The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

While my opponent's case looks like it's a good fit to refute this case, there's one fundamental flaw in my case that makes his case null and not actually linking into my framework, but rather the harms. But first, I'd like to define aid, and why this trainwrecks my opponent's case in so far as she's trying to show that she's increasing suffering.Aid is defined as "to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end"[1].This means that by giving aid, my opponent is actually providing people with things that are helping them, regardless of what corruption it causes in the government or laziness it will induce, it's still helping someone. Insofar as she's still helping people, then it's impossible for her to be able to promote suffering, as she's still helping people. My opponent may try to extend out her Mahood evidence to turn this in her favor, but I'll explain to you in a second why that evidence actually doesn't help her case, but rather hurts it. Next, there's a key piece of my argument that my opponent is missing that she's trying to link into, but is causing her to fail. My case, and framework, doesn't actually advocate for the ADVANCEMENT of suffering (i.e. increasing the world suffering), but rather returning things to their natural state. By giving aid, regardless of whether it increases or decreases suffering, it is a distortion from the natural flow of suffering, and thus ruins the value of life. Only a return to the normal flow can we ensure life has value. Thus, the only way we can return suffering to the normal flow is by ending assistance to Pakistan, as ending assistance will return things to the normal flow of suffering. This is a game-over mistake for my opponent, as she's triyng to show that she's making MORE suffering, which isn't what my framework supports. Insofar as she's trying to link into my framework, as long as she continues to advocate for an increasement of suffering, she's failing to link in and thus has no offense, as her case basically functions as a turn to my case. Next, let's look at the Mahood evidence. Let's look specifically at the part where it cites a statictic of 13% of aid reaches it's intended target. Frankly, it doesn't matter WHERE the aid ends up insofar as it still provides aid to someone. She's trying to use this as evidence that aid is better for suffering, but regardless of where the aid ends up, it still aids someone, and thus reduces suffering. With all this said and done, it takes out all of my opponent's arguments up to the point where she claims that Pakistan isn't our ally. Let's pick up there."Pakistan is also not an ally."This fact holds no relevance to the debate. One's ability to provide aid isn't dependent upon if they are friends with someone or not. I can still give someone a dollar, even if that person hates me. This actually can be turned against her because if this is true, then it only gives Pakistan more incentive to take all of the stuff we offer them, as it weakens us and strengthens them. If someone you hated offered you their lunch money instead of threatening you for yours, would you decline it on principle that you didn't like that person, and thus wouldn't take their money? Of course not! You would take it because you hated that person and didn't want them to have it! The same principle can be applied here.With all of my opponent's arguments refuted - Oh wait! I forgot the ones about causing war, which causes more suffering. Let's adress those and show how it causes her to further fail to link into my case.Let's look specifically at the Strauss evidence, as it tells us our encounter with death is what gives us life. As we continue to encounter death, we continue to find value in life. What happens when we no longer are able to encounter death (i.e. we're dead)? We can't suffer anymore, and thus can't have value in life. This means that since my opponent is promoting war as a result of negating, she still fails to link into my case, and thus falls flat again.Now with all of her arguments refuted, I urge voters to extend my arguments and affirm the resolution, that because we need to return suffering to the normal, natural flow, we must end all assistance to Pakistan.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...