The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

Moving on, I shall refute his case with a case overview, straight down contention and subpoints, and back to framework at the end. Starting with a case overview: Please note how my opponent's case as a whole has a few main issues 1. From Pakistan alone, there is very little oil to actually be concerned about. please see . http://www.nationmaster.com... for a solid comparison. Thus, his entire case is outweighed by he benefits I discussed and the harms of continuing aid I discussed. 2. He NEVER links at any point how suspending aid to Pakistan will even affect our oil market. It's all so vague. Consider that in the long run, we are forcing Pakistan to be more cooperative. Regardless of their motives, Pakistan wants us and at the point where we send the foreign policy message that they have to cooperate better: we will yield greater trade results, and not only in oil. 3. He completely ignores India. Note in my C2 Sub B where I talk about the strategic comparison of India. India is about 34 ranks higher in oil. Pursuing that partnership is only hindered by Pakistan, and we will see much better oil results through that way. Again, his whole case is outweighed and you can vote on that alone. going through contentions: Contention one rebuttal: sub a: sure, oil is very important to the US. No one would argue with him there. But I solve for this better, because we could actually pursue better oil imports as I talk about in problem 3 above. He also gives no link to how he fixes this. sub b: cross apply my previous response. Furthermore, I think my opponent may be missing something key in US foreign policy. Look at Iran. Iran has lots of oil. BUT, Iran doesn't cooperate with the US. Due to that, we don't support them. No president would. The US is excellent at ensuring security through the oil diversity concept first brought about by Winston Churchill, the US makes sure that losing a country's oil is never a huge hit. With Pakistan, this is even less of a problem given how little oil they actually have. Sub c: this turns against him. At the point where the US is sending the message that we aren't cooperating with terrorist supporters anymore (see my second contention), we improve relations with the region overall where it matters. And again, look at the better partnership with India. Furthermore, we can even strengthen relations with Pakistan itself in the long run. This is for two key reasons. First, because we will make Pakistan more democratic. Democratic countries historically cooperate better. A more democratic Pakistan leads to more open and free markets, i. e: development for Pakistan: thus leading to a happy US AND Pakistan. Cross apply my third contention. We have been trying to fix the holes by reallocating or sending more for years, and it has never worked. Restarting aid so that it can function well will lead to a more mutually beneficial aid relationship in the future. framework: note how he agreed to the Cost Benefits Analysis. Yet ironically enough, he never quantifies any cost or benefit. He tells us that we lose some oil (cost, which I've already displayed how minimal that is) yet he never says that we aren't getting a better benefit or any benefit at all. He completely ignores half of the agreed framework. Even as con you have to address both sides or you cannot win a round. Ultimately, under a CBA framework, at the point where we invest billions of dollars into an essentially black hole that sponsors terrorism, for the illusioned cost of some oil (which we turn towards India for more return anyways), we must vote Pro. Furthermore, at the point where we create a self-sufficient Pakistan while strengthening both our economics and Middle Eastern Economics with billions of annual government savings, we must also vote pro. Thank you.