The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

To the judges of this debate, please realize that this is a Cross-Examination type of debate following the "Stock Issues". Please familiarize yourself with the system so that you can more accurately determine the victor of this debate. Onto the case. HARMS Though I've asked the judges to have a good understanding of CX, I'll further elaborate on the point of the "Harms" stock issue. The Pro's job is to present a case that contains "harms", or things that are bad. The "solvency" of the case is what solves these harms. If the harms are not solved because of the broadness of the harm, then that is a harms attack falling, and an entire stock issue with it. 1) US Military presence will collapse US economy. My opponent, in his written text, stated that the magnitude of military spending causes many problems and insinuates that this is solely because of Afghanistan. However, if you follow his link, you'll see that it's too a site that shows how it's not just US military in Afghanistan, but in the whole world as well that will cause US economic collapse. Because my opponent sourced the entire site and not a specific review regarding Afghanistan, he has the responsibility of solving ALL MILITARY SPENDING RELATED ECONOMIC ISSUES, something that is quite impossible simply with a removal of troops from Afghanistan alone. Please note that in CX the case is presented, and cannot be changed later. My opponent cannot say that he "meant to have a more narrow source". He had an opportunity to source correctly and he is negligible for the attacks that happen because of his failure to do so. 2) Money spent on the war in Afghanistan is wasteful. Here we see the same problem as the previous attack. The source leads to a whole entire website, filled with all sorts of information. We see that his text does reference Afghanistan, but it references military spending as a whole as well. Using the same logic as before (harms that are too broad for his solvency to solve) we see that this pillar of his Harms also falls. 3) Troop deployment is bad. This is similar to the previous two attacks. The opponent references an entire news publishing company and absolutely nothing specific to Afghanistan. Also, notice that the resolution calls to remove all troops. Assuming that no troops are being added, we see that this attack is completely irrelevant. To solve for this harm we needn't remove all troops, but simply not add anymore. So on the front of the fact that this covers a much broader area than that of Afghanistan and also on the front of the fact that this Harm doesn't stem from the status quo the opponent's Harm falls. 4) Ethnically stemmed violence. This is quite irrelevant. While it is important to recognize the conflicts that are inherently existing in regions by opposing ethnic groups, it does not justify the removal of US troops. As my opponent stated, these ethnic groups oppose ANY foreign influence within the country, which is the very definition of an inherent problem. My opponent seeks to simply remove troops, which will do nothing at all to actually stop the ethnic divide within this country. If he cannot stop this ethnic divide (which he can't because it's inherently existent) then he fails to solve this harm. 5) Civilian deaths. I will present the D/A / Advantage spread attacks in round three, leaving 4 and 5 for rebuttals, since no other format was presented in round 1. 6) Increase in rape. Also in D/A / Advantage spread. 7) Mental health. This argument is much the same as the first two. The opponent provides no specific source, but a link to an entire site. Either we can reject all of the information in which case the opponent's arguments are baseless, or we can look to the sites entire database of information, including problems that aren't Afghanistan exclusive. I'll let the opponent choose which of these fates he'd like to be part of, and then I'll elaborate on the attacks in the next round once that point has (or hasn't) been met. Inherency The point of Inherency is to provide evidence that shows some sort of barrier (eg A law or political figure blocking action) that is stopping the case from being put into effect. Fiat is then used to remove this barrier. This barrier necessarily must be shown in order to provide legitimacy for the case. Otherwise, the opponent is saying there is no barrier stopping the plan from being put into effect, and the fact that the plan isn't enacted goes to show that it wouldn't pass. This is a key stock issue that is completely non existent. Solvency Put quite simply, there is none. My opponent clearly says in his own resolution that all troops should be removed, and yet he fails to provide a plan that outlines any being removed at all. In fact, he fails to mention anything about the removal of troops. This fact alone loses him the round. He shows no evidence as to how he intends to solve any portion of his massive amounts of harms, he shows no agent of action that will be carrying out the plan, and as mentioned before doesn't even have a plan. Seeing as the affirmative has the responsibility to present the whole case round 1, adding additional information in the second round will only create abuse for the Con. The Con's ability to refute this new evidence is quite irrelevant, as these are simply the rules of Cross Examination debate. (We should try to follow them as closely as possible. Clearly the CX itself would be nearly impossible in this text v. text context, however we can still follow the others) Voters 1. Opponent presents harms not related to Afghanistan. 2. Opponent presents a massive amount of harms that he can't solve. 3. Opponent has no plan of action. 4. Opponent has no agent of action. 5. Inherency and Solvency nowhere to be seen. 6. Sources not clear, either including entire sites' databases of information or not information at all, dependent upon point of view. Conclusion It seems fairly clear that Con has already won this round, as the round was practically decided when my opponent posted an incomplete, badly sourced case. Should I find it necessary, I'll present an Advantage / Disadvantage spread and an Impact Calculus, and weigh the round.