Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

I have 23 points, all of which are rebuttal. On his responses to my questions, and why they are inadequate: 1. My opponent agrees with my first question, and therefore drops all of his analysis about the apparent huge civilian death toll. Quite a waste of an argument. 2. My opponent then denies that Al Qaeda are in Afghanistan. He flies in the face of all the expert analysis we have available. It's true that Al Qaeda exist in Pakistan, and that that's where their main supply lines are. But their bases are located in Afghanistan. [1] 3. My opponent ignores my point that the US Army DOES NOT control NATO. I advise him to read my argument again, carefully this time. 4. I laughed at this answer. Which sources deluded you into thinking that Karzai's police have murdered but one single woman for showing a minuscule portion of her flesh without trial? 5. Please stop ignoring my points. See my response to question three above. 6. My opponent lists no source for his claim. But even if I were to concede an increase in opium smokers is measured by the statistic, how can this be reliably measured? Of course, the Taliban have every reason to understate this figure, and the Karzai government have every reason to state it truthfully. Based on this, I wonder what my opponent expects the statistics to show? I'd also like to question my opponent's disbelief in the science of economics. 7. We do know. The UN watched it. They reported it was "free and fair". Besides, at least women got to vote - and 28% of the Afghan parliament is now female, a huge step up from 0%! [2] I'd like to see YOUR source saying they were unfair! 8. Afghanis have the willingness but not the ability to change the electoral system. The local warlord would shoot their heads off at the very suggestion. That's why only an intimidating force would work. Not a whole bunch of rabble. 9. I've already told you, Taliban propaganda does not target NATO. That's why Osama Bin Laden always refers to "the crusader state" [the US] as opposed to "the crusader states" [US+allies]. Sometimes he does mention "the crusader state and it's allies", but from the context it is clear he is always talking about international Zionism. 10. You suggest an alternative future with no reason behind it. Why would the US retreat? 11. Apparently the removal of NATO leaves no enemies for the Taliban to attack. So by your logic the United States are not the enemies of the Taliban. Something seems a bit wrong here. .. 12. Yes, that's the effect on US citizens - more patriotism. But what about the rest of the world. Let me give you some analysis - if the US fights the war on terror on its own, Argentina is going to collectively think about how the US gets away with imposing sanctions others clearly do not condone (or else why did they retreat? ) on fringe minority groups (the Taliban). That's sending the wrong message and it's bad for the US Army. 13. If there are no police in Afghanistan, the people suffer. By training police, the NATO forces improve the lives of Afghan people. 14. In this point my opponent believes the US and the Taliban will just randomly stop fighting so that the Taliban can quickly carry out some anti-narcotics operations. I was almost going to rebut that point, but honestly, this point totally fails on any standard of plausibility. If my opponent is going to bring such outrageous claims he should be prepared to provide some evidence to back up his assertions. On his substantive contentions: 1. My opponent thinks the problem of corruption can only be solved by the Taliban. I'd like to ask my opponent why. I've already told you that the reason NATO is not busy solving the problem of corruption is because Al Qaeda are hampering their efforts. Therefore they must first destroy Al Qaeda, then the warlords. Who's to say that the most powerful military force in the world cannot deal with a few scattered warlords causing this devastating corruption? 2. My opponent does not fathom my first speech's major contentions and their relevance to the moot. Let me make this abundantly clear to you - by destroying Al Qaeda, you improve Afghan lives. Al Qaeda, with the Taliban, were in command of one of the most notorious regimes in the world in terms of human rights abuses. We're talking women with no rights, public flogging/execution and the mass execution of Shia Muslims. [3] 3. My opponent believes the Taliban have the capability to strike Kabul. Not in the last few years! Name one strike within the past year or so on the Afghani capital in order to prove this point. I also argue that previous strikes were not aimed at harming local military installations but causing widespread fear, however that is another argument for when my opponent has actually substantiated his claim! 4. My opponent says that insurgents are not terrorists. Again, he lacks any evidence. Thesaurus. com says otherwise. [4] 5. My opponent says that no war is moral, no matter how low the casualties. But what if the war were ended. How many more would be killed then. I would not be surprised if 100% are because they "collaborated with Karzai, Bush and other infidels". Al Qaeda has made it clear on numerous occasions that collaborators with infidels are to be killed along with the infidels. 6. "NATO may not bomb civilian centers, but it does bomb civilians. " - how? Not like your average Afghani family is going to have a picnic among the rocks where the Taliban trenches so happen to be! 7. In response to the whole "what if there were no invasion" thing - the moot is in the present tense. Right now, NATO ARE IMPROVING LIVES. The question is not whether they destroyed them in the past (which by the way, they didn't). 8. "NATO and the US are legally one and the same. " How can you say this, given all the analysis I have given that they are not! The German army would be offended! 9. On my response to question number 8. I'm not familiar with this debating style, but since my opponent asked for a given piece of information, how does me providing that information using existing details to formulate a really obvious pre-hinted-at argument constitute an invalid response? If that's the case then every single one of my opponent's responses is invalid too! How does one improve quality of life? I've proved that the GDP has risen. I've proved that the Afghani people have more rights. I've proved that, thanks to NATO, they actually stand a chance of not being caught up in a war in the future. I've proved that, thanks to NATO, the Afghani civilians are the most protected war-zone civilians in history. I've proved that NATO alone is able to do something about corruption, and that they are the last source of hope for the Afghani people by virtue of this fact. I've given cogent analysis as to why NATO's pacification of the people of Afghanistan is a good thing. My opponent has neither rebutted any of this nor made a case of his own. He dodges the issues and fails to provide any good sources to back up the vast majority of his assertions. This is why his case fails. This is why the moot stands. This is why I'm proud to propose. Vote pro for a brighter Afghani future! Extra Sources 1 - . http://www.globalsecurity.org... 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4 - . http://thesaurus.com...