Resolved: NATO presence improved the lives of Afghan citizens.

R1: Political StabilityHere my opponent attempts to shift the blame to me for changing the resolution. He notes that NATO did not have a presence in this war, rather it was the USA, having a 'mild presence'. First, we must add Britain to this list as they also sent billions of dollars worth of weaponry and supplies, and then take a look at this civil war from the context of the Cold War. NATO members sending financial assistance in order to fight a proxy war (which this civil war was) describes the entirety of the Cold War. The fact that it was only two member countries is not counting the fact that these were the two most prominent and powerful members of NATO. The red herring here is not the fact that I brought up NATO presence in Afghanistan (because there quite clearly was a presence since 1979) but the fact that my opponent is fighting this particular argument with mere speculation. The reason it is "arguable" that a Soviet regime might have been worse than NATO's presence is because it never happened. To state that US involvement benefited the people from something that could have happened is to make an argument on nothing more than guesswork. What we know did happen, was that NATO presence led to the rise of the Taliban and subsequently terrorism, and non stop war for the next four decades. We must see things from the lens of fact not speculation. Due to this, we must see the threat of the Taliban and the terrible conditions, particularly for women, from thereon out as a result of NATO presence within this first war. R2: Harms of WarYes, there is an "increasing willingness on the part of victims to report rape, and on the part of the authorities to investigate and prosecute some cases" but just because there is an increased willingness to report these crimes does in no way show that the crime is being lessened. In fact, my opponent does nothing to show that the number of rapes are decreasing despite the wartime nor does my data refute this. He does however, mention insurgent groups, to which I believe he may be referring to the Taliban. I will remind you that it was NATO presence in Afghanistan that put them into power, and so any improvement from conditions under the Taliban is nothing more than NATO cleaning up some of its own mess. They have not done such a good job of this however, as there seem to be more Taliban members now than before the war started in 2001. According to my opponent's own numbers, membership rose from 45000 to 60000, despite continued NATO presence in the region. Continuing using my opponent's logic, if a decrease in Taliban numbers means a net decrease in rape performed by the Taliban and the conscription rate of child soldiers, a rise in Taliban membership means an increase of these things, refuting his point that things are getting better on both accounts. Continuing on this topic, despite the improvements that have been made since the Taliban were in power, the lives of women are still at a net loss from when NATO presence in Afghanistan first started in 1979. The removal of said policies are only an extension of NATO clearing some of the harmful things it helped established during the Cold War. That being said, I will admit that certain aspects of women's life has gotten better since 2001 as far as legislation goes, but tell me, is it worth the trade off. One one hand, you have a series of smaller liberties allowed to women, and on the other, there was the legalization of marital rape, amongst other net negatives "such as giving their husbands priority in court; requiring the husband's permission to leave the house, obtain education or employment, or to see a doctor; and reserving the custody of children to male relatives. "[1] Of course, my opponent made no mention of the hundreds of women jailed for violating this law. As I said earlier. This was one step forward and two steps back. Any justification of this law would be a justification of rape itself. I will note my mistake with the UN study when I confused reported crimes for actual confirmed crimes, but I will note this line from that very study that my opponent may have missed. "Of concern, the overall number of criminal indictments filed by prosecutors in violence against women cases under all applicable laws decreased this year despite the rise in reported and registered incidents. "[2]As for my opponent's continued argument that 'at least terrorist attacks are only happening in rural regions nowadays', I have only this to ask: does it matter when lives are threatened, and the number of terrorist attack have increased every year to a high point in 2010, when the number of attack reached several thousand times what they originally were at the start of the war? Furthermore, it seems like my opponent has not read my source very carefully. The graph that I provided shows the number of terrorist attack in AFGHANISTAN ALONE, and the judges may confirm the veracity of my statement by going to the source directly. [3] Though my statement that terrorism worldwide has also increased worldwide is true and related, however, irrelevant here, so I apologize. My opponent, however, again fails to recognize the resolution when he states "the existence of terrorism can be linked to a general war on terror, but this cannot be related to NATO *presence* in Afghanistan. " Well according to the resolution I need not prove that NATO caused these terrorist attacks (though that would certainly strengthen my argument if I could) but to show that life did not improve under NATO presence. Seeing as the number of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan per year went from about 20 to about 550 (a 2650% increase) that is clearly not the case. Conclusion:And thus, it is time to weigh the scales. For the pro side of this resolution we have an increased GPD and a better infrastructure than there was in 2001 to show for it. Women even gained a few minor liberties. On the Con side we have: 35 years of non stop war The establishment of a Taliban regime 21000 civilians dead[4] 174000 wounded[4] 2650% increase of terrorist attacks 7.75 million raped (not including men) 447547 displaced At least 8000 children used as soldiers and sexual exploitation[5] The removal of women's rights The legalization of rape Add to this the following statistics about trauma during war: PTSD rate among children: 77.4% Chronic PTSD rate among children: 20.5 PTSD rate amongst the entire population: 42% Depression rate amongst the entire population: 67.7% With all of this information together, we can see that unlike my opponent claims, my argument is far more than an appeal to emotion. These are numbers you can quantify, that you can measure. My opponent claims that I have presented false information and I have shown time and time again that his claim was simply false. His own claims that violence against women is decreasing is unsubstantiated and made despite all evidence to the contrary and his claims that stability has increased in Afghanistan is easily countered by the increase in terrorist attacks since 2001 and the rise in membership of the Taliban since that time. NATO's involvement in Afghanistan during the Cold War has damned it to 35 years of civil wars, foreign wars, and Taliban tyranny. No amount of money that has been gathered can be enough to reclaim what has been lost. NATO clearly did not make Afghan lives better. In fact, it is sadly the exact opposite of this. I would like to thank my opponent once again for this debate. Sources:[1] . http://en.wikinews.org...[2] . http://unama.unmissions.org...[3] . http://www.washingtonsblog.com...[4] . http://costsofwar.org...[5] . http://www.irinnews.org...