the united states should suspend all asistance to pakistan

well first im going to attack all my opponents contentions....and then as some questions,lastly I will resummarize the stronger case here being the con....First let me point out why his first source is invalid.....he says "The Telegraph recently stated in 2012 that aid workers, who are/were being sent to Pakistan are/were being kidnapped by local terrorists and gunmen [1]." if you read the article it doesn't say terrorists kidnapped the man it says some rebel gunmen. so the terrorists didn't kidnap anyone....his second source about the CRS I don't see these statistics hes talking about.....and ive read the entire thing...His case;my opponent states:"Contention 1: Aid fails when used in Pakistan."........"Both the Congressional Research Service and the Los Angeles Times found that due to Pakistan€™s mistrust of US aid, a large amount of aid isnâ€™t even delivered to the people who need it [2]. Other ways that aid is wasted is attributed to lost resources, theft, and a general inability to manage large amounts of funding [2]."This claim is absolutely false.....in baluchistan, Pakistan, USAID is delivering to the agricultural sector to prevent damage caused by wheat stem rust-----http://blog.usaid.gov...http://blog.usaid.gov...% of pakistans public schools had no electricity, pakistansis will tell you about soaring food prices, and destroyed livelihoods in wake of last years floods. USAID is addressing pakistans needs in these critical sectors by using congressionaly-authorized funding under the enhanced partnership with pakistan act of 2009 to rehabilitate infrastructure and improve the public sectors ability to perform. An example can be seen at power plants, and hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses that will be powered thanks to infrastructure upgrades. USAIDS current energy assistance programmed added 540 MW to pakistans power grid from now. USAID is also funding 3 plus dams in south waziristan. these USAID efforts witch are reaching the people will generate electricity for 25,000 and irrigate 191,000 acres providing a livelihood for 30,000 homes. there is also flood control systems being worked on.My opponent claims...."Empirical data from Djankov (2006) discovered that aid doesn't promote, but worsens democracy [14]. Despite corruption, economic mismanagement, etc, aid allows governments to continue their practices. Also, studies have shown that there cannot be a correlation between the increase of aid and the increase of democracy [15]."1. Number 14 and the claim should be rejected because the study was conducted from 1960-1999besides it being outdated, this program isn't showing anything going on in Pakistan specifically.2.number 15 contradicts my opponent and supports my case.......it says......"We estimate the impact of foreign aid on corruption using geographical and cultural distance to the donorcountries as instrumental variables to assess causality. Aid decreases corruption. this contradicts his case and supports my claim of aid having a positive impact in pakistan.my opponent also claims......"The study states that reliance on local resources can prove to be better than foreign aid [3]. On the other hand, outside aid can increase "rent-seeking" and cripple economic development."1. this would be true only if the country had local resources.....but it doesn't..........Pakistan is extremely poor so there's absolutely no ethical or logical reason to suspend humanitarian or economic aid....etc.......Now lets go to my opponents second contentionContention 2: Pakistan is a doubtful ally."There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that, at the best, they are not allies.1.your contention says pakistan is a ally.......your next sentence says at best they are not allies........this is a contradiction.( the truth is pakistan is a valuable ally in the fight with terrorism.)2. just because pakistan works on a project that america disagrees with, that doesnt make them our enemy.my opponent also claims.........Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. 1. pakistan doesnt like us because we keep killing there people!!!.....besides obama suspending 800 million dollars in aid .....that plus the u.s killing 24 pakistani soilders is the reason that NATO bases were shut down....and is the reason that pakistan is threatening to shut down CIA bases in pakistan...........This clearly shows that suspension worsens relations with the united states also America has to spend 6x more money to coalition troops now due to suspension. Is this helping further us policy objectives?.NO-----http://newspakistan.pk...my opponent further claims...."No wonder why they support our enemies, extremists, lol."1. he talks about India earlier......who cares if were in an alliance with India it doesn't negatively effect u.s foreign policy objectives in pakistan.2.Pakistan doesnt support terrorists....there are claims all over the internet that suspects pakistan of helping terrorists. one my opponent cant prove this or provide any concrete evidence to prove it. pakistan helping terrorists is a theory, a claim. in a debate suspicion shouldnt be considered because suspicion has no roots to fall back on therefore only facts should be considered in this debate . Therefore pakistan is not supporting terrorists.To further attack this second contention........Pakistan isn't a doubtful ally......since we've been giving aid, counter terrorism has increased 86% since we started giving aid. 17,742 terrorists has been arrested and/or killed since 9-11. So obviously pakistan is a valuable ally in achieving the us policy goal of fighting terrorism. If we suspend assistance then the terrorists could use that moment of weakness and possibly take over Pakistan witch will jeopardize all the strategy and effort we've put in to fight terrorism.My opponents 3rd contention"Contention 3: Chances of DeathtLittle known fact - aid can increase the chances of a war."1. his entire case is based on the assumption that aid increases chances of war. This claim is crazyHis argument is that since the government will be dependent on aid then that will make them wage war more. We give aid to other countries but they haven't waged war so obviously this theory isn't true.2. these claims are not Pakistan specific and makes no points about what's going on in Pakistan and only talk about possibilities that wont happen in pakistan. thus this entire third contention is resolution irrelevent.furthermore shouldnt even be considered in this debate.3. Now im going to flip his argument. Aid only increases the chances of war against terrorists in pakistan. witch is good and supports my case, obviously with the eradication of terrorists thanks to pakistan and our aid......and the 86 % activity increase since we started investing.Summarymy case1. suspending assistance will jeopardize years of strategy.2. suspension is insane(we've done it 3 times already what will change if we suspend the fourth time?...nothing)3.we need to reform without suspending all assistance to Pakistan. we also need to invest more into its economy to promote democracy(help the people, provide them with the materials to actively participate to promote democracy)1.aid is going to the people and is creating a positive impact in Pakistan.2.my opponent has proved for my case in his sources that aid decreases corruption3.pakistan doesn't like us because we keep killing there people. if we stop killing there innocent than relations will improve.5.Pakistan doesn't support terrorist groups( why would they have killed 17,000 plus terrorists?....wouldn't these groups be attacking Pakistan more if its attacking there group?)6.Pakistan is a active partner in the war against terrorism.