Resolved: The US Federal Government should remove military presence and economic aid from S. Korea

Thank you sir for an amazing debate. I hope that, win or lose, we have both benefited from this debate in some form. He wins S+G, I am conceding this, don't bother going back to count. He wins conduct on the pseudo-forfeit. I win everything else. This final round ==Observations==Extend all of mine from Round 1. ==Voter 1: North Korea==Let's start on this idea of MAD. This wins me the round no matter which way you slice it. Lets look at it the first way. South Korea has no nuclear weapons. So the theory of MAD doesn't apply to a South-North War because only one side has the weapons that make MAD possible. So if the US was to withdraw, to ensure that the North doesn't burn Seoul in an atomic fireball, South Korea would have to militarize to develop their own nuclear arsenal. At that point he upsets regional stability by withdrawing, and you negate. But the second way you can look at this is the deference effect. If the US is committed to defending South Korea, than you can apply the MAD principle. Now he has responded to most of these arguments by saying that the US will still be allied to South Korea. But what he cold drops through this entire debate and despite the semi-forfeit in R3, I have extended every single round is the Decamp card which tells you that the purpose of our forces is to show our commitment to our allies. At that point, I win this argument. I access deterrence, preventing militarization, and protecting our allies, because an alliance with no commitment isn't a very good alliance at all. Now lets go onto the North Korea arguments on his side of the flow. First, I ask him to do comparative analysis. He never gives it except for two cards I will get onto in a second. Instead, he talks about how South Korea and China are co-operating but recognize that this is happening in the status quo with US presence and economic aid. No advantage to affirming here. Now, he gives you two pieces of evidence way back in R1 that do comparative analysis. First, he agrees to drop the Global Firepower card because we both know it is terrible. Than, he drops the evidence turn I put on the second card from the National Interest. In case you forgot, that turn was that the evidence concludes that South Korea is stronger in every way save military. What this means in lay terms is that North Korea, in the status quo, has a stronger military. This is why, with US withdrawal, South Korea would have to militarize, Which would act like a domino effect, triggering militarization across the region. Even if you don't buy my evidence on this, he concedes this in R2 anyway. Than he tries to indict the Rice Uni card in a couple of ways. First he says that there have been multiple studies that contridict mine, but he doesn't provide you with any. I still win this card. But second, he says that our alliances with South Korea and Japan didn't stop China from seizing land from Vietnam, but this ignores what the arguement and evidence actually says because what it says is that when a nation has an ally comitted to its defence, it reduces the risk of conflict by 28%. Vietnam didn't have an ally like the United states backing them, which is why China felt comfortable waltzing in and seizing land. But this concedes something that will be important for the next voter. ==Voter 2: China==I win this because what I show you is past withdrawals have encouraged Chinese aggression. At best for him, worst for me, this point washes because of his "rocking the boat" argument. But what he concedes to with the Vietnam example is that China is acting aggressive. This is a clean place to vote neg. ==Voter 3: Better places for troops==This argument fails because he doesn't show you how troops in South Korea prevent troops in the middle east. Even if we withdraw, that doesn't mean that we will relocate troops to the middle east, or anywhere else in the world where they may be of better use. At that point he has no solvency, no reason to vote for you. ==Voter 4: Troops Suck==They do. But he doesn't prove solvency off of this argument either, because when he tries to run it along side of his other argument, all we will see is troops cause human rights abuses in more volatile areas of the world. ==Voter 5: Economic Aid==He doesn't give you any reason why to stop it. Sure, he says we don't need it. But just because we don't need it doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue it. Thus, I very proudly negate.