Ending the Evil Empire

==His Case==Cost to NATO1. My opponent argues that even if he grants that its their jobs and they agree with it we still need to count it as a loss. Alright, but we need to weigh losses on different levels. Just like we wouldn’t stop fighting crime because policemen die in the fight. This means that this argument should be weighed lower on the scale of argumentation, comparatively. This is true because as I’ve said its their job to do so and as such agree to the terms of warfare, which includes possible death. 2. A few things need to be cleared with this argument. First, national interests have to be weighed with humanitarian interests as well. Thus, yes fighting poverty can help combat terrorism but then those humanitarian actions would be focused in the hottest of hotzones, like say Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, which we are doing. Second, its a false dichotomy - we can care about people but still put our interests first. Death Toll1+2. My opponent says that it doesnt matter who’s been doing the killing, just that the killing is occurring. But before I respond to this, judges make a note: he has dropped the specific evidence which tells you that it IS true that NATO is not responsible for the majority of deaths and that his study was a flawed methodology. Onto the objection - it matters highly who is doing the killing. As I mentioned in my last speech, he needs to show how the harms indict NATO and thus gives a proactive reason to withdraw. Two points: First, seeing as he dropped the indictment of his study we can say a lot of those deaths were Taliban insurgents and/or terrorist associated. Impact TURN: this is good because it shows the efficacy of our mission and how good we are at killing terrorists. Second, Impact TURN: it is good because it shows how comparatively worse the Taliban is to the US. 3. My opponent says I have to prove that it will be bloodier. Im not making the claim it will be bloodier - im saying its going to be bloody either way. My argument is that the US withdrawing reverts to the same divide: the Northern Alliance the Taliban and associated terror groups. Refer to the argument under Karzai for impacts. So at this point, its a double-bind: either we stay and people will die, however in the longterm stability will be brought just like Iraq or we withdraw and we go back pre-invasion which means people will be dying over a longer term and thus you arent gaining an advantage by leaving. And the impact about Taliban returning to power is likely due to the fact they still have half the Eastern Region and a majority of the Southern Region. Moreover, he tries to XA my statistic about 10% but in response XA my argument which he dropped which states that weakening resolve will force the Afgahni’s to hedge their bets - join the Taliban or die. The 10% is in light of US protection, remember that. [1]Drugs/HIV1. At this point its an non-issue because its extra-topical, he just asserts drug use would decrease but doesnt tell you how or why. If X amount of people are addicted now, they wont be going back soon.2. TURN: this point helps my case because if the US stays and solidifies its prowess in the Southern Region (as is Obama’s plan for 2012-2013) we could see an improvement like in the North after NATO took control - punitive and rehabilitative mechanisms. And this warranted form his own source. HDI1. My opponent says the Chinese are doing it anyway. Refer to the source - China only STARTED investing after they were relatively sure the areas were secure by NATO forces. So TURN: withdrawing will probable result in uncertainty which will lead to de-investment in the area. XA to JPMorgan example. Then he tries to kick the mineral deposit arguments. Again, refer to the source - it specifically says UNTAPPED. 2. My opponent says GDP is misleading and to prefer the HDI. True, GDP can be misleading but it still gives an overall indicator as to how growth is doing within certain countries. And I would say the HDI is a flawed methodology for two reasons: (1) in developing nations the HDI is limited to only certain aspects and lack certain indicators, such as increase in life expectancy, and (2) it only indicates present markings and not future long-term gains. This is critical to Afgahnistan since it excludes gains by education.[2]Karzai1. He basically made the same response as the one to death toll - we dont know if the Taliban would try and take over, and they have low favoribility rating. XA above arguments. Terrorism1+2. My opponent makes the argument that interventionism causes terrorism and thus we shouldnt intervene. But my opponent dropped key responses I made, so at this point they are concessions. 1) Pape’s study (which is the backbone empirical support for my opponent) lumps insurgency and terrorism together. And in my last speech I pointed out insurgency by the nature of war is going to increase, but that does not mean TERRORISM increases. As I previously said terrorism would be an act of trying to attack US soil, e.g. 9/11. He ignores this argument. 2) He ignores the Rubin analysis which tells you that terrorism insofar as it is not insurgency but is actual terrorism will remain the same regardless. He tries to make an analytical argument intervention makes it easier to recruit for terrorist groups. I have a few responses: 1) most terrorist organizations are small and highly clandestine....they dont just recruit any-old Arab who wants to join. [3] 2) Its a cost-benefit - if the US seems to be winning the war it will have a deterrent effect. And 3) The dictator argument is so outdated - we have instituted a democracy in Iraq, trying to finish a democracy in Afghanistan and are helping the Libyan rebels against Qaddafi. ==My Case==C1: WoT1. Why is Afghanistan special? → Afghanistan is unique because it is one of the only countries that would provide safe-haven for terrorists. The other options include Yemen - which we are surrounding with drones and he government has sided with the US, so thats not a great place to go and Pakistan in the FATA region, where they are now. Al Qaeda have little choice but to win in Afgahnistan. 2. No evidence people would support the Taliban. → Some wont like the Northern Alliance, but others will be forced to like in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan where Taliban presence is the highest. → And this is non-responsive. It ignores the analytical warrant in impact 2. So consider it a drop.C2: US Hegemony1. Ignore arguments that dont deal with Afgahnistan→ The world isnt an isolated bubble. The following arguments deduce consequences based on geopolitical considerations. If I prove a link exists, you cant ignore it on face. 2a. Iran hasnt attacked anyone. → My argument doesnt say it will definitely attack anyone, but the threat is there.→ This ignores the regime change - it is now ruled by fundamental Muslim clerics and a president who believes Europe prevents it from raining over Iran. → This just links to my argument - Iran is counter-balanced by Saudi and US presence. It would have been stupid for Iran to become aggressive. And now it doesnt make sense at all since as my argument points out Iran has US forced in Afghanistan which has contained its adventurism. 2b. We could bomb and occupy them→ TURN: Withdrawing from Afghanistan reduces our geopolitical advantage over Iran so no we couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan to Iran - Iran has a much more developed conventional army, has anti-aircraft defenses and is proliferating nuclear technology. 3. Pakistan would be more destabilized if they can recruit terrorists. → XA my above responses on terrorism→ This doesnt make sense since they would be fighting in Afghanistan. There wouldnt be a need to destabilize Pakistan. This argument has a distinct link - US withdrawal mobilizes these jihadist forces since it will be seen as a win against the US. THIS is what would send Pakistan over the brink.