Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state

Framework My opponent argues that he didn’t accept the standards, nor did he agree that those were the only standards for legitimate sovereignty. Explicitly he did not accept them; however, the rules state: “drops are concessions.” What this means is that if my opponent doesn’t respond to a specific argument, my opponent concedes/accepts the argument as valid. Under the framework my opponent’s only argument dealt with sources, but as I mentioned under each standard there are independent justifications separate from using the international order as an authority. My opponent never responded to the independent justifications thus concedes them. As such, since the justifications for the standards are conceded then those are the standards that have been used for the round to determine validity of sovereignty. As is evident by now my opponent concedes the 2nd standard of transnational criminal and terror organizations. At this point since the standard is accepted and also the fact that Pakistan does aid, harbor and assist terror organizations then I have met my burden. Each standard is an independent standard, meaning as long as I link to at least one or at best all of them I have proven the resolution true. My opponent tries to continue his argument that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd. His reasoning is that nations cannot violate the integrity of other nations in terms of nuclear programs. But remember, the 4th standard is about international agreements, like the NPT, so the country is agreeing to the conditions of the agreement. At that point it isn’t about violating integrity. C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities My opponent has indicated that according to my sources Pakistani authorities had thwarted an attempt of another planned attack against Shia Muslims. This is good, but the inaction of the Pakistani government very much outweighs. According to the same source: “Addressing protestors, the British former Home Secretary Alan Johnson criticized Pakistani government for being ineffective in taking measures against the sectarian killers who persecute Hazaras on daily basis and with impunity. ‘I am here to stand in solidarity with Hazaras (Ethnic of Shia Muslims) who face ethnic cleaning in Balochistan yet the government of Pakistan is showing no concern. In the last 10 years more than 700 Shia Muslims have been killed which is a scandal. The government doesn’t seem concerned and has shown no interest in catching the killers…’” My opponent’s argument is equivalent to the end of the holocaust when certain German sectors released concentration camp prisoners and then some German sympathizer claims that at least the Nazi’s helped some. That is ridiculous. The Pakistani government has been complicit by its inaction and essential impunity towards the militants. My opponent claims that I have changed my argument, and he quotes my contentional tag. However, if he goes back to the substance of contention 1, my opening line is: “This is a fact probably not known to many in the West, but the authorities of Pakistan have condoned and have turned a blind eye to systematic brutality and killing of Shia ethnic groups in Baluchistan, a province of Pakistan.” My opponent argues that Pakistan is not complicit and gives a generic definition. However prefer this definition since it is the legal definition and provides a variety of degrees of complicity. Definition 3: having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make. Using this legal standard for complicity, it is clear that Pakistan is complicit because in terms of magnitude of harm allowed vs. harm prevented my evidence clearly demonstrates that the Pakistanis have allowed more harm to occur than what they have prevented. Thus, I link into the 1st standard as well as the 2nd standard my opponent concedes. C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations “I will concede this link to the second standard.” – my opponent My opponent at the bottom of his case says I have not linked into the 3rd standard. However, ym opponent misses/drops and thus concedes the link I offered in this contention which links back to the 2nd and 3rd standard. Last round I wrote, “Last year, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan's premier spy agency, was implicated in the Mumbai plot by David Headley, an American-Pakistani LeT militant who was giving evidence in a trial in the United States. Headley told Indian intelligence services he carried out the surveillance for the Mumbai operation while working for the ISI. His claims were backed up by Kasab, who also told prosecutors during his trial that the attacks were conducted with the support of the ISI.” This concedes argument indicates not only does Pakistan fund and train terror organizations, but those terror organizations have violated the integrity of India through unwarranted aggression. This 2nd contention links me to offense on both standard 2 and 3. C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology I concede the arguments from my opponent. Strike the 4th standard from my offense. I think at this point it is clear that I link into 3 of the 4 standards presented under the framework. On a scale of legitimacy Pakistan is at this point 75% illieigitmate in its actions and complicity. But as I mentioned above, the standards are separate so even if you don’t think I win them all, I still link into at least 1 of the standards – the transnational terror standard. I will remind my opponent that this is the last round and since I cannot respond to his arguments no new arguments will be allowed: only summation, voters and conclusions. I very much enjoyed this debate! :)