The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

I'll start with issues brought up in the debate as a whole then move on to voters in the round. Sorry for the delay. On my C1: On my SpA: The main negation of my SpA by my opponent was that cutting off relations with our opponent will make them like us more. However, the idea that our cutting of all aid, whether it medical or monetary, would increase relations is simply illogical. I have never heard of a power liking the fact that another government said "Hey guys, I know barely anyone pays taxes and you don't have a large source of income, but we're going to go ahead and cut you off". The main reason she says that it will increase relations will be because somehow Pakistan will develop a miracle democracy after we cut them off, but she has yet to provide a reason as to why. On my SpB: Although my opponent's negation throughout the round of my SpB was simply over the amount of money we put it and the GDP gains of both sides, we both agreed in the first round that this was not a monetary cost:benefit ratio. There are other benefits to having better relations in the middle east, oil trade among them. Due to our current bad relations with Pakistan, our trade is hindered, so even with a non oil-rich country relations are important. [1] Against my bringing up of other countries in the Middle east such as Iran, my opponent simply states "They are not our ally". Of course they're not, that's why I'm advocatiing we increase relations in the middle east, so we can have more Middle Eastern allies. On my SpC: My opponent states that cutting off aid to Pakistan won't actually hurt their economy, but even she uses a source that states that only 1.5 million citizens pay taxes. I may not have a source for basic math, but when you have less than two million taxpayers providing income for a population of over a hundred million more, and your source of aid is taken away, then you're going to have a situation on your hands. On oppression, I'm sorry that I don't know PF rules, but in LD you can make new arguments at any point before the Final Focus, and you can use the Final focus to adress arguments made throughout the round, as we're both doing now. I'm sorry for my ignorance of PF rules. Framework: The only claim my opponent makes here is that I ignore India. However, my claim is that we need to advance relations in that area as awhole, and not just in one or two countries. On my opponent's case: As all I'll really be doing here is restating arguments I've already made, I'll clarify why I cross-applied arguments to my opponent's third contention. However, I will not be bringing up any new arguments, simply clarifying the one I made. I cross applied argumetns about the "miracle democracy" that I made earlier in the round, because as I stated my opponent does not actually provide a reason for a democracy to arise. Her main argument is Country - Money = Democracy, however she does not say how or why. I however used a quote about statism from Ayn Rand (The specific quote was "A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country's economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule.", as shown in the link. Voters in the round: 1.) As opposed to my opponent, I posted links to every source I used throughout the round so everyone can look through my evidence on the round, so I believe I should be voted as having the most reliable sources in the round. 2.) The main point my opponent argued for is the future stability of Pakistan, but this cannot be achieved if their main source of income is severed 3.) Just because the old system of funding has problems, it does not mean that reforms have no change of changing the system 4.) As my opponent dropped, if we only benefit oil-rich countries and throw others by the wayside, then relations in teh Middle East will decline on the whole. 5.) Showing that we support all nations in the middle East, and not just a few will increase relations in the long run, even though we do spend in the short run 6.) Better relations with the Middle East as a whole will allow for a larger oil supply with reduced prices. I'd like to thank the Pro both for allowing me to take up this interesting debate, but also tolerating my ignorance of the Public Forum format. I'm sure that probably but some more stress on her throuhout the round, and I'd like to apologize once again. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.longwarjournal.org...