The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

I'm going to be fairly brief. To begin, extend all of my arguments, as my opponent's rebuttals did not even begin to address them. In fact, many of the points which he brought up were either for the pro side, such as his first conclusion, or they contradicted and negated his original contentions.My opponent, in his previous speech, contends that the winner of this debate will be whichever side can promote the least amount of unjustified suffering. His conclusion was that "keeping aid will prolong human suffering (and taking away aid will reduce suffering." By his own admission, con loses this debate, as his side prolongs human suffering.Furthermore, my opponent states that "basically, foreign aid takes away from the responsibility of the government, inviting laziness, corruption, and bad decision making. Also, aid allows bad governments to stay in power."Again, this is a pro point. My opponent establishes that our aid is allowing a flawed government to remain in power. Thus, we should suspend it.My opponent then claims that "overall, foreign aid has little to no impacts on the countries. Lack of good coordination, high transaction costs, and failing government alignment has led to the undermining of the sustainability of national development plans, the distorting of priorities, and the diversion of scarce resources and/or establishing uncoordinated service delivery systems" This too affirms the resolution. My opponent has shown that aid is ineffective, and should be abolished.Finally, con states that "there are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that they are not allies."Also a pro point, as this shows that there's no reason to continue aiding them if they provide no benefits.The onlystatement that con made which attempts to negate the resolution is "by continuing to give them aid, we slowly destroy them without ever having to launch an attack." However, my opponent overlooks two facts. First, while Pakistan is not an ally, we should not consider it's citizens as enemies. Second, the only harms of foreign aid are put on the civilians, not on the government. Suspending aid, then, will only hurt the citizens, who are not are enemy, and prolong suffering, which my opponent later recognizes.Rebuttals to Round OneContention OneMy opponent begins to refute his own contention with his last statement. Other countries are simply not able to, or are unwilling to, act as a replacement for U.S. aid. The Congressional Research Service reports that “Yet Beijing’s willingness to take Islamabad more fully under its wings appears limited. The hesitation is rooted at least partly in China’s concerns about the rise of Islamist extremism in Pakistan and some disappointment with progress in developing the Gwadar port, which suffers from a poor road network and geographical isolation. The Chinese government reportedly is unlikely to place itself in the middle of any U.S.-Pakistani rift, nor has it shown any desire to replace Washington as Islamabad’s primary foreign benefactor.” Additionally, from the Council on Foreign Relations: “China doesn't make a practice of providing the scale or type of assistance that the United States has provided; China isn't in a position to provide some of the higher technology that the United States has provided.”Contention TwoMy opponent appears to be basing this contention off the idea that Pakistan contains the only supply route to Afghanistan. However, this is not the case. The Northern Distribution network is becoming more commonly used as relations with Pakistan deteriorate. Indeed, Stephen Krasner (foreign affairs) notes that “nearly 60 percent of the NATO supplies sent into Afghanistan are already routed through the north, through Russia and Central Asia. The U.S. military is hoping to increase that number to 75 percent.” Obviously, our efforts in Afghanistan are not dependent on our relationship with Pakistan.Near the end of this contention, my opponent argues that suspending aid will cause an economic and governmental collapse. This is untrue, as I have already shown that the vast majority of our aid not benefitting Pakistan’s economy. Instead, it is going into the hands of the government elite. Suspending assistance, then, will not impact the economy or the strength of the government.Contention ThreeSubpoint A: By no means is our aid keeping the Pakistani government “warm towards the US.” Instead, the Pakistani government works at all times to undermine U.S. foreign policy goals, and our aid itself only helps to spread anti-Americanism throughout the region. Furthermore, a nuclear strike against the U.S. is extremely unlikely, primarily due to our second strike capabilities and the fact that Pakistan doesn’t want to get itself blown apart.Additionally, my opponent later reverses his stance and claims that our aid is intended to harm Pakistan and destroy them over time. Complete contradiction, and neither of those points stand.Subpoint B: Except, Pakistan really isn’t an ally. In addition to what I stated above, they have been known to close their supply routes, publicly decry the use of drone strikes in an attempt to increase anti-U.S. sentiment, and work against our counterterrorism efforts. My opponent agreed with this point in round two. Subpoint C: Except, once again, we don’t fund their military. Our aid doesn’t go to protecting their nuclear weapons. Our aid doesn’t even go to their counterterrorism efforts at all. Suspending assistance, then, will not affect their nuclear security.Additionally, my opponent later agreed that our aid programs are ineffective. Con, then, has proven my rebuttal to stand true.Subpoint D: My opponent admits that Pakistan is not an ally, which means our aid does not provide India and Pakistan with a "common ally." Furthermore, India and Pakistan have begun to normalize trade relations and Pakistan has recently pulled tens of thousands of troops away from its Indian border. Finally, there is no reason to believe that suspending aid will cause Pakistan to act rashly, as it by no means "feels cornered by India" at the moment.Additionally, this is refuted by my opponent's reversal of stance in round two. I strongly urge a pro ballot.