US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

<<<<<<<<<< MY CASE >>>>>>>>>> RISK FACTOR The main point of my argument was not to prove that a risk does not exist or even deny that a risk has existed. I simply showed that my opponent hasn't proved what risk she references in the first place. In order for a risk to be reduced, a bench mark value must be shown in order to indicate a change taking place. My opponent will probably tell me that the above assertion will apply to my case as well, as she claims that my whole case is based on that the risk of terrorist acts is increasing. That claim is false. I do not have to show that the risk of terrorists attacks has most definitely, unequivocally increased. I just need to show that there is no earthly way that the risk has decreased, whatever that risk might be. It is not Con's duty to provide an entire counter-resolution to prove. It is just my job to negate, and that is it. U. S. MILITARY ACTIONS My opponent claims that U. S. military action nothing to do with U. S. policy. However, surely my opponent knows that military action cannot take place if a plan of action (a. k. a. a "policy") has not been considered. For clarity, please consult my syllogism: -"Operation Iraqi Freedom" (2003-2008 under Bush [1]) and "Operation New Dawn (under President Obama [2]) are the strategies U. S. military actions adhere to in Iraq. -"Operation Enduring Freedom" is the name of the strategy U. S. military actions have adhere to in Afghanistan (3). -An operation is "a planned process or series of acts especially of a practical or mechanical nature" (Cambridge Online Dictionary). -An operation is synonymous with a "plan of action," in other words, a policy. -Therefore, U. S. policy equates with the U. S. military action occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the New York City subway bombing plot, as I have said before, even it was ultimately foiled, terrorists acts were still taking place in organizing the attack. Therefore, seeing as terrorist attacks were occurring regardless of the outcome of the attack, this example does support Pro's case. Iraq I have repeatedly shown in my case, in quoting the Office of National Intelligence, that U. S. occupation in Iraq increases anti-U. S. sentiments which in turn increases the amount of Iraqis turning to terrorism with the intention of harming the U. S. The more terrorists there are that want to harm the United States, the greater the chance (a. k. a. risk) that they will commit terrorist acts against the United States. Afghanistan My opponent has asked how Taliban expansion links to an increased risk in terrorist acts. To make my point more understandable, I will show another syllogism: -The more a terrorist groups expands geographically, the more resources it can access. -The more resources a terrorist group has access to, the more terrorist acts it has the opportunity to commit. -If a group's intention is to harm the United States, the more acts it has the opportunity to commit, the greater risk the group possesses to the United States. -The Taliban is a terrorist group with an intention to harm the United States. -Therefore, Taliban expansion is increasing the risk of terrorist acts against the United States. Even though the Taliban was toppled by U. S. forces in 2003, the reduction has only been short term. The Taliban is now INCREASING. The resolution does not state 2001 as a bench mark time frame to compare when terror groups were a threat to how they fare now. The resolution only says 2001 to specify exactly on which U. S. policies this debate will hinge. Because of this, we can plainly see that Taliban influence at this point in time is increasing in Afghanistan. DOMESTIC POLICIES U. S. Citizen Terrorists The gist of my argument here was that despite domestic policies, United States citizens still partake in terrorist activities. That was really all I was trying to imply with this point. Guantanamo Bay My opponent is trying to claim that my citation of only 8% of Gitmo detainees being terrorists supports her case because "the risk of terrorism has been decreased by that much. " That statement makes no sense, and my opponent never elaborated on it. The point I was making regarding Gitmo was that the detention center cannot be considered effective in housing "the worst of the worst" because 92% of detainees were not high profile combatants in the first place. No Proof of Policies Being Effective ". .. he states that there is no proof that new policies have prevented attacks from occurring. My question, then, is where are all these attacks? " First of all, the Fort Hood shooting (which I will explain in detail a little later) has occurred, which shows that a terrorist attack has occurred, even though it was not on as grand a scale as 9/11. Second, it is with this statement that my opponent commits the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance (4). Just because a policy has been created to stop an attack from occurring, and an attack hasn't occurred, does not mean that the policy itself has stopped the attack. Con does not have the burden to create a brand-new pseudo-resolution to show every single external possibility to explain the lack of another 9/11. Pro must show step-by-step how post-9/11 policies have stopped an attack from occurring to fulfill the necessary burden of proof to uphold the resolution. I have negated this repeatedly, Con has won this point. <<<<<<<<<< MY OPPONENT'S CASE >>>>>>>>>> U. S. MILITARY POLICY Afghanistan Regarding the Taliban, I addressed the point of the Taliban's increase versus decrease already when defending my own case. Regarding the decentralization of Al-Qaeda, this does not mean that terrorist acts are less likely to occur. In fact, it means that these rogue individuals are more difficult to track and are unpredictable because they are not attached to a large, organized group. The magnitude or grandiose of these acts are irrelevant. Iraq All the points of this topic I responded to in the analysis of my own case. DOMESTIC POLICIES Patriot Act and Surveillance Program The only evidence my opponent has on these programs being successful is a quote by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales was a member of Bush's counsel when he was governor of Texas, a top Bush Administration official, and helped create and promote Bush's policies (5). Therefore, this quote cannot be accepted as an unbiased source seeing as it also contains no concrete statistics. Since the only evidence supporting her argument that the Patriot Act and Surveillance Program has been successful has been shown to be unreliable, the argument can not be legitimate in this debate. Terror Acts Again, my point here is that acts of terror transpire regardless of domestic policies in place. This shows that these policies have not been successful for a scarcity of terrorist acts taking place. Ford Hood Being a terrorist and madman are not mutually exclusive. Major Hasan, the person responsible for the shootings, used email to contact Al-Qaeda (6). Since Hasan contacted a terrorist group, and he committed a successful terrorist act, it can be concluded that Hasan is a terrorist. LIKELIHOOD OF TERRORISTS ATTACKING U. S "My opponent claims that IN THE FUTURE, terrorist attacks WOULD come from rogue groups or individuals. Again he commits the logical fallacy appeal to probability," says my opponent in the last round. What she does not understand is that is exactly what we are debating. As I said, a risk is "the possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome WILL happen. " This indicates the future. Clearly my argument stands because it's perfectly in line with the resolution in predicting what WILL take place. I also showed that not matter what attitudes there may be, terrorism in the U. S. still takes place. Pro hasn't shown the resolution to be true. Con has negated accordingly.