President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is best for the United States

To end this debate, I will provide arguments against all four of my opponent's contetions, back up my case, and tell the judges why they should cast an affirmative vote. ====== ConContention One - We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan The fact of the matter is, we do have the tools. If the United States did not have the tools they would not send more troops to Afghanistan. The point of this issue if, why should we use these tools. Since we do have the tools to continue a war, as shown by the Presidential decision to continue it, this contention essentially has no meaning. My opponent states: "We are indeed getting all the essentials necessary to continue this "war," however in doing so. our country is doing farther and farther in debt." However, the war in Afghanistan won't cost as much money once Afghanistan has a new government. Unlike what my opponent said, it is improbable that U.S. forces will need to be in Afghan for 8-10 years. ====== ConContention Two - This country is by the people, for the people My opponent dismisses the crux of my argument. The majority of the United States is in favor of the war in Afghanistan. I have backed this up with statistics. She argues that in the future that won't be the case, however, this debate is dealing with the present, here and now. I have shown that yes, this country is by the people, for the people, and have given evidence that indeed, the people support the war in Afghanistan. ====== ConContention Three - Terrorists are different form militaries My argument is not an illogical fallacy as you say. There are intelligence reports indicating that the insurgents in Afghanistan have largely fled to Pakistan due to the United States and their allies's presence. Your Soviet argument does not apply here. The Soviets attempted to deal with Afghan in the 1980's, however, they did not have the technology that we do now. The Soviets did not understand how terrorists work, they did not understand how many were still stationed within Afghan. But the American forces do. As we have both agreed to, there are at most 100 insurgents left within Afghanistan. The United States has made a difference in this country. The United States is helping Afghanistan. ====== ConContention Four - Terrorist Attacks still happen My opponent has not attempted to refute my argument against this contention and it still stands. Here is another example to help illustrate why this can't be used for this debate. A little boy stands next to an ocean throwing washed-up starfish back into the water. One by one he throws them back in. An old man walks up to the boy, noticing the thousands of starfish lying on the beach and asks the boy, "Why are you wasting your time? What difference are you making? There are thousands of them." To this the boy replies, "Well Sir, I made a difference for this one." And throws another starfish back into the ocean. ====== I will now back up my own case ====== Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed I did not say that the reinforcements there were not to help rid the country of insurgents. I mentioned that that is not all that they will be doing. As shown below, "General James Jones also mentions that Mr. Obama has received Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops, and the force numbers will be part of a larger discussion that will include efforts to beef up the size and training of the Afghan army and police, along with economic development and governance improvements in Afghanistan." My opponent still clinges to the idea that the reinforcements will only be used to rid the 100 insurgents. As I have shown, that is not the case. ====== Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country Establishing democracy in an allied country is in the best interest in the country, because they need the assitance of our goverment because they are so unstable. The instability of this country is caused by an insurgency. Due to the overwhelming power of this insurgency, their current government cannot handle this. With the incorporation of a new government, this country will be happier, and will be more sustainable than ever before. Since ALL insurgencies are cause by disatisfation towards some entity, quelling the insurgency and establishing a stronger government sounds like the best way to go, right? ====== I hope I have clarified all of my contentions and have shown that they still stand. As for my opponent's case, however. Contention One -We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan I have shown that we do in fact have the tools, otherwise our government would not make the decision to send more troops. Contention Two -This country is by the people, for the people I have agreed to this tagline, but have shown that it indeed works for my case, rather than my opponent's. Contention Three -Terrorists are different form militaries Yes terrorists are a different form of militaries, but as we have both agreed on, the United States has proven effective against terrorists in the area of Afghanistan. Contention Four -Terrorist Attacks still happen I have shown that this contention is irrelevant. ====== For these reasons, I urge an AFFirmative vote. Thank-you for your time. ====== SOURCES: http://www.thelocal.de...... http://www.nytimes.com...... http://www.washingtontimes.com...... http://www.google.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk......