Bhutto's assassination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow.

I. Refutations 1. Solarman's argument can be summarized as: Benazir was going to die because: A. She was corrupt. B. She's been attacked before. C. Pakistan's a Muslim country, so they hate women and the west. 2. Benazir's death was unexpected. A. You have provided no evidence of this. It is clear that her husband was corrupt, but she was never convicted. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Pakistan is 138th most corrupt out of 179) As well, nearly all politicians in Pakistan are corrupt. The government has been ranked rather high when it comes to corruption, yet we don't constantly hear news stories about politicians dying there because of corruption accusations/convictions. Because the average (and corrupt) politician is never killed for it, your point is null even if you provided a link that she was corrupt. Her father being corrupt also has nothing to do with her, and in fact, he was executed because he could end Zia ul-Haq's (the man who messed Pakistan up) military dictatorship with his people's politics. B. America has been attacked before, does it mean we will be attacked again? Not necessarily. Something happening once does not by itself increase the chances of the event repeating. With your logic, I must necessarily debate the predictability of Bhutto's assassination again, but I can guarantee you it won't be happening. C. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country. However, simply being a Muslim country does not mean it is anti-west or anti-woman. In a different debate, you brought this up. You didn't provide a source, and without it I cannot check reputability and/or the size/region of the polling. Bin Laden has a 46% approval, Musharraf 37% , Bush 9% in Pakistan Assuming you have a source, and it is credible, the majority do not approve of Bin Laden, nor do they approve of Bush, or Musharraf. One country that would also not approve of any of these figures would be America. Although America would have a lower approval rating for Bin Laden, and a higher one for Bush, the majority of both countries still agree. As well, this is only "approval". For instance, I can say that I support Bush, but that does not mean that I campaign for him. It would be the same case with Osama, some may like him overall, but not necesarrily approve of all his actions or help him carry them out. And simply because they do not like Bush does not mean that Pakistanis hate the west. Most European countries would give him a similar rating if not lower. Even in America, the majority of people disapprove of Bush. None of these countries hate the west, yet they dislike Bush. You claimed in the last round that being a woman could get you killed in Pakistan, here's some stuff to digest. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pakistan has a slightly greater amount of males, and the majority of the population is young. However, in the older population, women form a large majority, clearly showing that Pakistan's gender structure will level off in the coming years. This means that woman aren't just killed for being woman in Pakistan, regardless of what you might like to think. II. My arguments 1. Benazir Bhutto was very popular with the people. A. Bhutto was extremely popular with the people, on her first day back she was greeted by a massive crowd. B. With such large support she likely felt she was safe, not every country in the world teaches its people to be paranoid freaks. C. Regardless of the "speed" at which she was traveling, her popularity protected her, large crowds combined with security forces would have prevented attacks. Security could find hidden weapons and bombs, and the crowd would make it very difficult to approach her. 2. The government had no reason to have her killed. http://en.wikipedia.org... Her Peoples Pary did not ally itself against Musharraf, clearly showing that they were at the very least not enemies. A. It would be in Musharraf's best interests to keep Bhutto alive. B. Musharraf has a much lower approval rating than Bhutto, however, by allying with her he could keep some power. C. Without her, he is either forced to use the military to keep him in power (and he is no longer in total control of it, he has been forced to resign his position as Major General) or must ally himself with a less popular personality to keep power. 3. The majority of Pakistanis are not fanatical woman-haters. A. My opponent must provide evidence to support his claims. B. If we accept solarman's statistics raised in a different debate, it is clear that the majority of Pakistanis agree with the majority of Americans on Osama, Bush, and Musharraf. Unless solarman thinks the majority of Americans are fanatical woman-haters, he is clearly wrong. C. Even if some Pakistanis are what solarman claims, the support of the people and government was enough to make it unlikely that Bhutto would be assassinated. III. Bhutto's execution was not as likely as the sun rising. 1. We know the sun will rise tomorrow, there is virtually no doubt. 2. Even if voters are convinced that Bhutto's assassination was likely, we are arguing whether her assassination was as predictable as the sun rising, and I am sure you will agree that it was not certain without a doubt. 3. The affirmative must definitively prove that she would have been assassinated. 4. Objections may be raised that the wording of this debate is bad, and I have slanted it to myself, however, this is actually a debate raised earlier by solarman, and I have taken the same resolution. IV. The affirmative must provide sources for his arguments as I have done, and these should be from neutral sites. 1. Views presented to western viewers one this subject will always be biased. The majority of presentations can be categorized into the following areas: A. Many parts of the media are overly pro-Benazir. B. Other parts of the media are very much against her, or more often, against Muslims and Pakistan in general. 2. Because of this bias, Solarman should present sources from a) Neutral sites (such as wiki, should be sourced article) or b) from Pakistani news sites. A. This is perfectly possible, most sites on wiki are sourced and neutral. B. There are Pakistani news sites have articles in English as well as Urdu (no this is not a joke, I know of some, but it is the affirmative's duty to do research). 3. If solarman does not provide sources, voters have no reason to vote for him. A. I have sourced many of my arguments. B. Solarman has brought none, in fact, I have been forced to source something for him simply to have something to argue against. C. Because I will have no chance to argue against any sources solarman will provide, I also ask all voters to deny the source if it appears overly biased, or if it appears to be fake or a polling over a small population/area. V. Conclusion I have refuted all of solarman's arguments. I have proven that the government and the people of Pakistan had no reason to assassinate her, and that crazies are rare and that it was unlikely they would have been able to assassinate her. I view this as an unlikely tragedy, and the affirmative must give evidence if he is to have any hope to prove me wrong. I ask that any sources be neutral and hopefully from Pakistani news. I also ask that new arguments not be brought up, as I will have no chance to respond to them (as in please stay on corruption, fundementalists, government wants, people wants, etc.). I'm not saying to not debate me solarman, but to stay on the things we have already discussed, although feel free to bring sources (non biased of course). Anyways, good debate.