The War in Afghanistan is a bad thing.

I shall repeat those facts as they are still being ignored (sources in Round One): •54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001. •Those without access to electricity form only 33% of the population, which is an improvement on the previous 42%. •In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%. •Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37% •In Helmand there are now 93 schools, an improvement from a previous 34. •52% of children are enrolled in schools, up from 37%. Around one million in 2001 (none of whom were girls) to over six million today, one third (or over two million) of whom are girls. •A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people. •The identification and management of over 39,000 community-based infrastructureprojects - such as wells, clinics and roads – in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan, through the Afghan-led National Solidarity Program. •The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program. •The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001 •10 million Afghans today have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001. •The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights. "54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001". This is an interesting one, as 54% is a majority. No matter how hard my opponent tries to take the views of one or two individuals and apply them to everybody, he can't do it. "In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%". My opponent obviously not feel being immunised against disease is a positive. "Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37%". Again, learning to read and write is not a good thing in my opponents mind. The United Nations, however, thinks education is a basic right of man. "A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people". Health care availability has increased. Another UN basic right of man. Which my opponent obviously doesn't agree with. "The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program." and "The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001". Jobs. Americans go on and on about a recovery without jobs, but when it comes to Afghanistan my opponent is happy to let the creation of jobs go unnoticed. "The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights". Free speech. The Taliban didn't allow free speech, but according to my opponent that doesn't matter, as the country was better before 2001, even though my evidence says otherwise. Yes lots of money being spent on these projects is from charity, but the vast majority is from governments. And the charity money cannot reach where it needs to be without our troops or ANA troops to protect it. The Taliban never built schools, in fact they demolish schools. They also kill any teachers in these new schools. So without foreign troops these benefits wouldn't have occurred. So, while my opponent is happy to use his right to education, healthcare, free speech, and right to work, he is not happy that that now extends to Afghanistan too. Opium- my claim wasn't against his figures. My claim was that having a government prepared to fight the drug trade is better than one who is not. Seeing as that is what Afghanistan now has, it is an improvement from 2001. Drug production in South America is still rife, but their governments at least try and fight it, regardless of whether production increases or decreases. Fighting the drug trade is not important to my opponent. In 2001 the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they had members in every town. Now they do not. My opponent has no hard evidence to say Taliban numbers have increased. Thus his assumption that the Taliban will return to power once we leave is not based on fact, it is his opinion. The numbers of the ANA and ANP, as well as their equipment means the Taliban can't just walk back into power. I do not know which Afghanistan my opponent is looking at, perhaps that of the Soviet era, but it is not the Afghanistan that the world knows today. My opponent claims that having foreign troops in Afghanistan increases the likelihood of Pakistan being over run by extremists. Yet foreign troops in Afghanistan have taken away the training camps that were used to train such extremists. Not to mention the USA is using Afghanistan to bomb Pakistan to kill Al-Qaeda leaders there. So where is my opponents evidence that Pakistan is more unstable now it has a quarter of a million non extremist troops on its border, than when it didn't? He doesn't have any. In fact, there haven't been any international attacks based from Afghanistan since 2001. I have evidence that not having troops in Afghanistan before 2001 caused attacks against the world though, it is called 9/11. Finally, he talks of civilian deaths as if we are shooting civilians for fun. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan is one of the lowest of any war undertaken in the last 100 years. He obviously forgets the Taliban stoning civilians to death without trial, or beheading teachers for doing their job. Or perhaps hanging people who spoke out against them. I can guarantee you that the Taliban treated civilians with far less respect than we do. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com... (even the rumour of this one is enough to make you cringe) http://www.independent.co.uk... http://articles.cnn.com... I also have a RAWA link (same website that he tried to use to support his point, my link says otherwise) that contains disturbing images, and I'm not sure if posting it on an uncensored site is acceptable or not. So I can send it to anybody who asks for it instead. http://gulfnews.com... My opponents overlooking of the evil of the Taliban is quite astonishing. My evidence shows an increase in healthcare provision, literacy rates, infrastructure, technology, and free speech. My opponents view that having the Taliban as a government is better than not having the Taliban is quite disturbing. The people of Afghanistan are better off in 2011 than they were in 2001. Therefore the war in Afghanistan is a good thing.