USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

One last thanks to Forever23. There's really not much for me to add at this point. Pro has re-tread the same ground over and over again in this debate, failing to rebuild her own arguments and failing to understand mine. Still, I'll engage with what she said one last time. Burdens: Pro drops my analysis here. He simply says that this is not a policy format, but she's conflating my burdens analysis with a push towards formal policy structure. I'm not arguing for that. I'm simply arguing that, if we are going to discuss policy, we must do so with full knowledge of how a given policy will function. Pro's continued failure to explain her case in any detail, without even directly stating what the US and Russia will do when they're allied, leaves her case so vague that no one should even consider voting for her. That's not how policy is constructed, and that's not how debates on policy like this one should be held. Pro's Case: Let's start by noting that all of her contentions are actual assertions and little else. They contain no warrants, and so they are wholly unbelievable. I've introduced a number of arguments with warrants for why her claims simply don't hold up, so let's go into those. C1) Pro starts by arguing, once again, that the US and Russia have shared interests. There are so many reasons not to believe this, and Pro hasn't addressed any of them. Pro hasn't explained why the harms of ISIS demand that Russia and the US form a coalition, nor how it requires that coalition to engage in a large-scale ground-based invasion. I've shown that they clearly won't cooperate based on Pro's own evidence, Further, I've explained the numerous ways this strategy could go wrong. I've pointed to the history of the US destabilizing the region and the perpetuation of what created ISIS in the first place. I've explained the harms of supporting a mass murderer. I've explained how and why ISIS cannot be wholly defeated, and why supporting Assad makes that goal less attainable. Lastly, I've explained why my case is better. I've shown that my solvency is certain due to the conceded points I've made on that end, and therefore how my case is stopping a major humanitarian crisis from proceeding any further, while Pro's case lets it continue and perpetuates it. C2) Pro keeps making this basic assertion that US + Russia = solution to ISIS, but never actually backs it up with evidence. Merely stating that the two together have the most powerful military is entirely insufficient " there's no reason to believe that the US alone is insufficient, and that adding Russia to it suddenly provides a means for ending ISIS. If #1 is not enough, why is #1 + #2 suddenly plenty? I've examined how Russia would subvert US efforts in the region in my DA3. This is really important because it means that putting them together actually causes more harm than good, defeating US strategy in the region. I've also explained in my DA2 why supporting Assad in particular ends up damning US efforts in the region. Pro drops all of this argumentation and keeps simply re-asserting her point. C3) I still can't make sense of this contention. All Pro provided here was evidence that countries are ready and willing to contribute to the war effort. She doesn't say why these contributions are insufficient to bring an end to ISIS, and doesn't explain why Russia's involvement beyond current levels would dramatically change the outcome. In fact, this contention ends up doing far more harm than good to her case. I showed that support for Assad is likely to make many of these countries retreat from providing aid to us, thus reducing our effectiveness in the vain hope that Russia will join in. I've explained that no country is willing to pledge troops, and that the US leading the way will lead to the US standing alone. I've even explained how Russia may join by sheer peer pressure, something which Pro cold concedes. That means any solvency she garners is non-unique; we get it in status quo, and Pro is potentially destroying that benefit by risking our continued assistance from other nations. So, let's move back to my case. DA1) Pro keeps repeating this point like a verbal tic: "no war will ever come without fatalities. " In the process, she's entirely mishandling my argument. I explained how and why a no-fly zone REDUCES the number of fatalities. I fully recognize that war includes death, but that doesn't mean we have to accept the number of deaths and displacements that Syria is currently dealing with. Pro is entirely unresponsive to my point that she is banking on finishing off ISIS, something that I've shown to be impossible. She hasn't addressed those arguments. My case doesn't require solvency on ISIS, but hers does, and she has none of the warrants or evidence to show that that's possible. DA2) I feel like we're running around in circles on this one. Pro argues that ISIS is cruel, and ending them should be