The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

In this speech, I'll be going over why my case still stands, why my opponent's does not, and what will happen after aid is suspended.Before I begin however, I'd like to go over the most important argument in this debate: Corruption.My opponent has conceded that corruption exists. I have shown that 88% of our aid goes to waste. This means that all the so called benefits my opponent attempts to bring up, such as humanitarian aid and stabilizing Pakistan, don't actually exist. Our aid is not stabilizing Pakistan. It is not going to humanitarian efforts. It is not decreasing anti-Ameircan sentiment. It is not helping to keep nuclear weapons safe. It is not furthering the interests of the U.S. It is going straight into the pockets of the Pakistani military.Therefore, suspending aid will not destabilize Pakistan, it will not harm the humanitarian efforts, it will not increase anti-American sentiment, it will not risk nuclear proliferation, and it will not harm the interests of the United States. Why? Because our aid is doing anything in the first place. Since con has conceded that corruption exists, and it's just as bad as I said, she has effectively destroyed her entire case.Now, onto my arguments:My first contention is about Pakistan supporting terrorism. My opponent asked for more concrete evidence, which I supplied to her. The most powerful quote comes directly from a past ISI chief, Javed Nasir, adressed to the Prime Minister: "We have been covering our tracks so far and will cover them even better in the future.”I have also given proof that Pakistan is not willing to act against terrorism, both through the Nato Report: State of the Taliban, and the quote given from the UPI. The ISI not only overlooks numerous terrorist headquarters, but also shared intelligence with terrorists.My opponent then brought up a rebuttal implying hypocrisy on the part of the United States. I quickly showed that the military of Afghanistan, which is supported by the U.S., is in no way comparable to the Haqqani network or other militant groups. The goal of the U.S. is to fix the problems that my opponent brought up (land grabs, abductions, etc.), while the goal of Pakistan is to use them to spread fear into Afghanistan.Finally, my opponent brought up a claim that suspending aid would increase Anti-U.S. and Anti-Indian sentiment. I showed that my opponent did not give a reason for why anti-Indian sentiment would increase. I also showed that Pakistani-Indian tensions are extremely low at this time, and suspending aid will do nothing to strain the relationship.For Anti-U.S. sentiment, I pointed out how my opponent failed to show why anti-Americanism will increase (she only cited the current conditions of anti-Americanism). I then showed that our aid does not decrease anti-Americanism, mostly due to corruption on the part of the government. U.S. approval ratings are the same now as they were in the 90's, when we suspended aid and placed massive sanctions on Pakistan. I then gave two ways that the United State's can remain on good terms with Pakistan after aid is suspended. One of which, reforming and reintroducing aid, was actually advocated for by my opponent. I will be discussing these options more in depth at the end of this round.My second contention was on anti-Americanism. My opponent claimed that the current failings in the system were a cause for reform, not suspension. I quickly showed, however, that reforming aid while it is suspended is not only a possible option, but an entirely superior one. This leaves the entirety of my second contention standing, while her rebuttal only reinforces my arguments.My third contention was on corruption. Again, my opponent claimed that this was a cause for reform, despite reform being a superior option after suspension. This leaves my third contention standing as well. My opponent's argumentsFirst, note that all of my rebuttals against my opponent's arguments still stand, as round 4 was to be used for defending our own cases. I will just strengthen my rebuttals during this round, as my opponent is unable to respond to them in round 5 due to the rules I set forth. For my opponent's argument on the security of nuclear weapons, I showed that Pakistan is not willing to give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, especially when the terrorist group harbors deep resentment towards the government of Pakistan. Such terrorists groups have, on a few occasions, attacked Pakistan's government. Giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists threatens the safety of their own country. I also brought up how the United States and India, the two prime targets, both have first and second strike capabilities. Pakistan would definitely not want to get annihilated in a global nuclear war. My opponent's second argument was about Pakistan's stability affecting Afghanistan. I showed that, because our aid is subject to so much corruption, we aren't actually helping the stability of Pakistan. Our aid does not reinforce their economy, it just goes to line the pockets of the elite. Then, I showed that Pakistan being unstable wouldn't harm our efforts in Afghanistan. Afghanistan already borders Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran, three incredibly anti-American and unstable countries. Yet, these countries do not hurt our efforts in Afghanistan.My opponent's third argument was about Pakistan allying with Iran or China, or starting a war with India. I showed that neither China nor Iran want to ally with Pakistan, and that recent evidence shows Pakistan has no intent for fight against India. With the burden of proof for this claim (not debate, just this claim) resting on the con's side, this entire argument does not stand until con can show why Pakistan will ally with China or Iran, which she did not do. My opponent's final argument was about humanitarian aid. I quickly showed that humanitarian aid is innefective. When attempting to refute my third contention, con even conceded this point, arguing for reform. Also note that I showed, at the end of my round 3 speech, that humanitarian aid will not actually make a large impact in Pakistan, even if corruption can be overcome.As you can see, the entirety of my case still stands, as numerous points were conceded by Con. All of my rebuttals against con's major arguments remain untouched, and flow through this debate. On this alone, I strongly urge a pro ballot. Now, however, I will be showing what will happen once we suspend aid. What happens after?Let's say we suspend aid. The United States immediately gains three major benefits:1) We are no longer supporting a government which kills our own soldiers and innocent civilians.2) We are no longer creating anti-American sentiment through our drone strikes which kill thousands of civilians, and through the broken promises created by humanitarian aid.3) We are no longer wasting 90% of the billions of dollars we give to Pakistan. As con conceded this point, con also effectively concedes the fact that no harms will be caused by suspending aid, because our aid isn't helping anything in the first place.Con argued for reforming aid, and I agree that this is only logical. This argument, however, negates the majority of her case. Here's how:1) The temporary suspension of aid will not destabilize Pakistan, because they'll get the aid back, and they'll get effective aid that actually helps their economy. 2) It shows that, by suspending aid, we can fix almost every single problem brought up in my case. Therefore, affirming the resolution will decrease anti-Americanism, will prevent Pakistan from supporting terrorist networks (or at least work towards that goal), and will stop the aid from being subject to corruption.Also note that the entirety of my "trade not aid" argument still stands. It has not been touched at all. This is another, although less desired, alternative that will prevent Anti-Americanism from being increased after aid is suspended, and will actually help the Pakistani economy.