suffering to its fullest.Only the minority will reap any benefits from our aid, but everyone will be disadvantaged from giving aid to them.In fact, I'd say that my opponent's plan actually decreases suffering more than mine.Now about my Mahood evidence...Here's my example on how the situation in Pakistan is playing out. Pretend that Pakistan (public, not government) is a student wishing to go to college. I (the US) wish to help Pakistan out. What do I do? To help out this student, I give 10,000 to my friend who then carries the money to the student. My friend spends most of the money while drunk and only gives 2,000 to the student. Now, in a normal situation, the student will simply go to their parents (Pakistan's government) and ask for money.However, the student's parents have heard that I was giving their child $10,000, so they thought that the student didn't need any financial aid. Hence, they already spent all of the money that would have orginally been given to the student for college.Now, in the end, the student cannot afford college, because I attempted to give them money.Before hand, they could have simply asked their parents to pay and gotten through without any trouble. Continuing on to my war example... The possible war breaking out will not affect our ability to value life. Perhaps the lost lives in Pakistan will not be able to value life, but those who witness it will be able to.The rest of humanity can have an improved ability to find meaning in life, at the expense of some lives in Pakistan. I've also already stated that war is natural and shouldn't be eleminated. ==Conclusion==I think the main reason why the voters should vote con, is that my opponent's plan doesn't actually follow his case, while my plan is the best possible path. Increasing suffering is something needed to balance out the recent improvements in life that we've enjoyed - possibly costing part of our ability to value life. Not to mention that increasing suffering should be preferred over continuing to further take away from what makes us human.My plan also provides benefits in the sense that we would be harming an enemy. In the same sense, we would be helping our enemies if we were to follow my opponent's plan.