paramount. There are so many problems with this, many of which I outlined last round, but I'll add to them here. I don't see why we have to ally with cruelty in order to address cruelty. There's no special benefit garnered by supporting Assad; note that Pro hasn't presented a single bit of support for doing so beyond garnering Russian support. We can continue to support the moderate rebels and end ISIS at the same time. Importantly, Pro straight drops all of my analysis from the previous round. So extend my points that: a) Pro has no means to deal with Assad after ISIS is gone, b) Pro is giving him legitimacy through unconditional support, c) Pro is forcing the US to come out in support of him despite clear messages to the contrary, and d) Pro is putting the Syrians in a more unstable place after ISIS is gone This is crucial: even if Pro's case is successful, it will simply lead to the creation of yet another and more brutal variant of ISIS. That's where supporting Assad will lead. Pro doesn't address this analysis in the slightest, and therefore drops not only a complete lack of solvency on her part, but a future reduction in US soft power in the region, destroying any ability for the US to intervene in the future without huge military engagements. DA3) Pro's responses to this still fail to engage with my point. Pro drops that the Russian focus on hegemony is contingent on the US taking a lead role and appearing to spread its influence. Pro's case clearly furthers that view. Russia is far more likely to try to subvert our efforts and work independently than it is to follow us and risk losing the power it's gained by propping up Assad. This will deepen divides between the US and Russia, making any potential future efforts implausible. As to the arguments Pro actually made, I provided plenty of evidence to show that NONE of these countries are ready to go to war. Not one single country has committed ground troops to Syria, and yet Pro keeps asserting that they are going to start doing it the moment the US does so (against the wishes of its people). No country is going to want to be involved in a mass invasion and bombing of Syria, no matter what they believe the outcome to be. My Counter Plan Pro is continuing to straw man my CP. No, my CP is not focused on waiting them out. Pro doesn't address the solvency of any of the three planks of the CP, which is particularly important when it comes to the no-fly zone. I gave two sources that support this with actual case examples and specifics for Syria. [12, 13] Dropping my solvency for the current humanitarian crisis is deadly to her case because it means I'm quickly solving for the vast majority of her harms scenario while she only gets a small possibility of eventual solvency. I've shown that neither plan has solvency for ISIS, and therefore that any harms associated with that group are non-unique. Even if the US and Russia are capable of defeating ISIS, my plan has at least as much, if not more, likelihood of success than Pro's by uterly dismantling the major means by which ISIS wreaks havoc in the region. Moreover, I don't bite any of my DAs, and thus those function as advantages for my case that Pro cannot garner. Pro's Conclusion: A lot of nice appeals in here, but no real substance. Pro talks about the importance of US aid in WW2, and our eventual importance as a participant. This actually supports MY case. If the US was such a game-changer, then an influx of our troops is all we need to change the course of the Syrian civil war. And that's exactly what I'm doing " not waiting out the conflict, but hastening its end. My Conclusion: Pro's blood may boil when she reads my case, but I'm just baffled by hers. Pro's case is entirely nebulous, and the only specifics that exist are the ones I've provided. If as she says she really and truly wants to end this conflict and defeat ISIS, then we need a concrete, clear and effective plan to do so. We don't want to and should not commit troops with a short and long term goal in mind, and we certainly should not commit those troops without a means to end the mass killings and displacements that plague the area. My case is the only one that accomplishes these basic goals. I'm explaining exactly what US troops would be doing. I'm not relying on any other nation to involve their militaries, and Pro and I both agree that most nations are more than willing to commit resources to ending the civil war and ISIS, which plays perfectly into my plan. I'm providing clear, proven effective means for directing efforts against ISIS and drastically reducing their destructive power. Meanwhile, all Pro is doing is re-engaging in the cycle of violence that brought us to where we are now. It won't produce the solutions she claims. It will damage any capacity to intervene in the future and put many more people at greater risk. Working with Russia and Assad is not the panacea she claims it will be; it's a recipe for disaster. Don't follow that recipe.