US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

I am confident that this debate will be fun as well as intellectually stimulating. With that said, I will first address my opponent's contentions while simultaneously reinforcing my own. Throughout the debate, I will write using many headings and subheadings (as opposed to a traditional paragraph/essay format) for easy readability. I urge my opponent to do the same. ==========HER CASE========== ----------INTRO PARAGRAPH---------- One of the first things my opponent said was in response to my condition that in order for Pro to win this debate, she must prove that there has been a risk of terrorist actions against the United States. Her response was that "we should assume that a risk of terrorist action against the United States exists, or else we would not be debating this topic. " As a prelude to my objection to this statement, I will first provide a definition for the term "risk. " Risk [noun]: the possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen (New Oxford American Dictionary) Now my objections to my opponent's above assertion: A) My opponent seems to be trying to say that a risk of terrorist acts against the United States exists because "the resolution says so. " However, since it is the resolution itself that we are debating as being either true or untrue, that reason alone cannot be considered credible evidence to support her assumption. B) Also, because my opponent has provided no other evidence besides "the resolution says so," we can successfully remove that assumption from the debate, because that is exactly what it is: a baseless, unfounded assumption. My opponent has not objected to the conditions that I laid out at the beginning of my case that shows what must be proven for Pro to win the debate. Since my opponent failed to prove the first specification listed, she has already failed to uphold the resolution. So even if I concede the rest of her case, Con has won the debate at this point. But I won't concede her case. .. ----------CONTENTION 1 (MILITARY ACTION)---------- A) Afghanistan My opponent claims that terrorism in Afghanistan is not as great a threat because the Taliban was toppled in 2001. The notion that the Taliban was toppled in 2001 however actually supports my case. In 2001, the Taliban had just been ousted from Afghanistan and was in disarray, so I presented only a very little threat at the time. Since then, however, as I have shown in my case, Taliban-controlled territory has increased from almost 0% in 2001 to 54% in 2006 and then to 72% by 2008. We can therefore see that because Taliban influence has been increasing, the threat of terrorism has actually been increasing, certainly not decreasing as the resolution and my opponent suggest. She also pointed out that "Al-Qaeda funding as drastically decreased. " However just because centralized funding has depreciated doesn't mean that acts of terror are less likely. In fact, because Al-Qaeda finances are not consolidated anymore, "simple logic" suggests that terrorist acts would be more likely to occur from rogue, unaffiliated individuals that would be harder to trace and catch. B) Iraq Similar to her Afghanistan argument, my opponent claims that the threat of terrorism in Iraq has been reduced because removing Saddam Hussein from power "eliminat[ed] Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism in the nation. " That may have been the case in 2003, but seven years have elapsed. Despite the stop in Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism, I have shown that the Iraq war has resulted in increased anti-U. S. sentiments, and thus has increased terrorism. A study by the NYU school of Law, shows "that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks," mostly because "the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda ideological virus" (1). Because of this, the notion that Hussein no longer sponsors terrorism is outweighed by the proven increase of terrorism in Iraq. ----------CONTENTION 2 (DOMESTIC POLICIES)---------- Surveillance Program and Patriot Act My opponent has not shown any examples of these programs being effective. She said that communications from Al-Qaeda have been collected, but she has not provided any evidence to show how this data has been used to disrupt terror policies, or if the data has even stopped terrorist acts from being attempted. If acts of terror have even been attempted, the Con side would be supported because nowhere in this resolution does it say that terrorist acts must be successful. Generalized Policies If my opponent is correct in saying that "16 terrorist conspiracies" have been thwarted, this actually supports the Con side that 16 terrorist acts (albeit unsuccessful ones) were taking place, thus showing how terrorism on United States soil has increased (see Contention 2, Sub-Point A). Alleged Lack of Terrorist Attacks Since 9/11 My opponent claims that U. S. policies have helped prevent another terrorist attacks since 9/11. However, we can see that a terrorist attack has occurred since 9/11, as evidenced by the November 5, 2009 Fort Hood shootings. Other attempts such as anthrax, the "underwear-bomber," and the recent Times Square plot were only unsuccessful because of measures and events that were completely unrelated to U. S. anti-terror policies. ----------CONTENTION 3 (THAT TERRORIST GROUPS WON'T ATTACK U. S. )---------- It is in this contention that my opponent commits the logical fallacy of "Dicto simpliciter," (i. e. a sweeping generalization) (2). My opponent is correct in saying that there has not been another attack similar to 9/11 in size and scope. However, the resolution refers to "terrorist acts" in general. Even if it is unlikely that large-scale, organized terror groups will attack the United States, I have shown in my case that future terrorist acts would most likely come from a rogue, disorganized terrorist group or from individuals (the latter has already occurred multiple times). Because it is incorrect to assume that because another 9/11 is unlikely to occur, it is unlikely that any terror acts will occur, this argument can be removed from the debate. My opponent also claimed that changes American attitudes have discouraged would-be attackers. Seeing as how she has not evidenced what these attitudes might be, this argument cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, because both of the core arguments of this contention have been shown to not be credible, my opponent's third contention can successfully be thrown out at this point in the debate. ==========CONCLUSION========== My opponent has not only failed to prove by any measure how large a risk of terror there has been (which must be done in order to prove that the risk has been reduced), she has failed to show that there has been a risk at all. Because the first of my listed conditions was not met, neither could the other two have been. It is because of this (and all of my above counter-arguments) that my opponent has failed to prove the resolution to be true. The resolution has therefore been negated. Thank you, and please vote Con. I await my opponent's response. Sources: . http://motherjones.com... . http://www.csun.edu...