Development assistance should be priotized over miltia aid in Sahel

To begin with this speech I would like to clarify the definition of prioritize which from https://www.google.com... prioritize is "designate or treat (something) as more important than other things." this definition does not state at all that we do things in a certain order. I brought this definition up because I will be using throughout this speech. I will be going on the biggest points in this round which are: 1. terrorism 2. agriculture and 3. security and stabilization To start off with terrorism, at the end of this round you need to look at the fact that I have proven that without developmental aid to help military aid, military can not solve for terrorism. Also I would like to carry across how throughout this debate my opponent has barely argued my point that terrorism begins with poverty and by solving poverty we will in fact solve terrorism. Onto the second point which is agriculture, with this point we need to look at utilitarianism, which is "what will benefit the most lives" in this case agriculture will in fact save the most people in this debate. This point has been agreed to multiple times by the con that the pro in fact does solve and tries to say that we can do both military and developmental aid... I completely agree to this statement, although we should treat developmental aid with more importance (as my definition of prioritize states) as at the end of the round it is saving the most significant number of lives, my opponent tries to say that 18 million 4 hundred thousand people is not significant considering the 300 million people in the Sahel region, what my opponent is basically saying here is "yeah it is ok for 18 million people to die through starvation, because it is less than 50% of the country" that is the equivalent to saying "its ok for 150 million people to die in America since its less than half, or 62,699,999 people are ok to die in America since its less than 20%". What I am trying to get at here is the fact of percentages don't matter in this round. The number of people being saved is what is important and in this case developmental aid is what will be saving the most significant amount of people. Lastly onto security and stabilization, my opponent tries to advocate that he will be using a different method of training. What my opponent fails to see is the fact that training is what lead to the war in South Sudan, without a way to monitor the people of the country we will never know if they are using our training correctly or incorrectly. In this case cameras are the solution. My opponent also tried to say that there is no safe way to get the developmental aid into the region without military help, again I agree to this, although we will prioritize the developmental aid (make it of more importance). My opponent also tried to bring up the cost of developmental aid within this debate, although when you are saving 18.4 lives no cost is too high, every life has significance in the world and no one should be put through starvation, it is the worlds moral obligation to solve this problem immediately. At the end of this round we must look at who will be saving the most lives which is the pro, who has proven with the support but not the importance of military aid can and will solve all of the problems within this round. My opponent contended this within his last speech that both together will work, all I am saying now is to make development more important since it will save the most lives. Good Debate MoneyStacker, thanks for debating with me