USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

Thanks again to Forever23. Burdens: The basic burden in any policy debate resides with Pro: they must present a case that has a clear agent and a clear course of action. Without that, debaters like me are relegated to responding to an incredibly vague case. This isn't how policy is created, and policy debate is held to similar standards. Pro has stated that there's going to be some bilateral effort between the US and Russia, but hasn't clarified their roles beyond supporting Assad and the US leading the effort. It could require any number of potential interventions with widely varying amounts and types of forces and resources. It could include anything from just the US signing a treaty with Russia to each country alternately nuking random cities until ISIS is dead. We have no idea what kind of support either country would lend to Assad, and thus no way to determine if they're actually helping or hampering him. The same holds true for ISIS " we can't know whether Pro's efforts will be effective without knowing what those efforts will be. So, on this basis alone, voters should be presuming Con. I'm the only one who's presented a case (I didn't have to), while Pro is trying to pass off an incredibly vague plan as reasonable policy. Overview: Pro is misapplying the term "assertion." When she analyzes my arguments, she calls them assertions, responding to the claims I'm making without ever addressing the warrants, evidence or impact analysis that supports it. Her case, on the other hand, is a litany of assertions interspersed with evidence that does little to nothing to bolster her point. Pro's Case: Assuming that voters view Pro's vagueness as insufficient reason to vote her down, I'm forced to clarify her case for her. In the previous round, I gave a general layout of her plan. Since she dropped that and hasn't expanded on her case, I'll fill in the details. Pro's plan would require a large influx of American troops into the region. American troops will have to be committed and utilized first in order to lead the effort, and then Russian troops will hopefully follow suit. These troops will work together with Assad's forces, employing large scale bombing efforts in ISIS-controlled regions and using ground forces to secure the area. As this is the only specification of her case that appears in this debate (doing so in the final round would be abusive), this is now de facto her case. With that in mind, let's assess her contentions. C1) Pro argues that the US and Russia have mutual interests in ending ISIS. Multiple responses. 1) This doesn't support Pro's case. A united desire to deal with ISIS doesn't imply a desire or even a willingness to engage in a large-scale ground-based invasion. Mutual interests only show a desire for action, not for Pro's specific action. 2) The evidence in this contention functions against Pro's case. When she says that they've only "settled on the lowest-common denominator recommendation to cooperate on humanitarian aid", she reveals that, in spite of the very large and active threat of ISIS, the US and Russia haven't cooperated on an invasion. She doesn't explain how their calculus changes post-plan. 3) Pro assumes her plan will solve. I've already explained how US intervention has led to increased, not decreased, stability. Pro drops that point. I've explained how Assad's winning the war effort will lead to further mass murder on his part, and simply repeat the cycle of instability that created ISIS in the first place. Pro drops that as well. Further, Pro drops that ISIS is not a single-state entity, and thus cannot be defeated by efforts in a single country. Pro also drops that Assad has actively empowered the extremists by aiding them on the battlefield and releasing their militants. By backing him, the US is backing these actions as well, which means that the US is effectively empowering ISIS by engaging in the plan. 4) Remember: the best case scenario for her plan is a prolonged war effort with an eventual end to ISIS where crimes against humanity continue unabated for an unknown length of time. Only my case reduces the loss of life in the short term (which is the harm she keeps citing), whereas her case only has the potential of eventual solvency. 5) Pro's case is likely to increase the number of deaths. If everything goes according to plan, she's committing untold numbers of troops to the region that are all at risk. The mass bombing campaigns will end more lives as a result of collateral damage, and occupations will result in deadly insurgencies and malign more people against both American and Russian troops. C2) Pro argues that unifying the actions of the US, Russia and Assad is the only way to stop ISIS. Multiple responses. 1) None of the evidence she provides actually supports this assertion. 