"Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan"

Thanks fr the (quick) debate, Pro.Extend all arguments. I posted my case in round one to give my opponent a chance to attack it, but she chose not to. Therefore all impacts are to be taken as true because drops=concessions. I'll attack my opponents case, and also explain how I outweigh. Framework--> No. The judge needs to weigh the cost/benefits of pakistani assistance, not whether it's used to its intended function or if it's used effectively, rather if the effect of giving aid is in of itself good. 1. Money--> She never explains why spending money is bad--remember that my case goes undisputed, so you have to weigh 20 billion dollars (.001% of the US GDP) against a Nuclear attack on the United States, or Nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Either way, millions of people would die.--> She brings in a card arguing: "we should be doing is training the police, but we're not doing it…. Pakistanis are not letting us.". Disregard this as he's never shown cutting aid to be a solution, and further he's argued no impact. It just states we aren't training the police; my response: who cares? Recall that the US also gives Pakistan military equipment to secure the Balance of power with India, and showing one example really isn't enough to affirm. --> Turn: My opponent argues " The Frontier Corps, the Pakistani force doing most of the fighting, has received $100 million". This is a Neg argument, the context she puts it in (contrasting it with "wasted" funds) shows that she believes these funds to be effective, thus negating the resolution. We ought to keep sending that $100 million at least.--> No impact argued, who cares? Recall that my case contains the deaths of millions as an impact. 2. Economically self-sufficient--> My opponent argues (unsourced by the way) that Pakistan has "one of the lowest tax rates in the world" should "do much more to generate revenue." Essentially, she's arguing to raise taxes. Well there are a multitude of problems with that argument, for one unless US suspension of aid will lead to Paistan raises taxes, she gains no advantage. Further, shes given no reason for you to believe that these tax dollars would actually be used to help infrastructure.Even more absurd is that she's arguing to create pakistani economic strength, while arguing to....raise taxes, which are acknowledged to be economically bad. When you take tax money, you take it from the productive private sector and hand it to the inherently unproductive public sector. The economic argument is therefore turned. --> My opponent then procedes to make my case for me, she argues: "we should require Pakistani investment in most KLB aid projects, which will ensure that our priorities are aligned. We should accelerate our efforts to help build Pakistan's small-business sector, which will provide most new jobs, and must resist the temptation to believe that trade can replace aid; both are crucial for Pakistan's development." [Emphasis mine] I concede here, she's arguing that the US should require Pakistan to do things that help it (thus aiding them) and negating the resolution. --> As with the previous contention, no impact argued (except for a bit of Neg ground).3. Moratorium--> This isn't an argument. She hasn't explained to you why the US can't assess the benefits of Pakistani aid now. --> My opponent tries to run an abusive argument, stating that: "The resolution never states when or at what time we need to do this. It just states that we should suspend assistance. We cannot keep dumping money into a Pakistan forever." That's a foolish argument. I could just as easily say that the resolution can't be affirmed because some day, far in the future, there will be no US or Pakistan, and its therefore inaplicable. Since the entire purpose of Public Forum debate is to debate current issues, theres no reason to believe that the resolution refers to anything other than the status quo.--> My opponent argues: "If Pakistan is not able to function properly without our assistance then and only then will we need to go back into Pakistan and further our assistance to them." This makes no sense, because my case has given plenty of reasons why it benefits the US to aid Pakistan, and she's dropped it all. Further, she doesn't explain why we should suspend all assistance if we are just going to return it once they want it back.--> Impactless.Nuclear war and Pakistani deaths outweigh her impactless case. My case has gone undisputed, so there is literally no logical way to vote for anyone but Con.