Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

This round is the second crossfire, I will answer my opponent's crossfire in the comments section. 1. I apparently misread my opponent's first question, but that doesn't matter unless my opponent can answer this question: how can NATO presence be beneficial to the Afghans if the US Army kills more Afghan civilians directly than the insurgents? 2. According to the Economist Magazine, there are less than 300 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. Why are we in Afghanistan if the majority of al Qaeda is in Pakistan? Also, wouldn't it make sense to destroy the supply lines before you attacked an enemy base? 3. NATO is in Afghanistan because the US is in Afghanistan. NATO is a group of countries that agreed to treat one member country's enemy as their common enemy. If the US had the ability to turn the other cheek on 9/11, NATO would not be in Afghanistan. Therefore, how can one say that the US doesn't control NATO if the US's presence is the only reason for NATO's presence? 4. What sources deluded you into thinking that Karzai's police have murdered only that single woman? 5. What obliges the Taliban or the Karzai government to state anything about opium? Please explain. 6. An intimidating force to change the electoral system? What force do you mean? NATO hasn't dealt with warlords for 9 years, and apparently you don't support the Taliban. 7. Isn't Osama part of al Qaeda instead of the Taliban? Prove that Taliban propaganda even exists. 8. If NATO leaves and the US get the message why wouldn't they retreat? 9. Please clarify what you mean in your 12th point last round. 10. What gave you the idea that Taliban police were any less competent than NATO police? 11. NATO includes the United States. Don't you agree? 12. When have I ever stated that corruption can only be solved by the Taliban? 13. When do you expect NATO to finish off al Qaeda? In another 9 years? In another hundred years? When are they going to start dealing with the warlords? Who's to say they won't just leave once al Qaeda's destroyed? 14. How does your first contention have anything to do with what you said about the Taliban regime? Propaganda and regime are 2 different things. 15. How do the Taliban not have the ability to strike Kabul? They attacked it on the 18th of January (1). 16. How are insurgents and terrorists in any sense the same thing? Dictionary.com, essentially the same website you used, says they are different. 17. You say that Al Qaeda makes it clear that collaborators would be killed. How does al Qaeda's promise have anything to do with the Taliban, and how do you know that the collaborators include everyone, or even the majority of Afghans? 18. The debate is about whether Afghans are better off with NATO in their country. Don't you agree? 19. How do your contentions imply anything at all? Please explain. 20. How have you proved anything you said in the last round? Your contentions were that NATO neutralizes Taliban propaganda and that the US can't fight terror by itself. I will be awaiting my opponent's response. I believe that I've proven that NATO is the bane of Afghanistan instead of the blessing. Vote CON. Sources for entire debate: 1. http://abcnews.go.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...