Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

I will now demonstrate why I believe I won this debate. First off, it is evident that my opponent did not fulfill his BOP. His two contentions circled around Pakistan, however the resolution was that the US shifts its strategy to India. Given that he did not support that a shift to India would be preferred to Pakistan and only argued about the problems with Pakistan, he essentially only has half of an argument, and doesn't fully pay attention to his own resolution. Whereas I supported clearly with sources that a shift to India is unpreferable using India's record in the war on terror, and that one with Pakistan is preferable, thus taking into account the entire resolution. Now onto who won contention-wise starting with pro's contentions. Pro C1: Pakistan's ISI has ties to terrorism My opponent argues that Because Pakistan's ISI has links to terrorism, that the US should shift it's focus to India away from Pakistan, I conceded that there were indeed links but that the organization was a rogue one which operated independently of the govt. He stated that the Pakistani govt. could cut funding but when I brought up that it was indeed contributing to the alliance and helping us in the war on terror by catching terrorists he distorted the source by saying that "ones listed from 2009ish are terrorists from the Pak-Taliban, not the Afghani Taliban" despite ones of those in the source from "2009ish" (actually 2010) was Abdul Ghani Baradar, The FOUNDER of the Afghani Taliban. So he either made this statement without reading the source or consciously lied. Either way, this contention falls due to fact that it was proved that the ISI has been helping the US in the war on Terror since 2001 to the present. Pro C2: Supporting India would force the Pakistani's hand In response to this contention, I stated China's increased presence and that Pakistan would abandon their alliance with if the US pressured them by going to India. He conceded that part when he stated that "a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future". So he essentially changed the contention to one which stated that a US-India bloc must deter an oncoming Sino-Pak bloc, but in changing the contention like that it was never re-demonstrated how such a situation would force Pakistan to do anything, thus committing a jump in logic which means that this contention falls. Furthermore, he stated if the US did not develop a relationship with India that Pakistan and China would declare war on and nuke India, which is painfully speculative. On to my contentions- Con C1- Pakistan is an important ally in the War on the terror He attacked this by saying that the amount of money that Pakistan has given to the War on Terror does not dictate whether they are truly the USA's ally, as well as state that Pakistan was waging it's own war on terror independent of the USA's. I countered that by showing a sourced list of terrorists wanted for crimes against the USA who were killed by Pakistan. I also proved that India was choosing a non-aligned position over helping the US thus proving that Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror and India is not, so clearly this contention still stands. Con C2- The US alliance with Pakistan helps safeguard Pakistan's nuclear capability from terrorists. He attempted to counter this by stating that Pakistan had an incentive to protect it's arsenal but contradicted himself when he stated that Pakistan was devolving into anarchy, in which Pakistan obviously could not protect its nuclear weapons. He also stated that terrorists would not try to get their hands on these weapons when they could just get materials for a "Dirty Bomb" but it can seen as obvious to anyone that terrorists would snatch at the opportunity to get any nuclear device regardless of the "quality". Since it was proved that the US needs to safeguard these weapons with an alliance, this contention still stands. Con C3- China is increasing its influence over Pakistan My opponent attacked this contention by stating that a US-India alliance would be necessary to counter a Sino-Pak alliance. However he utterly ignored to face my point which was that while a shift toward India would undermine the US-Pakistan alliance, a shift toward Pakistan, or if the situation remaining unchanged would preserve both due to tensions between India and China. Due to this, the contention still stands, completely unchallenged. I would also like to reemphasize that the resolution was that "The U. S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India instead of Pakistan. " My opponent, throughout the entire debate attacked Pakistan's alliance with the US but did not, in any way, demonstrate why India's alliance with the US is good. Thus, he did not fulfill the resolution.