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

Okay, there's gonna be an 2 easy ways out in this debate: First, my opponent severely misinterprets the growth bad argument: no where in his speech does he argue that growth is good. This is granted for the CON side. Even if you don't buy that, I still have the argument about my opponent's misconceptions of dying. My opponent keeps saying my arguments are pointless, yet never gives any reasons why. Also, here's the end all: his final conclusions about why you should vote PRO is that our economy is failing and lives will be lost. Even I AGREE with those, I just say that a failing economy is good and trying to prevent the loss of life will only lead to more things- not caring is the only thing we can do. I heavily urge you to think outside of the box on this one and deeply think about this philosophy. I'll clarify on the line-by-line. 1. I will concede that the war is causing the recession. HOWEVER, this works FOR ME. He massively undercuts the two other arguments about how growth is bad. 2. My opponent obviously is not great at economics. I'll try to explain this as best as I can. I'm sure if you get what I'm saying, you have to vote for CON. When the economy goes up, so does inflation, not the other way around as he suggests. Pulling out of Iraq will cause the economy to go up. Econ goes up, inflation goes up, poor people can't afford stuff. HE HAS NEVER ARGUED THAT A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WILL DECREASE INFLATION. He also has dropped the terminal impact to this: poverty leads to social injustice, hunger, and disease. In order to prevent this from happening, you must vote for CON in this debate. Also, I'd like you to extend that my opponent is not an economist. I provided an article from a revered newspaper and an article by TWO PhD. S. He says "which is why we should trust evidence made by actual economists, which I have provided," but I see no article, reference, or MENTION of an economist on the PRO side yet. Trust my argument. NIETZSCHE Judges, I know this can be confusing. But come on. He argued less than 6 lines on this, and most of it was talking about his arguments! Again, I'll explain this to the best of my ability, and if you understand it, you will vote CON. Overview: PRO's justification for withdrawing from Iraq is that people are dying and suffering. Throughout history, we have tried to prevent suffering. How many disease prevention research programs have we had? How many wars did we fight to keep ourselves safe and prevent dying? How much money have we sent to starving children? How many drug treatment programs are there? Now think about this: Is there still disease? Has war ended? Are there still starving children? Do people still take drugs? Yes. Yes to all of them. In fact, many have gotten worse: AIDS ravages Africa and other parts of the world, we are creating a nuclear weapons generation, the rich- poor gap is at an all- time high and millions of children die of starvation a year, and we now have a generation of kids that think drugs are actually GOOD. How, my friends, has suffering stopped? I want you to also look at my # 1 and 2 analysis in R2, where I said that this 'making everything better' attitude makes us go on this search for what is always right and what is always wrong (inherent truth). When we try to do that, that leads to this mindset that "this thing doesn't matter because it is standing in our way of truth. " When that happens, more people suffer. A vote for PRO means a vote for continued oppression. His only argument is that I'm not based in fact about how suffering is inevitable, but 1. Look at my narrative from above and 2. THAT'S CALLED PHILOSOPHY. I know I've said it a thousand times, but you need to vote CON to prevent endless suffering. He suggests my arguments are three-fold: "-We're not in a recession, even though the markets are bad now" We ARE in a recession, that's good, "-People are going to suffer anyway so. .. stay in Iraq" Not that they're going to SUFFER ANYWAY, that PRO can never STOP suffering, "-GO ANARCHY! And stay in Iraq," I guess so. .. We are only obligated to help ourselves, he never gives any reason why "anarchy" would be bad, not that I'm adovacting it (I think he's just name-calling). AND THAT'S the tip of the ice-berg.