Resolved: The US Federal Government should remove military presence and economic aid from S. Korea

I'll start on extensions, his responses to my case, and then economic aid.==Overview==He drops all of it, conceded. Remember, he needs to win on both military presence and economic aid to win the round. This is the resolution he created and advocated for, he needs to meet this burden. Furthermore, extend Decamp, who tells you the purpose of military presence. Lastly his advocacy is based on the status quo, not the future. He has to prove that the US should withdraw right now to win the round.==2NR====His 1C==He agrees to drop the Global Fire Power card completely. He tries to supplement this card with a card dump, but there are a lot of problems with this. First, he concedes that North Korea is still a military threat. Even if I concede that South Korea would win a war, when you do the impact calculus, no war is always going to be better than a war where South Korea wins because it means that less people die. Lives outweigh all else because it is first on the hierarchy of needs. I can't care about being the victim of a crime if I am dead. Then he talks about how North Korea has an aging military, but he doesn't do any sort of comparative analysis into the capability of South Korea absent US troops. But even still, in the negative world there wouldn't be a war in the first place. Cross apply the Rice University evidence for this. US troops have deterred North Korea for decades. This analysis only matters if there would actually be a war. Then he talks about how North Korea has rocked the boat with China. This is also going to be really important for my side. I'll concede that this has happened, and as the Week reports, North Korea has threatened war with China (http://theweek.com....) But when we tell you US troops in the region are there to maintain stability, if stability is getting worse in the status quo than its really bad for us to pull a force out that is there for stability. But this still doesn't make logical sense. His advocacy is based on the fact that South Korea would fill the vacuum, but then would China really allow a strong, independent power on their border? This is the buffer effect, and that's why it makes sense that in the event of a North-South conflict, China would back North Korea. But furthermore, cross apply what I tell you in the 1NC that withdrawal has seen China become aggressive before. At that point his impact is no unique. His own evidence introduced in the 1AC, that he doesn't drop in his 2AC concedes that North Korea is a stronger military in the status quo Then he brigs up this source from RAND in 2012. Here is a more recent article from the New York Times that says North Korea has nuclear capability. This evidence is more recent, his is 4 years old. http://www.nytimes.com... ==His 2C== Remember he can't get offense off of bot his second contention and his third contention. But recognize here that he concedes that without the US, South Korea would get conquered. Drop him there. He doesn't show any signs of the US-South Korean relationship actually shattering. Just that protests are breaking out. ===His 3C=== My response on the offense skew was not that one has been created but that one could be created. Recognize the concession he makes in his 1AR is going to win me this argument. He states that all he is doing is stating troops will be better used in the middle east. He still doesn't prove that troop would actually go to the middle east if we pulled out of South Korea. Still no solvency. But furthermore, these troops would still be committing crimes and human rights abuses, only now it would be in a region that is already staunchly anti-US, meaning it would only radicalize the populations more. In general he drops a lot of my responses. Any that he doesn't respond to you can extend. Onto his responses against my case.==First point==He says we have troops in Japan, but recognize that most of the troops we have in Japan are located miles away in Okinawa. Furthermore, He contradicts himself by saying that we can still attack with the full force of the US military but if we pull troops away than logically we lose operational capacity in the region. But he ignores the part of this argument when I tell you that North Korea has to lash out against our allies in the event of a conflict. At that point you can extend the Decamp evidence which tells you that one of the uses of military presence is to deter conflict and stop hostile nations from lashing out against our allies.==Second Point==His response here is that I don't prove the link back to South Korea. Fine, but what I do prove is the historic precedence that US withdrawal is a bad thing. Furthermore, even if South Korea is better off than the Philippines, it is still not as well off as China. Extend this argument.==Third Point==He tells you he never claimed South Korea would militarize. I tell you they have to because, as his own evidence introduced in the 1AC concedes, is that South Korea is a weaker military force than North Korea. At that point cleanly extend this argument. If SK militarize, other nations in the region would do the same and the region would turn into a powder keg.==Fourth Point==He concedes to the impact that having an ally committed to defence reduces conflict, but what he doesn't bring up is, yet again, the Decamp evidence. What Decamp tells you is that military presence sends the signal of our commitment to our allies, so at that point you can cleanly extend this argument as well. I reduce conflict in the Negative World, I win this round on that alone because all I have to do is win Military presence and even if I drop economic aid, he has to win both to win this round. And before he writes out a T on fairness or something like that, remember that this is the resolution he wrote, its the burdens he concedes to, so at this point I am wining this debate. But lets move onto Economic Aid==Economic Aid==There is literally no impact here. He just says that it isn't needed so we should stop it. But at the point where he brings out no harms to economic aid, there is no reason to stop it. But furthermore, his advocacy with this hinges on the fact that economic aid increases GDP. He concedes this when he says that "We have done our job". With that in mind, we can only expect economic aid to further increase the GDP of South Korea. Thus, I am very proud to negate. I patiently await the next case.