Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

Heh, whoops. Guess I didn't help my case too much there, did I? Well, I would like the audience to please disreguard that miscommunication (on my part, and I do apologize) however, I still think I can come up with a debate that will really matter, despite my scruple. To build my case: Contention 1- Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country. Enough of informalcy, let's start talking in layman's terms, for I do not think that such mild pleasentries are what truely connect with the audience. From hereon out, I will speak directly and to the point. I do believe that this is really the only contention I need, because it is solid, irrefutable, and directly asserts the truth of the stated resolution. Establishing democracy in an allied country is in the best interest in the country, because they need the assitance of our goverment because they are so unstable. The instability of this country is caused by an insurgency. Due to the overwhelming power of this insurgency, their current government cannot handle this. With the incorporation of a new government, this country will be happier, and will be more sustainable than ever before. Since ALL insurgencies are cause by disatisfation towards some entity, quelling the insurgency and establishing a stronger government sounds like the best way to go, right? There has been great casualities in Afganistan. Nearly 4,000 troops have been killed. With the dire sound to this, let it be noted that it is only considered an unessicary feat if there is no progress made. Compared to our 4,000, over 30,000 insurgents have been slain. This leaves the country "purified" so to speak, and leaves only like minded individuals. This resluts in unity, which is required for a strong, stable country. Also, this will reduce gas and oil, since this country is a great source for it. I do not mean great in the traditonal term, but as a recognizable source, which is also irrefutable. This, in turn, is better for our economy, resulting in not only a better government for them, but for us as well. To rebutt my opponent: 1)((Eventually, RAND expanded its intellectual reserves to offer insight into other areas, such as business, education, health, law, and science.)) that is taken from their own website. I ask my opponent, "Do you see a specilization in military affairs?" I do not. 2)((Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) Google defines warriors as "Someone engaged in, or experienced in warfare". So, yes, they are warriors my friend. Also, let it be known that they are an organized, terrorist group of warriors, and should be delt with as they are the most dangerous things in the world. On a side note, what IS more dangerous than a bunch of lunatics running around with guns in their hands with nothing to lose but their lives?? 3)(( Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently.)) No army is the same as the other, and the only way to show these guys we mean business is to shoot them up! Their like brick walls, strong, united, and impossible to talk to. The only way to get past a brick wall is to knock it down. BOOM! 4)((The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.)) Yes, it would be impossible to occupy every country where terrorist may be plotting, but we aren't doing that, therefore it is void. My opponent does not give a reason why military force is never effective, so I don't understand what he means, because it doesn't have to be effective when there are none because you killed them all. In a sense, we are policing the country and we do have intelligence. However, without action, NO progress would be made. 5)((It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence.)) It's never too late, but I would be an insult to the memory of those who died. I'm not foolhardy and suggesting that we should be headstrong, but the military measures are working, and I would like you to try to prove me otherwise. 6) "Obama's Plan" I would like to assert that this is only part of it. The objective of the plan is to win, which we are doing. 7) "Best interest"- that's a noun, not a verb, so it can't 'produce' anything. Please present another and/or your source. 8) I didn't see that in Section 10. Here's my source http://en.wikipedia.org... (Since I'm running out of characters, I will post further in the Commentaries. Don't forget to look!)