US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

Since this is a site of intellectuals, I hope that my opponent is not having trouble understanding me essay-style cases. If this is truly a problem, I will be happy to write Rounds 3 and 4 in a simpler style. Let's focus on the resolution rather than criticizing each others style of writing. Thank you. There is a major point of inconsistency that we must first discuss. My opponent claims that it is the Pro's burden to prove that a risk of terrorism exists, or has existed since 2001. He then misunderstood my point that it is unnecessary for me to prove this and stated that my argument is simply "because the resolution says so". Please allow me to clarify: my argument is that I do not need to prove any risk exists, because my opponent already did so in his first constructive essay. The majority of his case is based on an INCREASED RISK of terrorism, especially his first contention, sub-point B, and his second contention, sub-point A. How can there be an increased risk if there is no risk in the first place? My opponent has blatantly contradicted himself, and while I would never make the arrogant assertion that Pro has won the debate at this point based on this failure and I could win even if I conceded the rest of his case, I would still urge the voters to keep this in mind as they choose a winner.Let's move on to address my opponent's first constructive essay. First, he claimed that U.S. military action against terror has failed. This is a flawed argument because my opponent has failed to recognize that a U.S. military action does not equate to a U.S. policy. According to Princeton WordNet, a policy is, "a plan of action" (2). An action is simply, "something done" according to the same source (3). Clearly a policy is what leads to action, not the action itself. In order to win this point, my opponent needs to specifically prove that U.S. policy has failed against terrorism, not U.S. military action. However, I will address his claims about military action anyway to prevent any confusion about points that have or have not been conceded. A: He contends that the war in terror in general is a failure, and goes on to note that "all the nuclear weapons in the world cannot prevent one man from launching an attack on innocent civilians". This is irrelevant, and based on an appeal to probability. Perhaps all the nuclear weapons in the world cannot stop one man from launching an attack, but the New York City authorities certainly can. If you will remember, they are the ones who have prevented "one man from launching an attack on innocent civilians" on multiple occasions, including the subway bombing plot of September (4). The war on terror is not only being fought successfully abroad, but also here at home, where our own local authorities are successfully decreasing our risk of attack by finding and arresting terrorists, as in this case. B: Secondly, my opponent brought up the point that our presence in Iraq cases anti-American sentiment, thereby increasing terrorism abroad. However, he failed to provide a link as to how more anti-American sentiment causes a greater risk for terrorist acts against the U.S. How does more haters of America lead to more risk for attack? Even if we assumed this is true, I would just point you back to my own case, that proves our policies actually increase this risk substantially, regardless of how many people are involved. C: Next, my opponent claimed that Taliban presence in Afghanistan is increasing. Again, he failed to provide a link as to how this in itself increases risk of terrorist acts. I would point out that my opponent is making use of a logical fallacy called cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which means correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, my opponent further contradicts himself by saying that the Taliban has increased from 90% in 2001 to...72% in 2008? Seems like a decrease to me. Secondly, he said that the Bush Administration's policies were unsuccessful. His first sub-point was that more American citizens are partaking in terrorism, yet he fails to give specific numbers on how many Americans were involved in terrorism in 2001 and how many are involved in it now. That information is needed for this argument to stand. In his second sub-point, my opponent discussed Guantanamo Bay and how only 8% of those incarcerated as of 2008 were Taliban or Al-Qaeda fighters. This actually supports my case. The risk of terrorism has been decreased by that much. My granny always said that every little bit counts, and that certainly applies in this case. Lastly, he states that there is no proof that new policies have prevented attacks from occurring. My question, then, is where are all of these attacks? My opponent's case rests largely on his claim that terrorism is on the rise. If terrorism is on the rise, as he claims, and our policies don't work, as he claims, why has there not been another successful attack since 9/11? And since there has not been another successful organized attack since then, what is preventing them if not our new policies? I will now move on to defend my own case. I claimed that the war in Afghanistan has been successful, but my opponent contends that the Taliban has actually increased from almost 0% in 2001 to 72% in 2008. This is completely false, and I believe he even presented different numbers in his own case. Greg Bruno of the Council of Foreign Relations writes that, "before its ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2001, the Taliban controlled some 90 percent of Afghanistan's territory" (5). So there has been a massive decrease in Taliban-controlled territory since 2001. My opponent then claimed that a decrease in funding does not mean a decrease in risk, and cites the greater likelihood of attacks from rogue individuals. This supports my case as well, because he concedes that our military policy has decentralized Al Qaeda. A lone, unfunded individual is inherently less of a risk to the nation than a well-funded, organized group. To refute my sub-point about the success in Iraq, my opponent simply again cited an increase in anti-American sentiment, which he must prove to increase the risk of terrorist acts. Secondly, I discussed successful U.S. policies such as the Patriot Act and President's Surveillance Program. He claimed that I provide no examples of these acts being successful. Sadly, I am not privy to classified information that would contain such examples. Rather, I have provided quotes from reliable government officials that prove this point. My opponent then claims that any act of terror supports Con, whether it is successful or not, however this is a faulty argument because we have no idea how many terrorist attacks were planned before 2001 as compared to that number after 2001. My opponent would need to provide the number of planned, attempted, and successful attacks before 2001 and after 2001 in order to prove this claim. As to the Fort Hood shooting, this is still greatly disputed as to whether it was an actual terrorist attack or the act of a madman. Until such facts are indisputable, this shooting should be disregarded in this debate. Lastly, I presented evidence showing that terrorists are unlikely to attack the US. My opponent claims that IN THE FUTURE, terrorist attacks WOULD come from rogue groups or individuals. Again he commits the logical fallacy appeal to probability. While he suggests something may happen in the future, my contention is based on how terrorists are discouraged from attacking RIGHT NOW. My argument stands. My opponent then writes that I have not discussed what changes in attitude have occurred. He must have missed my long quote on counterterrorism. In conclusion, I urge a very strong vote in affirmation, not only because of my opponent's excessive contradictions and false information, but because the risk of terrorism truly has been substantially reduced. Thank you. Click to see sources: http://www.webspawner.com...