Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

So my opponent ran out of space and says he will continue in his next round. However seeing as my opponent is a real-life debater himself and has already agreed to the rule, No new arguments in the last round, he cannot do so. He is allowed to use the arguments that he has extended into the 2nd round, and also he can weigh with these arguments. Last speech for purposely for that – weighing and comparative analysis. As you will notice there will be no new sources or arguments in this round. If my opponent does, he loses the conduct vote. Con C1: Pakistan as an ally My opponent cannot gain much ground on this argument because it comes down to simply a question of cost. He argues that since Pakistan spent X amount of money, it is clear that they are a better ally than India. This argument holds no weight since I’ve already shown that India is already part of the Joint Working Group and has been fighting the war on terror alongside the U. S. His only response to this argument is that my evidence argues that it should change its “non-aligned” position. This is a non-issue because that’s its only on-record position, but in actuality makes little difference. As my evidence indicates India is functionally active in the war on terror, and the “non-aligned” position is just a paper position. My opponent argues further that the Pakistani’s are helping us fight these terrorists, and he substantiates this by citing casualty reports. The problem with this is that it isn’t distinguishing which terrorists they are primarily killing. As I mentioned above, my evidence indicates Pakistan is only killing terrorists in areas with the Pak-Taliban, and not Afgahni Taliban or the Haaqani Network. His response to this is that killing the Pak-Taliban prevents recruitment for the Afghani Taliban. The problem with this argument is that it’s completely false – the Afgahni Taliban are recruited from Southern Provinces in Afgahnistan…not Pakistan (that’s why its called the Afgahni Taliban). But moreover, if the Pakistanis wanted to kill the source from the Pakistani side, they would need to take out the Haaqani Network. However as my evidence indicates the ISI prevents any action from being taken against the Haaqani Network. Pro C1: ISI and Terrorism My opponent argues that it’s not the government’s fault if the ISI goes rouge. However, this argument responds to nothing of the warrants of the warrant, thus it is a dropped argument. I brought up that if the Pakistani government wanted to stop the ISI, then it can easily restrict it from government funding and support. My opponent argues that the ISI has killed terrorists as well. The first issue with this is the only relevant ones are from the beginning of the WoT – a time when Pakistan did help us. But the phrase comes along: what have you done for us lately? Thus the other issue is that the only ones listed from 2009ish are terrorists from the Pak-Taliban, not the Afghani Taliba, Haaqani Network or Al Qaeda. My opponent asks for Proof that the ISI were hiding Bin Laden: first, his compound was only a few miles outside the main military city in Pakistan; second, anyone involved with the case, including now the Doctor, has been arrested and tried; third, the very reaction from the Pakistani government claiming that the U. S. violated its sovereignty for Pakistani’s lack of action shows Pak’s rage. **1st Voter: Refer to bottom for the argument Con C2: Nuclear Weapons My opponent argues that if my argument is correct about anarchy and factionalism, then I link into this argument. The problem with this is that unfortunately it’s a non-unique argument since the argument tells us that Pakistan is going through this devolution regardless of U. S. aid and assistance. That being said, neither my opponent nor I gain any ground in this argument. My opponent argues that terrorists are not scientists so they know how to create a nuclear weapon, just detonate it. This misunderstands the point of my argument. All terrorists need is nuclear material to create a small dirty bomb. My opponent is wrong about terrorists not knowing how to make bombs – they can make dirty bombs and incendiary weapons. How do you think they make suicide jackets? They don’t buy them. India Advantage My opponent argues that India’s involvement with Afghanistan is in response to China, not Pakistan. There’s a few problems with this: first, it misconstrues intent and unforeseen consequences. Regardless of what India is doing, the consequence of it is less Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. As my evidence indicates, Karzai and India have a much stronger relationship than Karzai and Pakistan. This consequence is that in the long-run, having a relationship with India will be much more beneficial in determining regional policy than Pakistan. But secondly, this argument links into my argument about deterring Chinese expansionism. Seeing as my opponent couldn’t get to this argument, it is dropped and conceded. Note on evidence: he makes a claim that India can’t sustain itself for economic reasons, but nowhere in the evidence he provides makes that argument. **2nd Voter Important Dropped Arguments First, that a Sino-Pak relationship is beneficial for the U. S. , even if the U. S. joins an alliance with India. The evidence indicates that China has a stake in the WoT due to its very volatile Sino-Pak border. This benefits the U. S. because it both Pakistan and China will need to help each other in this region. Second, Pakistan will still need to fight the same terrorists because they are an internally destabilizing factor. Remember, my opponent says Pakistan has been doing well in the Wot, but he dropped my argument which tells you that even conceding these arguments (Con C1 and responses on Pro C1) they give no reason to vote Con because its non-unique – Pakistan has to fight in the WoT for its own survival. Voters The first voter as indicated at the top is the argument about the ISI and terrorism. At this point it’s been clear that an alliance with Pakistan makes no real headway for the U. S. because the ISI prevents any major action from being taken against the three main groups the U. S. is trying to combat – Afghani Taliban, Haaqani Network and Al Qaeda. And my opponent can gain no effective argument against this considering the important drop that is listed above – about Pakistan fighting the Pak-Taliban regardless of U. S. assistance The second voter is the Indian Advantage. Since my opponent could not sufficiently answer the argument that India is needed to combat Chinese expansionism, then this is a clear reason for the U. S. to ally with India. As the evidence indicates, an Indian-U. S. alliance is necessary to prevent naval expansion and also to prevent territorial expansion is volatile areas like the Sino-Indian border. And this links into the TURN I made on my opponent which effectively counter-acts the nuclear arsenal argument – A U. S. -Indian Alliance will prevent regional destabilization in the region and thus prevent the potential for a nuclear spawned conflict between a Pak-China relationship and an alone India. (this argument went dropped as well) Third third voter comes from Pro C2 – that a U. S. Indian alliance will force the Pakistani’s hand to take serious measures against terrorism. Since my opponent couldn’t extend his arguments into the 2nd round, it’s a functional drop and concession by my opponent. As such, my evidence indicates that Pakistan cannot afford a stronger U. S. -Indian Alliance and by necessity must give in to U. S. demands. And he already conceded the truth that a Sino-Pak relationship is inevitable, and that even China has a stake in the WoT. :D