Topic #34 - The US should adopt a timetable for Withdrawl from Iraq

I'll go straight down my opponent's last speech. 1) My opponent's argument is non-responsive. My argument is this- we weren't in a recession in 2001, when we went into Iraq, nor were we in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. We're in it NOW, 2008. Isn't it odd that oil prices jumped $50 a barrel from the beginning of this year? Isn't it odd that the housing market collapsed last year? Isn't it odd that food prices have skyrocketed in 2008? Coincidence? I think not. My argument is that if the war was the cause of the recession, we would've seen a recession in 2001-06. 2)a. My first is that my opponent is not an economist nor qualified at all. Trust any evidence I bring into this round over his arguments. My second is that he grossly misinterprets the logic behind that article. The article shows a specific instance in which the global economy grew by about 5% and inflation rose 11%, almost at exactly the same time. When inflation goes up, so does the cost of living. The world's poor cannot afford this, and they suffer, not to mention the more and more people that become poor because they cannot keep up with the high cost of living. It also states this "Understandably, inflation, poverty and inconvenience are interrelated and directly proportional to each other." His argument about business regulation has nothing to do with this whatsoever. When more money is being fluxuated in the economy, inflation rises. Basic economics. 2)b. This argument is just an impact to by 2a. He goes on some sarcastic tangent that doesn't disprove this at all. My impact here still remains. NIETZSCHE- 1)My opponent makes a huge mistake in bringing up EXAMPLES. Our fear has definitely gotten worse, and we've acted based on that. For instance, as my opponent admits, we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons- mainly because the Bush administration was a major fear monger and initiated so many threats into people. Now he wants every problem to go away, so he's trying to fix all these things. When we do that, we go on this search for ‘inherent truth' to find what's right and wrong, what we should do about our problems, and what's best for US. When we get caught up in the will to truth, we are only going to kill off and destroy these things that get in the way. In other words, eternal bliss will never happen. SUFFERING IS INEVITABLE. This is only going to lead to the continuation of these deaths and economic struggle. A vote for PRO is a vote for the continuation of these problems: maybe not in Iraq, but nonetheless continuing. 2)This is a very important argument. When PRO will stop at nothing to stop suffering, that will lead to the suffering of others. I'll give an example in the context of this resolution: say the troops are pulled out. Sure, they don't die, but what about the Iraqis? What if they were dependent on American aid? What about street crime and violence? EVEN IF you think that more people will be saved if the troops were pulled out, there is a 100% chance that someone is going to die based on that withdrawal. AND, what it if PRO will do anything to stop it? We will divert humanitarian resources to fund it, we will become blind to other oppressions within our country, and we will not face other ‘real' challenges. Is PRO really going to go as far as to kill everyone that stands in the way of the withdrawal? That's what you're voting for if you vote PRO. Finally, I'd like you to look at my analysis between points 1 and 2. The attempt to stop suffering will make us slaves to ‘good natured freedom.' In order to stop oppression, we should help ourselves, and only ourselves, not the American people, not Iraqis, not anyone. OURSELVES. Only then can we stop these problems that PRO presents.