2) Much of this contention reads like the first. Again, just because both countries have the same goal doesn't mean that they are both united in how to achieve it, nor does it mean that they'd make good allies. Pro doesn't explain how either of those are true, despite them being crucial to her solvency. 3) I'll address this on my case, but Pro gives no reason why my plan wouldn't solve. Every harm she's presented involves Syria acting within the region to kill many people. I'm solving for that, more rapidly and effectively than Pro is. C3) Pro argues that many countries are ready and willing to go to war. Multiple responses. 1) This is deadly to Pro's case. There are two possible outcomes. Either this broad international support will be plenty and the US should immediately proceed to eradicate ISIS (which means working with Russia provides no benefit), or it's insufficient and therefore the international effort is always going to fall short. Pro doesn't explain why including Russia passes some unknown brink that allows the world to finally defeat ISIS, and so there's no reason to believe that their involvement would change the outcome. Even if Russia is necessary, so many nations getting involved at the same time will likely force them join the coalition through international peer pressure, which means Pro's plan is unnecessary. 2) Turn " Pro's case leads to the US and Russia working together and basically spurning all others, ignoring calls by many of these countries not to support Assad, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, and Britain [15, 16]. Many of these countries will subsequently back out and not lend their support, removing sources of support the US has right now in favor of some potential support from Russia. 3) None of these countries are willing commit troops, including the US. Pro is forcing the US to go against massive public and political opinion in the vain hope that Russia will follow suit. If no one wants to commit troops now, no one will post-plan either. Alright, onto case defense. DA1) Pro's response ignores all of my reasoning for why a no-fly zone effectively responds to the problem of civilian deaths and displacements in a short time frame. She clearly doesn't garner this level or certainty of solvency with her plan. Yes, war kills, but fighting fire with fire as Pro is doing will only increase the rate of death with some faint hope of reducing it in the future. ISIS won't end, and the loss of life won't either. DA2) This is just another assertion by Pro that supporting Assad is the only means to ending ISIS. I've already explained how that support wouldn't end ISIS, and more importantly, how support for Assad perpetuates the problems and may prolong the war effort. Pro insinuates that something can be done about Assad after this alliance stops ISIS, but a) no where in Pro's plan is there any means to deal with him afterward and thus Pro is simply hoping for that to be part of the outcome. b) Pro is giving him legitimacy by offering him unconditional support, c) Pro has the US turning its backs on what it's said before about him being a horrifyingly bad leader,[16] and thus tainting the US position in the process, d) the Syrians won't trust the US after propping up their terrible dictator and killing many of them, and thus they won't trust anyone we prop up in his place, e) that would require yet another infringement on Syria's sovereignty and yet another power grab, which I've already shown has had nothing but disastrous results in the past, and DA3) Pro doesn't understand this argument. This DA wasn't contingent on Russia acting foolishly, it's contingent on their basic calculus for why they care about Syria at all. Pro's not responsive to my source which shows that their chief reason for propping up Assad is to counter US hegemony. As long as that's true, Russia will never engage in an effort that the US is leading, particularly not one that involves a large influx of troops and mass bombings. They're far more likely to subvert US efforts and try to work independently on solving for ISIS. Pro's not responsive to that logic. Lastly, Pro misreads my counter plan. The ceasefire would be between the moderate rebels and Assad's forces, not between Assad and the US. The key to stopping the conflict is the no-fly zone enforced by ground troops, which Pro drops. She also dropped that the ceasefire will focus attention on ISIS (in Pro's case, moderate rebels will either join ISIS or continue to fight on their own against the US, Russia and Assad), and the ease of maintaining a refuge within Syria. That means she's conceded my solvency on all of these fronts. There's no magic involved here " if you stop all bombings and artillery strikes from ISIS, you're fundamentally disrupting their only means of attack and expansion, and making it that much easier to defeat them in combat. This may not defeat ISIS; no plan will. However, it will do more than Pro's plan, and will stop a terrible humanitarian crisis from playing out even further in Syria and its neighboring countries. 15. http://bbc.in... 16. http://bit.ly...