President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US' best interest

I think this will be the best debate I EVER have online ;) good luck to the both of us. ====== Let's all first take note of the elephant in the room/webpage. My opponent has COMPLETELY DROPPED EVERY ASPECT OF HIS CASE. quote: "I will begin by dropping ALL of my nuclear arguments and simply stating that preventing a safe haven to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in order to protect our national security is in the United States best interest". Thus, his contention 1: "The threat of a Nuclear War outweighs the rick of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan" is dropped, and his contention 2: "Without these troops being sent, the war in Afghanistan WILL BE LOST, thus giving Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces a safe haven and raising the chances of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being taken" is dropped. He tries to draw impacts solely off of round 2, which is now all i have to refute, giving me the opportunity to extend significantly as he has not defended at all. So, Contention 1 1A. Terrain. My opponent responds by showing you that armies "with helicopters, missiles, landers, battleships..." means terrain has little to do with the outcome of the war. This is a legitimate response inasmuch as you don't consider the terrain. 1. Helicopters can't land in mountains where militants are hiding. 2. If we bomb them with missles, we will hit civilians more than terrorists, thus worsening our image and decreasing the support we receive. 3. Landers (assuming he means off shore), Afghanistan is land-locked. i.e. they have no access to water. This renders landers AND 4. battleships useless. www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/06-10/101406/b/AsianUnionMap.gif 5. SWAT team- a squad of policemen who have been trained to deal with violent and dangerous situations http://www.thefreedictionary.com... SWAT teams are not only meant for domestic issues, but also primarily for hostage issues. I would be enlightened to find out that our SWAT team is in Afghanistan. 6. Counterinsurgency squads. WHAT? we don't have a counterinsurgency squad, its just a brigade LABELED as a counterinsurgency squad. They are still armed with weapons, so its a mobile, militarized regiment. Because my opponent only provides this response, consider the logic behind the negative just shown and extend 1A. This is already sufficient reason to vote con because i show you "it's impossible". Also, just compare Vietnam. Same situation, humiliating defeat. 1B. Training them won't work we can't be sure that the army will be a strong combatant force after we leave. Response? "this is the exact reason why we are in this country." That means, once we leave, my opponent still agrees that we can't be sure. If my opponent disagrees with this interpretation, then he MUST be saying that we have to remain in afghanistan INDEFINITELY to assure that they will be effective. The second part says the Taliban will return when we leave, and my opponent points out a contradiction. This is an excellent observation, BUT. I will drop the refutation I made. You know why? BECAUSE MY OPPONENT DROPPED HIS CASE! I DON'T NEED THE REFUTATION! Not only that, polls are inaccurate and people are put under pressure to vote for the occupying power, so you can't necessarily use the poll against me as it is an unreliable source of argumentation. I extend ALL of 1B, and he still gains nothing from my dropping refutations. Remember this moment in voters. 1C-1 He provides Healthcare as an example that 30billion is not much money compared to 1.2 trillion. Well GREAT! Turn the impact negative, because this shows that we should be focusing on the more costly domestic issues, not Obama's plan. I can, as the negative, show why Obama's plan is not in our best interest in as many ways as possible. This refutation plays right into the negative world. 1) Healthcare is more important/costly and should be looked to. 2) Even if the argument isn't saying that we should look to healthcare, consider this. Citizens benefit from taxes they pay for healthcare. But buy increasing taxes for the war, the citizens receive nothing in return. This plays back into popular support, so extend my 1C-1 and re-extend my 1A on this ground. 1C-2 My opponent misinterprets the argument. I'm not saying they can't support the influx of troops, per se, but rather they can't support the military force that we are trying to train and have them uphold AFTER we withdraw. Meanwhile, you extend 1C-2 1D He points out a fallacy and says that we are not sending military force. 1) Yes we are, they are militarized and have guns. Tell me if I'm wrong 2) CROSS APPLY HIS REFUTATION/ note the contradiction. He attacks my 1A by saying terrain isn't a problem for a country with helicopters, swat teams, battleships and whatnots. Win-win for me; choose whether to extend con impacts or drop pro impacts, or both :) 2) Extend my argument beecause I push for policing and intelligence which isn't responded to, thus I give you a better way out of the situation which you can extend. For the above two reasons, extend 1D 1E "However, our goal, which is in the United States best interest, is to build up and restore Afghanistan to wear they can support themselves. My opponent mentions that we should stop using military force and be more diplomatic. However that is what counter-insurgency is. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to help then rebuild their home, we are not being aggressive" 1) cross apply my extension of 1D that shows that we are militarily operating 2) cross apply my opponents response to 1A again 3) my opponent doesn't refute my point, so he concedes that we have already won the war. THAT is truly our primary objective, and inasmuch as I show you that this is true, extend. Contention 2: Again, drop mine and his or extend mine and his. But you can't extend his because he dropped his case, and you can't drop mine because he only shows that nuclear weapons are hard to access. But consider this: If the Taliban seize control of Pakistan, it doesn't matter how much casing there is around the missiles, they can still eventually get to them. Moreover, I show you in the Dalrymple evidence that they have already taken a fifth of Pakistan, proving that terrorism is still rampant ONLY in pakistan. Thus extend C2 1600+ characters still... Let's look to voting issues. 1) My opponent dropped his entire case, and is essentially trying to gain ground off of refuting my case. This would be acceptable as the con, but the pro must uphold the resolution. Therefore, there is no reason to vote pro. 2) I was able to successfully extend at least a considerable portion of my case, giving me at least considerable ground to counter my opponents zero. 3) Assuming that you still can look to my opponents case, my contention 2 can be extending in clash. So at best, if you even think to consider my opponents case after voter issue #1, he is questionable because of this issue. 4) My opponent never really shows you why Obama's Plan SPECIFICALLY is in our best interest, so he never truly upholds the resolution. I sufficiently disprove, so negative outweighs easily. 5) My opponent never made any defense (as a result of dropping his case) so he has nothing to extend. You can't let him extend in his next round because I have no chance to respond; this is the last round and should be left to purely refutation. If he sees a dropped argument he can extend, but he can't extend through my ink if I can't refute. Therefore my opponent has no extensions off of which to vote negative. 6) My opponents last voter about saving american lives is first, not warranted, and second, not upheld in his lack of a case in round 2. You can only look to my voters because his previous voters are continued refutations of my C2. 7) THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. *probably a repeat* There is no pro ground, plenty of con; no pro case, lots of con. Thanks for the GREAT debate, no sarcasm. Thanks/good luck, vote con. G'night