The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

In this round I will first be addressing the claims made against me by my opponent, and I will then move on to my opponents case. Starting at my opponent's overview: Points 1&2: I apologize if the point I was trying to get across was not clear, and for all the confusion that may have caused you and the spectators. My point was that America needs to improve their relations in the Middle East as a whole, thus increasing oil supply and decreasing hostilities. Point 3: I did not address India because because the resolution focuses around our relations with Pakistan. Never in my argument do I state that we should cut ties with anyone else, but rather try to strengthen our ties with Pakistan. I'll move on to your India argument later on in the round. On my Contentions: SpA: As i stated in the Points 1& 2 rebuttal, the main point I'm trying to make is that we need to advance our relations with the Middle East in general. Pakistan may not be the most oil-rich country, but increasing our relations with that region also includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other oil-rich nations. The main problem that we run into overseas is the belief that America and other Western nations treat the Arabic people poorly and try to manipulate them for their oil. If we were to help some (namely the oil-rich) and cast others to the wayside, like Pakistan, these feelings would continue, if not escalate. And so, not only would cutting monetary ties with Pakistan be counter-productive from the oil aspect, it might actually make the situation worse as tensions rise. SpB: As part of the argument was cross-applied from Subpoint A, you can cross-apply my rebuttal for that portion as well. Moving on to the Iranian point, Iran does not cooperate with the US due to the of anti-western tension caused by attempted interference, such as the Iranian nuclear crisis [1]. What I am suggesting is strengthening ties and reducing tension as a whole across the Middle Eastern region, which cannot be done by abandoning Pakistan monetarily. SpC: The main argument my opponent is trying to get across here is that once we cut ties with Pakistan, we can expect a happy ending for everyone. Unfortunately that cannot happen. When monetary supply is cut off from Pakistan, the Pakistani government will in turn need to raise more funds. Because the government is so military-focused, we can actually look to more oppresion as a source of these funds[2] rather than a miracle government. Moving on to her argument on increasing ties with the region, I would like to cross-apply my argument made in response to her SpA attack. Moving on to the framework: The main point brought up here is that I do not properly utilize the Cost:Benefit ratio. Once again I apologize for the confusion made to both my opponent and the spectators as a result of me being unclear. My Benefit in this case is both the increased ties to the Middle East and the increased oil supply and better prices for that oil supply as a result. The cost would be the funding we give Pakistan. My argument in this round would be that the benefits mentioned above outway the costs. Moving on to my opponent's case: Contention 1: SpA: Although this is indeed unfortunate, it also shows how military-focused this government is, and emphasizes the dangers of cutting off their funds, which I listed above. However, I would suggest a moer hands-on approach to how the funding is used. Although I do not have the political experience myself to suggest how this is done, I believe that a more hands-on approach where we personally direct money flow will solve this problem. SpB: I would like to refer back to the framework of the round. This debate is based on a Cost:Benefit analysis, which both debators agreed is not on a purely monetary basis. You can cross-apply my arguments made in both my constructive and rebuttal to the actual benefit the US would be recieving. SpC: Cross-apply my arguments made against SpA, as they both deal with basically the same thing. Contention 2: SpA: Not only does my opponent's evidence in this subpoint point to the fact that Pakistan does actually move money towards the defeating of terrorist organizations, but they also use these terrorist organizations to negate threats to their security. If this is a valid reason to cut off all assistance to a nation, then all assistance should be cut off to America as well for their arming the Taliban against the soviets, Al Qaeda against the Libyans, and various other rebel groups.[3] SpB: Cross-apply my arguments about strengthening Middle Eastern relations to negater her "Investment Opportunities" argument. Contention 3: Cross-apply my arguments about the "miracle government", and my Rand quote about what would really happen if aid was cut. Works Cited: 1.) http://iranreview.org... 2.) http://aynrandlexicon.com... 3.) http://www.rt.com...