Resolved: NATO presence improved the lives of Afghan citizens.

R1: Political Stability Con pulls off a semantic argument in this rebuttal. He makes an odd argument of changing the resolution, when in fact he is the one who brought attention to the Afghan-USSR war. So, if anything, he is really the one trying to talk about Communism--as that war is totally unrelated to NATO *presence* in Afghanistan. It was a mild US presence, not NATO--meaning, if anything, he is the one arguing a red herring. We noted how US involvement prevented a Communist terror regime, meaning that US involvement *on balance* benefited the locals. Although we did, in fact, note that refugees were created, it is arguable that a centralized communist regime would likely displace *more* people than US involvement did. And US involvement did, in fact, save the lives of many refugees--which would have been created regardless, as the USSR started the war, not the US. Here they seem to just throw out our colonialism argument. We would admit that this is a bit off topic, but that really does not refute the point that NATO has significantly helped the locals. R2: Harms of war My opponent seems to selectively cherry pick their Afghanistan study. Using the same source, the conclusions of the study also noted "[t]here does, however, appear to be signs of increasing willingness on the part of victims to report rape, and on the part of the authorities to investigate and prosecute some cases" [1]. We never denied that Afghanistan was a terrible country in regards to woman's rights. Rather, we argued that the situation has *improved* in relation to NATO's presence. Using their own source, we see that the situation has improved, meaning our opponent's evidence supports, rather than negates, our premise. Con claims that the number of rapes increase during wartime. Although this may be the case in other areas, their data [1] obviously refutes that notion in the case of Afghanistan. Indeed, the reason rapes increase could be, in part, an increase in rapes from soldiers. However, in this case, any theoretical increase of war-time related rape seems to have been offset by decreases in rape from other factors (e. g. rapes from insurgent groups). Overall, the lives of women have drastically improved, meaning the resolution is affirmed. Con cites that there exists a strong pro-rape culture in Afghanistan. Again, we do not deny this. However, again citing one of their sources [1], there is increased willingness of victims to report the issue, and authorities have begun to actually prosecute the offenders. Con argues that American soldiers have raped the locals. Again, we do not dispute this. But it begs the question as to whether or not the American soldiers are preventing morer rapes then are being committed by them. Indeed, it is horrible that this is occuring. But it seems as though this argument that Con is making is more based upon emotion rather than facts. The removal of the Taliban has measurably increased Women's rights in Afghanistan. The Taliban, for example, institutionalized anti-woman policies. However, under the NATO backed Karzai administration, the lives of women in Afghanistan have been improving [2]. Women are becoming more educated, Women are no longer required to wear Burkas, and Women are now allowed to participate in sports [3]. The fact is, the situation for women is bad. But it has been improving. Con responds to my arguments with global statistics. Indeed, we noted how terrorism which has the ability to reduce deaths has fallen: as nearly all terrorism occurs in rural areas with almost no population. We noted how NATO has protected major population centers, and how NATO has reduced terrorism and terrorist efficiency in many parts of Afghanistan. Citing global statistics is irrelevant, as again, it does not demonstrate how the Afghanistan population--a local population--has either improved or has been harmed. It merely shows that *global* populations have been harmed, not how Afghanistan citizens have been harmed. "It doesn't matter if they occurred in rural or urban areas, the fact of the matter is that NATO has not stopped it, and thus has not made the lived better" This statement is absurd. If NATO has prevented terrorism in major population centers, it means that the *vast majority* of Afghanistan's citizens are safer, whereas a small minority of citizens are either worse off or there is no change. Regardless, the fact that NATO has prevented terrorism from affecting *most* of the population means that, on balance, the lives of Afghanistan's citizens has . . . improved. Further, it is illogical to assume that NATO will stop all terrorism. The question is to whether or not, on balance, NATO has made the terror situation better. To assume NATO is the reason terrorism exists is also faulty. Most of the attacks in the world occured in the region--including Pakistan, Syria, and distant Nigeria [4]. Therefore, it seems as though the existance of terrorism can be linked to a general war on terror, but this cannot be related to NATO *presence* in Afghanistan. Therefore, this argument fails to refute our contention. The opposing side makes weak arguments regarding Taliban numbers. The fact that NATO presence decreases Taliban numbers, which in turn reduces child conscription, means that NATO has . . . improved the lives of peopel in Afghanistan. To argue that something still exists is a poor argument. As they have failed to prove that child conscription has either not changed or worsened in Afghanistan, they fail to refute our point: that the quality of life has improved due to NATO involvement. Arguing that, say, gun crime still exists and that, therefore, shall-issue carry laws are ineffective is illogical, as shall-issue laws have *reduced* the amount of crime. NATO has *reduced* the amount of child conscription, therefore NATO has *improved* the lives of the locals. Con cites the Shia Family Law as proof that the situation for Women is worsening. However, the feminist blog they cite fails to mention how many additions to the law actually benefit women. The age of Women in Shia marriages was increased from 9 to 16, a more reasonable age of consent. Further, a woman could keep custody of a child after a divorce if the child is 9 years old. Before the law, the age was 7 [5]. Con then cites a news source about a UN study. The study only looked over the years of "October 2012 to September 2013" [6], obviously too short of a time period for trend analysis. NATO has been in the country since 2001, a one year increase does not undermine our contention. Further, the UN study also notes that there was more reporting and enforcement against offenders who harm women. The study did NOT find a 28% increase in crime, rather a 28% increase in reported incidents [7]. Therefore, the increase is likely due to improved reporting, NOT an actual increase in violence. Conclusion: Con concedes that the *economic* outcomes of Afghanistan's citizens have improved. There is better medical care, roads, education, internet access, electrical access, and reduced poverty. All of this points to a dramatic increase in the quality of life. Con feebly counters with the claim that there is increased death and continuously appeals to emotions and pathos rather than concrete evidence and logic. However, we have noted how for the *vast majority* of citizens, their lives in terms of safety has actually improved or remained unchanged. Further, our opponents seem to have not fact-checked their sources. When we go to the actual reports, we see violence against women decreasing and a massive increase in the overall stability in Afghanistan. Vote Con. Sources: [1]. http://tinyurl.com... [2]. http://tinyurl.com... [3]Ibid. [4]. http://tinyurl.com... [5]. http://tinyurl.com...