34. The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

My opponent's final speech was very brief. He only touched on the "Let's do both" concept, so I will begin with that, and then do a quick overview of why I should win the main voting issues in the round. =========Re: Do Both============= First, I'd like to point out my opponent accepted my definitions in his R2 speech. I pointed this out in my R2. He even argued from this standpoint by trying to attack soft partition. If he wanted to do both, and was not simply making a last ditch attempt in R3, then why would he attack soft partition? *************************** //DEFINITIONS: Okay, I accept// I'd like to remind the judges that my definition of Timetable was: "A plan to which only entails the removal of troops from Iraq." and that I included this (unchallenged) observation: "Observation 1: That the resolution is in the present tense ("should adopt"), which means that my opponent must prove why the US should adopt his plan *right now*. Saying that an action must be taken first, THEN withdrawing is a negation of the resolution." ************************** However, my opponent has decided to change his advocacy now, to attack the definitions he once accepted, and to finally challenge my observation. Going back to my R1, I challenged his definition of Timetable based on the fact that it was a "piecemeal" definition, and did not capture the true intent of the word. For example, if I defined "time" and I defined "table", and combined the two, do I get the meaning of timetable? No. You need to know the context in which the word was used to fully understand the meaning. The community using the term is as much a part of the definition as the dictionary portion. For this reason, I said that my opponent's definition was lacking. The manner in which the word "timetable" is used in the military community is the manner in which I presented; simply leaving Iraq. Hopefully leaving it without terrorism - but all a "timetable" entails is a scheduling for troop withdrawal. That's why "soft partition" gets a separate name. They don't say "timetable with a soft partitioned government" - they say "timetable" OR "soft partitioned government". You cannot have your cake and eat it too. So, to sum this up, I've provided a good, contextual definition with sources, which was accepted - in words and in the way he advocated his debate - and only now is being rejected. But I have proven that you should still accept my definition nonetheless. Going from there, my definition of timetable completely excludes the possibility of doing a soft partition AND a timetable. A soft partition For this reason, my opponent's only remaining contention falls. ============================= Remaining contentions ============================= Cost -------- The main factor in cost is the time we're spending in Iraq (ie, paying for more supplies, armor, munitions and weaponry, bombers, fortifications, etc) I decrease cost by (even according to my opponent) being extremely quick. Hence, I win cost. Vote Con One Million Dead ----------------------- I provided you an expert who took a similar situation and cross applied the logic to predict that civilian casaulties would total over 1,000,000 dead if we didn't implement soft partition. My opponent says that the author has no proof. My answer is that the author took an analogous situation, and cross applied the logic. For example, if my brother touches a stove and burns his hand, when my sister goes to touch the stove...well I can warn her. And this isn't Joe Blow speaking - its an expert giving the official opinion of The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, an expert who is also a United States Senator. So the expert opinion combined with the logical analysis he provided, means I win this point. Morality --------------------- This ties into my previous argument - we decimated their government and now, as per my evidence, they are just that; decimated. They can't regulate the ethnosectarian genocide that's going on in the country, and so they need our help to soft partition it. We have a moral obligation to do it. I will tie three of my opponent's other arguments in here; "false pretenses" first applies. I agreed to this contention, and turned it in my r1. We invaded on false pretenses, so we have an obligation to do what's best for them. As per my evidence, it's a soft partition. The other argument is "against American ideals". He tries to make it sound like I'm a racist - but I pointed out that these aren't people trying to reconcile, and they're not being segregated; Winston Churchhill and the British threw these incompatable people together and now they're saying "ENOUGH!". In the polls, they've begged for it. Its not comparable to the U.S. situation at all. The final argument is deaths. I've proved that as for civilians, soft partitioning prevents as much as one million deaths. As for soldiers; as I said before, you solve the main thing causing violence; angry religious groups being thrown together and forced to interact. Imagine a hasidic Jew, fundamentalist Christian, and fundamentalist Muslim all thrown into a tiny room, held there by a foreign force. Now imagine all three of them were extremely angry at each other personally (Ie, outside of the religious doctrines). That's the situation now. Yes, they are mad at the US for forcing them to remain together, but they're more mad at each other, over perceived religious and personal differences. That's the problem. When we partition, we solve BOTH of the problems. Hence, vote NEG. Partition inevitable ------------------------- Soft Partition is beginning to happen, and violently. Its fairly certain to say its inevitable as per my evidence. However: The point in saying this is that the US should FACILITATE the partition. This will stop it from happening violently, and simply just happen. This isn't abusive because my opponent could argue the US shouldn't encourage it. My advocacy is ENCOURAGING/FACILITATING the Soft Partition. He simply has to argue against the encouragement. Iraqi's Voted -------------------------- We have conflicting evidence here. So lets look to the factor making mine better; recency. My evidence is over a year more recent. He tries to respond to this criticism by saying only the Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd populations are covered. The other groups in the BBC poll voted similarly (same source, see r1) , but I didn't mention them because they are so minute. The main 3 ethnic groups that exist are the ones I listed; it is they who are fighting and they who need to be solved for. They comprise over 95% of the Iraqi population. Since that's his only criticism of my evidence, I should win this point. Overall, I feel I've turned every specific point, and then destroyed his idea that we can "Do Both". I'd also like to reiterate that my opponent argued AGAINST soft partition and only in r3 decided to change tact. I don't think this is very fair, and it means that there isn't a stable advocacy throughout the round. Therefore, for all these reasons, please Vote NEG.