The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

Thank you for promptly responding. All except one of Con's arguments are based on a misunderstanding of this debate. I will be able to explain this as well as possible, then take out pretty much all of his arguments by cross-applying it. So what's the misunderstanding? "US should instead take this money and support United States institutions which help the homeless and orphaned in the United States" Whether this statement is true or not does not matter. The reason is because this is NOT what the status quo is doing. Con must advocate for the Status Quo, not what he wishes the Status Quo could be. You see, Con is proposing a counter-priority. In other words, something he believes is more important. This would be a valid argument if he had a counterplan to enact these counter-priorities of helping our economy, developing sugar-based ethanol, and helping our orphans. IF. But he doesn't have a counterplan. Nor is he allowed to make one, as stated by rule 3 which he has agreed to be accepting this debate. Because of this, these arguments fall apart. Argument 1, 2, 3, and part of 5 crumble. They are merely a statement of what Con wishes the Status Quo was. But there are only two choices. The Status Quo, or the plan. Not the perfect Status Quo, the Status Quo, and the plan. I'll use an analogy to further explain this. Let's say my plan was to move a chair to room B from room A. Con comes up and says that it's more important to move it to room C. Well, let's say this is true. That the chair SHOULD be moved to room C. The problem is, that's just a counterpriority by Con. He must have a plan of action called a counterplan. Use a pulley to do this etc. and finally roll it to room C. But since he doesn't have a counterplan, he can't argue this. In essence, Con has provided no reason to vote against moving it to room B. He has only provided reason for why moving it to room B might not be as good as moving it to room C. This ties back into this debate. Con is proposing that "moving the chair to room C", or helping our own orphans and working on our problems, is better than "moving the chair to room B". Whether or not he's right is irrelevant. He must provide a counterplan for this claim to be relevant, but he does not have a counterplan and he may not produce one for two reasons. 1, because flatly rule 3 does not allow him to do so. 2, because providing a counterplan so late in a round is wrong. I hope that made sense. So basically whether or not we should help our own orphans right now is irrelevant because that isn't a choice. Using this money for our own economy, whether or not it is right, is irrelevant because that isn't a choice. Whether or not we should use this money to create sugar-based ethanol is irrelevant because that is not a choice. Corruption, the only argument standing 1: My opponent supposedly quoted USAID saying that they work with the government. Con needs to provide the URL so I can examine this. If he doesn't I have no idea whether it's a fake quote or not. 2: Whether it's fake or not is still irrelevant. The reason is that "USAID does finance some critically important technical cooperation with the Government of the Russian Federation" That doesn't mean they're giving the Russian Government the money. It merely means that USAID cooperates with the government. My opponent must provide evidence with the URL that specifically states that USAID gives the Russian government money. 3: Since there is no URL, we have no idea the date. This might have changed a long time ago. 4: It mostly works through NGO's. 5: Let's say in the small chance that Con is right that USAID actually gives the Russian government money (which he has to prove). USAID will be watching where the money went and making sure it isn't wasted. 6: Even in the unlikely circumstance the money isn't watched, there's no guarantee the Russian government will even misspend the money. 7: We've gone far with these "even ifs". I have another one. Let's say the near impossible happens and this money does get misspent by the Russian government, that's fine! Uhuh. You see, ethanol subsidies are so bad and they cause inflation, so throwing this 1 billion off a cliff would actually be more fiscally responsible than still funding ethanol subsidies. In other words, this argument crumbles. Most of this money will be spent very wisely. In the unlikely event that some is actually misspent, that's fine. It's better to save a few Russian lives and increase our Nat. Security than to just waste it on ethanol subsidies. 5. The National Security argument. "Sending 1 billion dollars instead of 70 million dollars a year does not make us any more safe from the Russian Federation or the rest of the world and you have not proved this. " Is my opponent going to continue ignoring my solid evidence saying that yes it WILL!? It's also logical. USAID does such projects such as CTR, which works on reducing loose nukes which are a great danger to us and such. USAID trains the Russians on how to handle nuclear material to keep everyone safe so that in the end the nukes can't be proliferated. USAID's ability to do this will be increased with a less tight budget. Of course it'll help our national security. My opponent STILL has not proven otherwise. I am the only one with evidence about this so far. In conclusion, the only two arguments are corruption (very tiny argument, extremely insignificant), and national security. The national security argument doesn't really matter, anyways. There are still the two advantages of lives saved. I've rebutted the only two valid arguments. Con has provided no reason to vote Con. Are you wondering why you would want the US to spend money on this plan? It's because of national security. There's no extra debt. In an age when money is of such essence to the US since we're trillions in debt, this plan helps us be more fiscally responsible. Would you rather pay taxes for ethanol subsidies, knowing that they're making whatever corn products you buy more expensive? No, of course not. You want to pay taxes for something that's keeping you safe and saving thousands of lives. Obviously Pro > Status Quo. Thank you, please vote Pro. Look below for dropped arguments. --Dropped or conceded arguments by Con-- HIV/AIDS Ethanol: Con conceded it's bad. Con conceded that ethanol is bad. Thus he's conceding it's better to spend this money on something else. He's practically agreeing that you should vote Pro! Again, thank you.