The united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan

In my opponents framework, they state "that con needs to prove." However, they are shifting this debate's burden of proof to the con side. This is like a trial--innocent until proven guilty. My terms of winning still stand, as the resolution clearly states that "The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan." Because the resolution clearly states ALL assistance, if the con side can find one or more types of assistance that should be suspended or abolished, the Con side wins. I would also like to note that, in my opponent's case, they are actually limiting the scope of this debate. They only talk about terrorism military aid, and are completely neglecting other types of aid that I mention in my case. I would also like to note that, while my opponent may repeat the same idea multiple times, he actually just has two contentions--one contention on terrorism and another contention about our debt. In his first subpoint about terrorism, my opponent states that Pakistan has been harboring terrorists within its borders. First of all, Osama bin Laden is one person. You cannot make the hasty generalization that Pakistan harbors terrorists based on one person. Also, we don't actually know whether or not Pakistan was aware of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. Second, my opponent's own source, the Chicago Sun Times, states that, "Officially, the Obama administration pushed back on talk of punishing Pakistan. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. is committed to cooperating with Pakistan despite questions about who in the Islamabad government may have known that bin Laden was in hiding in his compound in Abbottabad." What we can see here is that we don't actually know if Pakistan knew about Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. is still committed to helping Pakistan In his second subpoint on terrorism, my opponent states that "pakistan has been has been sharing a symbiotic relationship with the Lakshir-e-taiba terrorist group." However, he is citing his own source incorrectly. NPR states that a trial COULD reveal a connection between Pakistan and the terrorist group. His source doesn't actually prove his point, and that point falls. My opponents then goes on to state that "Elements within the pakistan government, including the country's spy agency, are proving support to groups like the Taliban and haqqani network, according to credible news reports." There are several problems with this statement. First, the source is a "credible new report." People define "credible" differently, and unless my opponent can provide a concrete source, then my opponent's point falls. Second, the source my opponent has provided ACTUALLY DOESN'T SAY THIS. In fact, my opponent's source helps the Con side, because it states that we don't actually know if Pakistan knew about Osama Bin Laden, validating my point in the previous paragraph. In his next subpoint, my opponent states that the Haqqani network is a Pakistan-based terrorist group. This may be true, however, my opponent has not linked Haqqani actions with the Pakistani government and with U.S. aid. How do we know suspending U.S. will fix this? Also, my opponent is making a fallacious argument. Just because the Haqqani network is Pakistan-based doesn't mean they are linked to the Pakistani government and U.S. aid. To make an analogy, just because the U.S. Communist Group, U.S. Nazi group, and U.S. Anti-Freedom group (they are fake names) are based in America does not mean that they are actively supported by the U.S. government. In his final subpoint on terrorism, he states "So who funds the terror?" First of all, they do not link this to the Pakistani government and American assistance in anyway. Also, my opponent's source is talking about opium in Afghanistan, and is not related to this debate at all. In response to my opponent's terrorism contention as a whole, Pakistan is actually necessary for the U.S. to achieve their counter-terrorism goals. My opponent also does not show how aid would fix any of the problems he brings up. In fact, according to The New York Times, roughly 4000 troops have died in these border wars--more than the number of all allied soldiers killed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism. And according to the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Pakistan's efforts against terror are critical. Over 85,000 troops are currently deployed on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and more than 1,200 of them have sacrificed their lives fighting terrorists, as compared to the 500 U.S. casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom. So what we can see here is that Pakistan is actually actively fighting terrorists. While my opponent may cite AMERICAN WORDS, I am citing PAKISTANI ACTIONS, which clearly show their commitment to the fight against terrorism. In my opponent's second contention about the U.S. debt, there are several flaws. First, my opponent does not show the impacts of this point. Second, my opponent does not link this problem with aid to Pakistan. And most importantly, suspension means that we will continue aid in the near future. This means that even if we suspend aid to Pakistan, some time in the near future, we will continue aid to Pakistan. That eliminates any impacts of my opponent's second contention because we will continue aid in the future. Now, I will go over my own case. My opponent's first contention and my first contention clash, however I have clearly won on this point. First of all, my opponent cites American words while I have cited Pakistani actions against terrorism. Second, my opponent does not show how decreasing our involvement in Pakistan will help us catch more terrorists, while the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute states that the War on terror must be increasingly focused on Pakistan. My opponent has not even touched my Contention 2 (subpoint A and B) and my Contention 3 (Subpoint A and B), so those point still pull through. For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot. Thank you!