Development assistance should be priotized over miltia aid in Sahel

I will attack my opponents points in order and take this more seriously. I realize your actually a worthy opponent. Attack on his point 1: A: He states that he can solve for terrorism. I clearly show that yes it can, but not without miltia aid and training of soilders to take on terrorism. Even if development aid could solve for terrorism it can't solve for corruption and problems such as political instability and piracy and problems of Africa's military alone. B: He states that I will not be able to get miltia and how he can solve the problem from the inside. Response: My main question is how do you plan on getting in the inside in the first place? I clearly state that development assistance will not make it to the right people and results in more corruptness. I also sate that Africa already has a military so we will have enough people. Also since the Sahel region has awe most 300 million people or so your number is less then 1/20th even if the total population. So obviously we have more then enough people to fight for us after we win over their trust by providing them with better trade, projects, grievances so they can be heard by the government, resources, and education. Not to mention our strategy also helps in climate problems. C: I honestly don't understand the argument he attempted to defend his Camera solution to security. Also wouldn't putting cameras around with surveillance cost a lot of money and a lot of time? Also I show we can help train the security forces and I shown how using that idea has helped lower the piracy attack problems greatly and can stop a civil war in Kenya. Would you prefer people who enforce the law, or cameras that just see what is going on, and can't do anything about it? D: Since my opponent claims my argument of past failures for development is irrelevant(even though the countries it was used in had similar problems as the Sahel) and he claims it is not topical since it was done in the past. He literally just dropped his whole cont. 1 showing failures of the U.S. acting alone in the past. So he can't use that anymore either so this past stuff Is off the debate I agree with you on that. He conceded all past failures are un topical so his cont1. is gone. Also I show a 1 trillion cost of failure of development aid in the Sahel region so unlike my opponent I have something still standing. also my strategy is different from the ones that failed anyway, way different. E: He concludes by claiming militia aid has proven to increase corruptness but again my strategy is new and has mostly the EU involved the EU and the U.S. together can do more, and again he claimed past failures are un topical so this argument is gone anyway. Also the incidence with U.N. in France proves some of this U.S. alone military aid stuff actually works anyway, and that was more recent then the failures he had, so I guess even militia aid alone is changing it's plan while development assistance still remains the same? Which shows how the trillion dollar cost and the continued corrupt misuse of development assistance alone will keep growing. HE concludes that development assistance must be put first because militia aid alone fails. Even if you were to believe it does I am not advocating it going alone I am advocating it go with development assistance, this is a new way that isn't the same as the way tried that failed in the past. And again past failures are off the board either way. And as I just stated and continue to state my strategy is not the same as the one that he seems to be saying failed in the past. 2. Onto the second main point of the round which is agriculture, I somewhat covered this in my last point which my opponent has agreed that developmental aid solves for. We need to solve for hunger before we try to train police so we can have police to train in the first place! or at least a good amount of police. This is his argument for point 2. I already combated some things about it. First the fact that their are over 300 million people in the Sahel so that just proves my point that Africa has plenty of military since the amount that are hungry account for less then 20% of that. Even if it was 50% we would still have enough lol. I agree development assistance is good I am not saying it's bad so if he presses the agriculture thing it doesn't help me or him. It doesn't effect this round in anyway since we both agree development assistance is good. point 3: He says since I am solving for only a little bit of violation of rights it's not majority so doesn't impact. He just contradicted himself so basically his whole case is dead now I have won this round. He already dropped his cont 1. Now he drops his cont 2. His amount for people going hungry he shows is only a small amount of the population. SO I guess that is off the debate to? HE can't solve for majority of hunger especially since I have shown how corruption and terrorism will block the way so his whole cont1: falls. Since cause of corruption and the fact he could only solve for a little without corruption anyway since poverty takes a while to fix that whole contention falls. It didn't give him any offensive anyway since I agree development is good but still it's gone now. A: He admits he has nothing for the EU failing he says well if other countries fail the EU will to? First of all i'd like too point out that the UN is a mostly worthless organization that hasn't resolved a single issue. The people who debate and talk about the issues are often powerless in their own country and use debate to stall, and keep something from passing on. If one veto is passed by a country they can't do anything, and that usually happens. The EU not only is different from the UN and U.S. but has a way different plan then they had. Also the EU has put more into this because it affects them more. If the drug trafficking is working maybe this can to? Also again this plan has the U.S. helping the EU with the EU's plan not the U.S. plan. The EU probably noticed how the U.S. failed and adjusted to it as well. The U.S. is probably making sure the EU doesn't make the same mistakes either as well just incase they go by this strategy. I win so far not only because of what I said above, and showed above; but also because of the fact that he hasn't attacked much of my case at all so I still win even if you were to buy every argument he had. He hasn't attacked or attempted to attack my cont 1: Ensure Security and Fight against Terrorism He hasn't attacked or attempted to attack my cont 2: drug trafficking which is one of my biggest cases He hasn't even brought up my Sub point A: drug trafficking and piracy in Somalia. And he gave up on the civil war thing and dropped my cont 5: Africas crumbiling center HE also doesn't attack the cont 4: MILITARY AID IS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE RECRUITMENT OF CHILD SOLDIERS he just states just cause I solve a little it's effective. Which I have adressesd. The only thing he trys to even sorta attack and I have fought against is attacks mostly on my cont3. I show how I can benefit more in security and the fight against terrorism. Also lets not forget development assistance working alone has cost 1 trillion bucks. Even if you felt like the pro won on attacking cont3: I still win cause I took down 2 of his contentions and he dropped down 80% of my case. I have shown a strategy that does everything voting his side can do, and more. I did what I needed to do to win so far. I have shown how militia aid can solve for things development assistance can't so we need both. I have won the battle for militia aid solving for security while development assistance mostly poverty intro argument, because his solution to security was putting cameras up, while mine was training a force, while providing food, channel for grievances to help fight corruption