Parli: This house would take it off, take it all off.

As to topicality, remember, I'm advocating taking all American US troops out of Iraq. Which suffices to satisfy the resolution. Seeing as how this is a rather abstract resolution, I believe it has been satisfied. Now moving on to why I've won this debate. 4. Externalities. One of the key externalities is the "safety of the Iraqi people". As I've said, My resolution at least makes it possible to prevent the inevitable chaotic destruction of the impending civil war. My opponent's status quo does not. And he concedes that. Read his arguments carefully. His criticism is that my proposal Might make things "worse" because of Blackwater's failure. And he says it Might make things worse because it might increase "the chance of said civil war." But notice how this goes entirely unsupported during the debate. Because the truth is, the Civil War, as it stands, is inevitable. Might my resolution fail to stop the impending Civil War? Certainly. There is the Possibility. However, since my argument that the civil war is inevitable is NOT countered by my opponent, as it stands, my Resolution results in positive externalities you would not find in the status quo. Also, Unchallenged is my assertion that it would result in greater economic prosperity in Africa and other underdeveloped regions of the world. 3. Greater US Security. My opponent says we don't need an army because we have Nuclear Weapons. And that ground troops are pointless. If you believe that having Nuclear Weapons means we don't need an army, then by all means, this point is his ... Oh by the way, when the North Koreans invaded South Korea, ... were out interests protected because we had nuclear weapons? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, were out interests protected because we had nuclear weapons? When Afghanistan attacked New York, were our interests protected because we had nuclear weapons? But hey, if my opponent says us having nuclear weapons safeguards us from all threats and protects our interests, then sure. If he says ground troops are "utterly pointless" then sure. Why look at history, or evidence at all? We have his word for it. 2. Resolving the Iraq Crisis My opponent cites their 51% disapproval rating. He forgot to cite the corresponding decline in the feeling of Security. During the 6 month period from 3/5/07 to 8/24/07, 70% of Iraqis felt that security worsened. It was after those 6 months when 53% of polled began to disapprove of the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. If you're going to cite data, make sure you look at all of it. Sending in 11 times the current forces would restore peace in Iraq. If it restores peace in Iraq our approval rating will go up. I have now explained, and given statistical evidence. But of course this is irrelevant. The issue is does sending in 11x the troops increase the probability of resolving the Iraq Crisis. My opponent offers no evidence to the contrary therefore this point is conceded to me. 1. Finally. After winning 3 points, we're finally at the last one. Important as well. Perhaps not the most important, but doesn't matter. Since I've won all 4 points, doesn't really matter which one's most important right? My opponent claims my argument depends on each soldier attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars a year. Upon this he bases his whole spiel of mathematics. And that is where he's wrong. My argument depends on each soldier COSTING 1 million dollars a year. The US Army estimates that each soldier's death costs $100,000 (death benefit) and from $250,000 to $500,000 (life insurance. Bilmes and Stiglitz from Columbia, in the 34 page report, "The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years after the Beginning of the Conflict" on the other hand computed the cost of death to be $6 million. Don't forget the health care, the veteran's benefits, the pensions, the free college education. Don't forget the COST OF TRAINING. Don't forget, especially, the cost of death and replacement. THAT is the basis of my argument on economics. Troops from 3rd world countries are cheaper to train. Cheaper to replace. Cheaper to maintain. Cheaper to maintain after the war. And that is why this is not only economically feasible, it creates an economic surplus. -Thank you for the debate.