The War in Afghanistan is a bad thing.

You are correct. I stand corrected but I will touch on that later. I was confused because it is the DDO custom to do the [_] and then the source. I am sorry for that misunderstanding. Again, I will respond to this at the end. //With regard to my opponents quotes from Afghan citizens, they seem to be from a website that cannot be verified. // Here is where my opponent is dead wrong. The website I posted as [1] was Young Americans for Liberty. org and on that site, in the exact article I linked to, there is another link to more info regarding the same topic on The American Prospect. org. Claiming that the site is not verified is not true, if he took the time to read it he would see that the quotes are legitimate. My opponent also claims that the quotes don't support my case at all but this is not true in the least. The quotes are showing that the citizens want forces out of Afghanistan. My opponent has ignored my other quotes which talk about military buildup leads to more death of civilians as well. // The minority voice of Afghans who preferred the Taliban to the new government is drowned out by those who don't, as my figures showed. Which I assume my opponent actually read. // What? Where does this fit in at all? My evidence is talking about the fact that the Afghan people want troops out yet we are ignoring them. //Then my opponent goes on to talk of extinction, regarding the instability in Pakistan, as if scaremongering is going to promote his case. Again, he should know that Al-Qaeda is an international group, and will have a presence everywhere, regardless of the war. However, the Taliban, who allowed Al-Qaeda to run terrorist camps, are not international and were removed from power. The removal of which brought about the positives I stated in the last round, which my opponent cannot dispute. // Okay, I'm totally scaremongering to promote my case. (sarcasm) It seems that my opponent has ignored my evidence that a nuclear war will ensue and ultimately extinction will result. If you choose to ignore the evidence then it is not my fault. But please don't accuse me of doing something I'm not solely because I provide evidence that you ignore. I never said that Al-Qaeda won't have a presence everywhere but the war has increased theirs, and the Taliban's, recruiting pool. This is the basis of my advantage 1 and has gone undisputed this entire debate. About the positives, I have already shown that having troops there is causing the citizens to be upset and thus increases the Taliban's recruiting pool thus leading to the problems my opponent claims the war has stopped. //The reason why troop activity has increased, and why deaths are increasing, is because the allies are stepping up efforts to recruit and equip ANA and ANP members. Which, when the allies leave, (which they have started to do this year) will be the ones who protect Afghanistan. Which is what my entire argument was based around- Afghanistan itself. // So here my opponent concedes that deaths have increased and, if you look to my previous evidence from last round, the surge in troops (even if we are attempting to withdraw them) is causing more civilian loss of life. //My opponents view that the Taliban will return is again based on ignorance. The Taliban never left. They have, however been removed from power, and the Afghanistan government is growing stronger each year, to a point where they can keep power away from the Taliban. Again, my argument said all of that. // My view is based on ignorance? What? My opponent again fails to read any of my evidence which is talking about how the Taliban will gain a greater recruiting pool and return to power. Looking through my opponent's links I find no evidence that says that the new government can keep the Taliban from taking over. But let's also extend my advantage 1 evidence which is specifically talking about how they WILL take over again if we keep troops there and that the war has increased their recruiting pool. My opponent has not even tried to negate this until now. //My opponent did, however, rightly point out that removing the Taliban did not remove the production of Opium. But, Afghanistan has gone from the Taliban (who supported Opium production) to the new government (who does not support Opium production). So they are least fighting the drugs trade, which does bring them in line with other Muslim countries. So my point still stands. // My opponent says his point stands but this is just not true. The fact is that the illegal opium trade has stayed the same if not increased since the war, which is what my evidence says. Again my opponent has failed to read my evidence and thus my claim still stands. It doesn't matter whether the government does or does not support opium, if the trade is the same/increasing, they are still not in line with other Muslim countries. //Another ignorant point my opponent made was that the presence of foreign troops is increasing Taliban recruitment. There is no evidence to support the notion that new Taliban recruits are loyal to the cause, as many are just locals who are paid to fight, and then go back to work alongside allied troops in building schools etc. When our troops recognise these locals we work with them to provide alternatives to being a mercenary, which, again, becomes a positive. If my opponent can prove that recruits are fighting for the Taliban because of political beliefs, then I will concede this point, but he won't be able to. // What? ! It seems that my opponent has entirely ignored all of my evidence from my first advantage. It is specifically talking about how out presence is rallying the people against us and to the Taliban! My opponent provides no evidence that the fighters are mercenaries who also fight along allied soldiers whilst I provided evidence that says that they are rallying to the Taliban because of their dislike of us! I'm afraid my opponent's argument does not work here at all. //So I urge you, go read my Round One again and read the sources (which support the facts I stated. As it stands my positives are standing strong. Perhaps a study of Afghanistan itself might help. Seeing as my opponent cannot dispute my positives, nor my facts, and they far outweigh and outnumber his own, it is plausible to say the war is more of a good thing than a bad thing. His argument seems to be based around taking a negative view of the situation, rather than finding hard facts and statistics to prove things are worse now than before 2001. My argument clearly states statistics and facts, and their sources, that support the view that the war in Afghanistan is a not a bad thing. // My opponent thinks his positives are standing strong but this is just not the case. Most if not all rest on the fact that the Taliban will not come back to power/is not gaining a greater recruiting pool which my evidence shows they are. His positives are simply not true. I will tackle some more of this in the overview. //On the facts\After looking at the links my opponent provides we can see that most of the benefits are from charities and sending money. A quote from his BBC link: "The UK has donated ï¿½32m towards local projects. .. " The other benefits are because the Taliban is less powerful but my Ad 1 evidence says they will return. Extend my Karzai bad //Overview\First off my opponent has made little to no attempt to refute my first advantage as well as ignoring my second one entirely. In both those advantages I have two terminal impacts of nuclear war and extinction which he claims is scaremongering but that is just him being ignorant to the evidence. If he would take the time to read the evidence he would see that the threats are very real but if you still ignore the evidence and believe I am "scaremongering" here is some more evidence: . http://www.nuclearfreenz.org.nz...