Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

I. Topicality The resolution is whether Musharraf killed Bhutto, not whether he was behind it. Regardless of whether your intent was clear or not, I am debating the resolution, you are not. You say I am taking away from the educational part of debate. I clearly am not. In fact, I am educating you and many others on this site on how to make better resolutions. This is an important skill in debating, and raises the quality of debates. A vote for me is a lesson to all on properly wording a resolution, a message that there should be no more obvious mistakes and ambiguity in resolutions. Bad resolutions hurt debate, I have seen debates where it has taken a contender a round or two simply to understand what they are debating about. These resolutions tend to make their makers look less intelligent (although yours isn't quite that bad), and I am hoping/expecting that resolutions you make in the future shall have clearer intent. II. Musharraf did not kill Bhutto As I have proven in the first round, Musharraf was not the killer of Bhutto. Unless the affirmative can prove that he was, then I have won. III. Musharraf was not behind the death of Bhutto While this section is irrelevant to the debate, I will appease the aff by debating whether Musharraf was behind the killing of Bhutto. 1. It was in Musharraf's best interests to have Bhutto alive, they were essentially forming a coalition to give both strength. http://en.wikipedia.org...... Bhutto's party was one of the few major parties that did not ally itself against Musharraf. http://in.reuters.com... Musharraf's approval rating has tanked, now around 34%. [The poll showed 32 percent of Pakistanis believed Bhutto was the best leader to handle the problems. When asked who they would choose as president, 39 percent of voters picked Bhutto and 30 percent said Musharraf.] Neither Bhutto or Musharraf is very popular, yet they are the two most popular choices for President. Also from the article: [Musharraf has tried to shore up his position by reaching out to self-exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the largest opposition party.] A. This union between the two of them would have been unstoppable. With the support of much of the military for Musharraf, much of the population for Benazir, and the US for both, Pakistan would have been stabilized. Bhutto would likely win, placing Musharraf in an important position for his support. B. The greatest loser in the assassination (besides Benazir who lost her life) is Musharraf, he has lost a major ally for keeping his power. C. The Peoples Party still has much support, support greater than what Musharraf has. http://findarticles.com... D. The assassination has angered many, as can be seen by the numerous riots, and may bring many new voters in, as voter turnout was low in the last election. E. Bhutto's death will get her party the sympathy vote, these factors essentially guarantee her parties victory in the elections, and Musharraf will be the true loser. F. Ultimately, even if such a coalition had not been formed, Musharraf would lose little in the election, he would be allowed to keep his position as general and would still be prominent in Pakistani affairs. 2. The Peoples Party (of Pakistan) has gained much in her death A. At the expense of their figurehead, PPP has won the election. B. The party still exists and has a new Bhutto as its figurehead, this figurehead (her son) will be able to attract all the votes she would have received and more, thanks to her death. Putting her son in control is a crafty political move my the PPP, her son will find it easiest to extract votes from Bhutto's death. C. Bhutto's death earns sympathy from many, and may disillusion supporters of other parties. If the election is not delayed, Bhutto's former popularity along with sympathy will catapult her party to victory. D. If elections are delayed, outrage will build and take away support from Musharraf, so that in the end, the Peoples Party has won. E. There are plenty of reasons for senior members of the PPP to have Bhutto killed as it can be seen. In fact, prior to Bhutto's death, there are few that could name anyone within the PPP outside of Bhutto. Her death may have been order overshadowed members of the PPP, their party has nothing to lose, and they would have a shot at gaining the spotlight. 3. Bhutto's assassination also may have been ordered by religious extremists/religious parties. A. As can be seen from my first round, the attacker clearly blew himself up after shooting. This is trademark of extremist attacks. Unless the affirmative can prove otherwise, it is most likely that she was killed by an extremist, for extremists. B. Many extremists do not believe women should be leaders, and although many Pakistanis clearly do not hold such beliefs (she has been elected twice), the ones that do clearly would have motives to attack her. C. Bhutto has taken an anti-Taliban/extremist and pro-US stance in recent years, just as Musharraf has. Musharraf has had several attempts on his life while in power, and with Bhutto holding similar positions, she clearly raised some opposition. [On Musharraf's assassination] http://www.voanews.com... D. Terrorist groups have been blamed for the assassination as well: http://www.nydailynews.com... Members of the Taliban have been accused of killing her, and both the Pakistani and US governments place this man high on their list of suspects (in planning the attack). 4. There are a number of other political parties, as well as opponents of the Bhutto family that may be behind her assassination. A. There is a vast number of political parties in Pakistan, and it is just as likely if not more likely that they plotted Bhutto's assassination rather than Musharraf. This includes some extremist parties which seek to impose their version of Islam on the rest of Pakistan, and would be unable to do so with either Musharraf or Bhutto in power. B. As can be seen, these parties/their followers have made attempts on both leaders lives. They have motives, and the government they want it what they seek to gain. C. Outside of the different political parties, there are many rich families opposed to Bhutto's family. D. Bhutto's family is tremendously rich and powerful, and it is possible that other powerful families in Pakistan sought to take them out. Her father was executed on corruption charges, two of her brothers have been killed, and herself. E. By removing the family's influence, other families could grow more powerful, and would see her elimination in their best interests. IV. Conclusion My opponent seeks to take this debate off topic, and if voters vote strictly on the topic, as should be done, I am clearly the winner. The only way the affirmative can win is if they prove that Musharraf actually killed Bhutto as this is the topic. My opponent has said that I remove education from debate, however, voting for me is a message to all debators that writing a good resolution is necessary. This is education on how to write a good resolution, which is a very important skill in debate. I have also argued the debate my opponent has sought for, however, even if my opponent were to win this section, I should still be voted for because this issue is not truly what we should be debating about. In any case, my opponent must prove without a doubt that Musharraf was more likely than any other group/person to have Bhutto killed to win this section, which really isn't a voter. Finally, in my I. section I apologize if I seem very harsh in what I said about people writing poor resolutions. It just really bugs me sometimes.