Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Without Further Details -- Here's Some More BackpedalingMy opponent insists that he does in fact have the right to change and add on to his resolution mid-debate. Ultimately, it will be up to the voters to decide this, but I will give my justification as to why this not the case.My opponent justifies using non-invasive solutions in his argument because his resolution doesn't state a set time frame for the invasion. This is a non-sequitur. The problem isn't in the vagueness in time frame of the resolution, it's that my opponent is arguing for non-militaristic solutions at all (e.g. international negotiations in lieu of an invasion) when his resolution is clearly predicated on the use of military action. It's not that I'm reading into implication not seen in the resolution, it's that Pro is presenting arguments that have nothing to do with his resolution and in fact undermine it utterly. Pro has clearly made a mistake in his arguments and instead of admitting to it and moving on, he is trying to both twist the semantics of his resolution and obfuscate his justifications for doing so in order to cover up this mistake.The Groups We Appeal to Aren't Fond of Homosexuality -- But it doesn't matter Either WayMy opponent offers little more than talking points and hopeful conjecture. It's all too easy to pitch the possibility of whatever scenario you'd like to see happen when it's all up in the air, but it's another thing entirely to have an argument rooted in actual real world statistics with historical examples to support your case. Once again, America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost America 1.361 trillion dollars. The cost has actually risen over 1 billion dollars since this debate started. Keep in mind, the combined military expenditure of Canada, England and Australia (none of which have nay real reason to even commit to these wars other than not being blatantly anti-homosexual) is about 115 billion dollars. If going to war with two countries racks up a cost of 1.361 trillion, then the cost of going to war with no more than the 5 countries that have explicitly outlined homosexuality as a crime worth of the death sentence will still theoretically cost 3.4 trillion dollars -- and that's a modest estimate. In all likelihood it will cost much, much more. This is a cost almost 30x higher than the combined annual military expenditures of these nations. All the guerrilla armies on the planet wouldn't be enough to cover the difference in cost, let alone the few in Africa and the Middle East that would actually help you. This cost alone is already more than enough to convince what few countries you could get to support this idea to back off instantaneously. Even if everything in my opponent's conjecture worked out, that is, he convinced these few nations to join the war effort and got every single guerrilla army in Africa and the Middle East to support his cause, that would never happen, but let's just say it does, he's still guaranteed to go bankrupt and fail in his mission.Pro's argument here sounds nice in theory, but as soon as you try to connect his proposed solution it to the real world in any way whatsoever, the massive problems that would arise from this idea become obnoxiously and undeniably apparent. A Lot to Lose -- More than You UnderstandMy opponent is now suggesting that we blatantly lie on an international scale in order to instigate the single largest war since WWII. I don't think my opponent understands the implication of what he's saying. If this false propaganda works and WWIII begins and his lies are later found out (and they will be), he will be charged as a war criminal and will most likely go down in history as the worst war criminal since Hitler himself. This is nothing short of astonishing hypocrisy. In order to get his way, my opponent is not only advocating the instigation of WWIII, but he advocates that we instigate it via lies and propaganda. Such things are equally as unethical, if not more so than merely killing people with lifestyles you disagree with. While I agree that the mistreatment of these homosexuals is appalling, appropriating an inscrutably massive war via shameless propaganda and perjury is simply not a good answer. It's not even an answer period as the result is worse than the current state of affairs anyway.Furthermore, tragedies and oppression go on all over the world continuously without much outrage from the developed world. As it turns out, if there isn't anything in it for the invading country, they most likely will not invade regardless of how well constructed your proposed lies and propaganda are.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments rests upon numerous unlikelyhoods to so much as seem feasible, let alone actually make it to the level of feasibility. He requires international gullibility to the extent that he can both convince the international community of his blatant lies and exaggerations as well as convince them to enter a massive war when there's really nothing in it for them. His argument also depends on the loyalty and proficiency of virtually every guerrilla army available and even then his plan only stands a chance of getting off the ground, let alone actually succeed, if he can find a way to keep the 50 other countries that would likely assist these 5 from assisting them.There are simply too many "if"s in my opponent's argument for it to have any kind of legitimacy and for that reason my opponent's resolution is negated. I look forward to your response.