The US Government should substantially increase investment within the African Continent.

Note to my opponent, I have only made one argument for why we should end suffering, and it did not involve raising any budgets.I will also remind him that I was expecting a more thorough argument, not relied on 90% by quotations, but let me begin none the less. I have readthrough all his quotations, and they hardly support his case, or relate to aidning Africa. Many even disprove his case, including this one....."The alternative is to embrace suffering as something positive and necessary to life. Reject the idea that suffering is something to be avoided."Which is his own quotation, right out saying that we should not avoid others suffering. My opponent has provided philosophical reasoning, and not practical reasoning, when I intended for this to be a practical debate.So, I'll just hope you have all seen that these philosophical tidbits are extremely unrelated to the actual topic, so then we get back to the facts.RebutalsFirst, there's no actual solvency to any of his arguments. All he posts are short, syllogicstic, blippy arguments with no actual reason why those argument solve the problems he's trying to fix. So even if you buy his arguments, he doesn't have any link to his impacts without proving how his arguments solve the problems he's trying to fix.I believe that attacking the way I argued is unfair. I sourced nearly every claim with statistics and facts. That is what a contention is. A truth, but I'll put up a couple of debate violations you commited.....Name Calling: I was called a troll, idiot, and that I'll be crushed over the comments and forums.Changing the Subject: As I pointed out already, you drastically changed the debate topic by posting a large degree of philosophy quotations that were relevant to metaphysics and not practical aid to Africa.False Premise: You have cited several sources which provide little in the way for facts, and from what I see throughout your argument, have not disputed a single contention I made.Cult of Personality: Throughout the forums and comments, you have been trying increasinly hard to rouse up anger and attacks at me from your friends, while I simply remained calm. It was very uncalled for. You are certainly more popular among senior members, and I wouldn't be suprised if some vote for you no matter what, but this makes it no less of a cheap tactic.Playing on fantasies and fears: Throughout your arguments and sources, the form of logic was in the style of baseless assumptions that aid, investments, and military presense will always backfire. Little evidence went in the way of supporting this.Relying on credentials: In the comments and forums, my opponent has claimed that there will be absolutely no way I can beat him. I simply just asked for a chance to try, and while agreeing, he still kept replying to members saying that he is a much better debater. Straw Man: All the sources you provided were on the belief that the government budget should be increased. I never made such an argument, but you attacked it none the less. Good example, how he dropped all my investment arguments except humanitarian aid. Sunk Cost: Some of your sources provided very minimal statistics, as I keep pointing out, and relied on past evidence. Arguments should be made on what we have now and if it can realistically work for the future. As his BBC stated, that past aid programs have failed in the past, so maybe we should rethink them in the future (His source wasn't even saying we should stop aid). This is a sunk cost ploy.Political Correctness: This is perhaps the biggest offense by my opponent. Its when someone introduces a rebuttal, but also drops it at the same time. I am well aware as I've to had several offenses of this. "Second, aid and investments actually are detrimental to Africa. I'll go more into specifics next round, but needless to say the article concludes..."Mockery: No need to get into this one. Every person who has followed this debate can confirm the amount of mocking he has directed at me. I had challenged several other members, and he was the only one to engage like this.Domino Argument: I had already went into depth on this above, but I'll clarify it anyways. The site he has sourced, was tottally relying on a hypothetical domino thory, where one thing will lead to another and Africa will suddenly collapse. This is in violation of several more offenses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I wouldn't attack conduct in most other debates, but I feel due to the voting system, that this stuff may come to light. My opponent has dropped all my arguments and contentions, and has been playing a straw man game. I'm sure I may of violated at least one rule throughout this long process, but not nearly to this extent. You can read more on the tactics used here.... http://www.johntreed.com...Now lets focus on putting some more investments up on the board.Investment 4: Further Investment in Diplomatic RelationsContention 1: The US has had several interactions in Africa since the 1990's, almost all of which backfiring. Contention 2: Failed operations in Trans Sahara, Somalia, and the Gulf of Aden have been met with little cooperation from national leaders.Contention 3: US and NATO anti-piracy operations have resulted in many failures, partially due to a lack of cooperations with national governments.Contention 4: Good and strategic relations with Africa wields more benefits then harms.Resolution 4Contrary to a popularly held opinion, diplomacy does not always involve one side giving something uo or meeting middle ground. Diplomacy in Africa is nearing non-existence. We should attempt to reopen talks with prominent African leaders, restore our embassies, and begin making actual relations with these nations. Europe is far ahead in diplomatic ties, and mutual cooperation has led to great things. Perhaps the US should consider joining in on this, before we are left alone once again in Africa.Thanks for debate Zaradi, and good luck next round ;D