The United States Should Suspend all Assistance to Pakistan

So what this debate is ultimately going to come down to is who has the better link into suffering, as we both agree that we must do something to protect the value of life, which we both agree comes from suffering. Where we disagree is how we go about protecting this value. While my opponent is claiming that increasing the levels of suffering will do this best (she also claims that I agreed with this, which is false, I specifically advocated AGAINST it), I think that preventing the LOSS of suffering while not increasing it is how it will. But ultimately, this is the main issue that my opponent is having:My opponent is trying to link into my case, which advocates for the flow of suffering not to be changed, i. e. not increased or decreased. My opponent is advocating that suffering should be increased. Thus, my opponent cannot link into my case. This means that I have the best link into suffering, and is an instant affirmative vote. My opponent raises a point about how increasing suffering would cancel back for other advances of decreasing suffering, thus yielding a net zero, but the resolution is specific to Pakistan, so outside places and events (as my opponent is trying to use) are extratopical, and should not be considered when evaluating the debate. This is going to cancel out my opponent's last prayer at linking into my case, which will ultimately cost her the debate. Furthermore, she drops the war turn, on how her promoting war via continuing assitance will lead to an increase in suffering, which further prevents her from linking into my case, and thus making her case basically irrelevant. Extend it out. I'd also like to take this time to stress one key factor to the viewers of this debate before it goes into the voting period, as I get a nagging feeling a lot of people are going to end up misvoting because something was not clearly explained. In attempting to copy my framework of suffering, my opponent is attempting to gain offense off of my case being true, i. e. "link into it". But in order for her to do this, she must show how her case follows what my case is saying TO THE LETTER, but proves her side instead of mine. As my case is advocating for a non-change to the flow of suffering, a. k. a. keeping suffering in it's natural state, and she is advocating for a CHANGE in the flow of suffering, a. k. a. increasing the suffering, this means that she isn't following my framework, i. e. not "linking in". As the entirety of her case is structured around having this link, this is catastrophic for her in terms of the round and the overall debate. If her case isn't linking in, then she CANNOT GET OFFENSE from ANY piece of her case. This means if I have disproven her link into my case (which I have in multiple places), then she loses the debate. But even if the link does exist, she must be winning sufficient offense from her case in order to win. Even if the link is still there, if I'm disproving a majority of her case, she still loses the debate. At this point, because I have already shown how she isn't linking into my case, her case basically becomes irrelevant at this point, and you affirm because my case is the only one that stands (as my opponent conceded to it in an attempt to link into it). EVen though technically I can stop here and would still (probably, ignoring horrible votes) win the debate, I will go to a few things that my opponent has claimed and talk about them with my remaining 4000+ characters. My opponent does one MASSIVE slip on her part by conceding that aid CAN and sometimes DOES help people ("Although there still is the possibility have aid will help to some extend. .. ."). This is a disastrous error on my opponent's part, as it shows that from her advocating to increase suffering by continuing to provide aid, she actually DECREASES suffering, thus a) continues to fail to link into my case (insta-loss), and b) contradicts the entire advocacy of her case (insta-loss). She may try to say that I purposefully avoid the content that it doesn't maximize the potential amount of aid, but the very fact that aid exists in her system and that aid is beneficial in some situations means that she WILL be decreasing suffering as a whole. Then lets look at my opponent's defense of Mahood. She seems to think that if the majority of aid doesn't get to Pakistan, then Pakistan suddenly isn't helped out at all by the aid they DO receive, and thus her point is valid. This is logically bankrupt reasoning. If I send 5 dollars to someone through the mail, and four dollars get stolen on the way and end up in the LRA's coffers, that doesn't mean that the LRA just gained 5 dollars. The 1 dollar that wasn't stolen still ends up in my friend's wallet. So even if 87% of aid doesn't reach Pakistan, that 13% that DOES get to Pakistan will reduce the suffering of Pakistan (as my opponent already conceded that aid helps people, see above). Furthermore, she drops the second part of my analysis that shows that the 87% that DOESN'T reach Pakistan doesn't just drop off the map: it still goes somewhere. Going back to the money/LRA example, if I send 5 dollars to my friend, and four are stolen, those 4 dollars don't just vanish from existance, never to be spent on anything ever again. It gets redirected to the LRA, who use it to fund a privatized jihad in Africa. The same line of logic can be extended into the resolutional situation. Even if 87% of the aid never reaches Pakistan, wherever it ends up will still be reaping the benefits of receiving the aid, thus cause a decrease in the overall amount of suffering. This means the the Mahood evidence a) still doesn't prove anything, and b) it further shows that she is decreasing suffering, and thus not linking into my case (insta-loss). My opponent tries to re-extend the war example, but never answers back the refutations I put against it how the Strauss evidence says that our encounter with death is how we find meaning in life. If we are dead, we can no longer encounter death. So the high casualties my opponent is espousing through war will only decrease humanity's ability to encounter death, thus reducing our ability to suffer, thus decreasing suffering. This only FURTHER shows how she isn't linking into my case (which is an insta-loss). My opponent tries to respond to the point that our relationship to Pakistan doesn't really matter by saying that it would still be more beneficial to us, but still misses the entire point of the argument, which says that her entire point is irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's more beenficial to us or not, it still doesn't affect our ability to give or take away aid, and thus is irrelevant in the debate. As lunch is almost over and I'm running out of characters, I'll wrap up here and give a summary of the round and why my opponent is going to be losing.1. My opponent must be linking into my case. This means that she must show that she isn't increasing or decreasing the natural level of suffering, but rather keeping the natural level the same. Since I have proven that she both claims to increase suffering AND decrease suffering, she cannot link into my case. If she cannot link into my case, then her case becomes irrelevant, as it requires her to have some sort of offense coming from my case in order to be feasable, and she thusly loses the debate.2. As my opponent has conceded my case, she MUST show how she isn't deviating from the natural flow of suffering. If she can't do this, then she fails to link into my case. My opponent is not doing this, but is rather advocating for a change in the levels of suffering in the resolution. Because of this, she cannot link into my case, and thus cannot win. The resolution is affirmed.