The united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan

I will defeat my opponents case and then reintroduce the stronger side of this debate being pro. First let me point out that it doesnt matter who has the burden of proof in a debate. Each side still needs to prove there case. He uses Innocent until proven guilty. Well the defendant still needs to prove why there not guilty. So My terms still stand. His terms fail because it contradicts him. He says he wins if he can prove one or more areas where assistance should be maintained or abolished. He needs to pick a side. either abolish or maintain. Thus my terms still stand. My opponent states that aid will further u. s interests but fails to realize that pakistan has different interests contradicting U. s interests. .. .. .. .Pakistans interest is promoting stability in Afghanistan; And supporting jihadis in order to appease political forces within pakistan. .. .. .. .. .. .. the second undermines their own, and the United States purpose of providing assistance. This alone should be enough to suspend all assistance because it hinders our own operations. .. .. .. .. .. . http://www.cfr.org...Maybe my opponent didn't read thourougly enough but I clearly have 4 strong contentions. But let me address his before I prove minesMy opponents first contention; Suspending aid would cripple the united states ability to pursue terrorists groups. Thats false. Suspension will actually increase the effectiveness of our anti terrorism operations. I've already proven in my case that The ISI(pakistan intelligence agency) tips of terrorists. (evident in the inability to find bin laden, and the 3-4 raids when the ISI tips of the terrorists. )Pakistan helps the very terrorists we pursue. So obviously, logically, There's no way that pakistan is helping the U. S fight terrorism effectively to the best of their ability. . .. His statistics from the cffr is invalid because I have statistic from the people that prove other wise. He says security operations have been successful. really if security is so good what is this? the number of deaths from terrorist violence2003-1892005-6482007-359963% of pakistanis don't feel safe.86% say their country is headed in the wrong directionIf security and cooperation is so good then why are deaths from terrorists increasing dramatically every 2 years? With U. S assistance? .. .. .. . http://www.americanprogress.org... "suspending aid will result in the expulsion of U. S intelligence officers. "Pakistan is already doesnt want the U. S to conduct operations. .. .. .. . 335 US personnel, CIA officers and contractors and special operations force personnel were being asked to leave Pakistan. Witch is 25-40 % of staff. they all want us to limit drone strikes witch is battling terrorism. .. .. .. .. . http://www.bbc.co.uk...Since its already happening without suspension, logically means that it wont happen if we suspend. My opponent states pakistan will remove troop if we suspend. Where's your evidence? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? My opponents second contention; Suspending assistance to pakistan would hurt pakistani citizens and the United States foreign interests. I've already proven that pakistan isn't interested in the same strategic foreign goals as the U. S is. so this contention has absolutely no weight. About hurting the pakistani people even while were giving them aid here's their opinion:As of 2011 before the capture of osama bin laden 75% of pakistan favored the U. S. After the capture 73 % favored the U. S according to a survey taken by. .. .. .. http://www.bbc.co.uk...This obviously shows that even with assistance of all forms pakistan isn't appreciative. If they don't appreciate our help why should we continue to give it? To defeat the rest of his casejust for the record here's why we need to suspend on humanitarian aid, and all economic aid. If we suspend assistance we can reform how we invest in pakistan. Only 2 % of aid has gone to education since 2001. .. .. .. http://www.americanprogress.org... . .. .obviously we need to reform how we invest into pakistans economy because its not working to the best of its potential. From 2001-2007 poverty levels have reduced by 10%. .. .. .. .20 billion dollars spent and only a 10% improvement obviously is needed. America obviously needs to restrategize what were doing with the money. (missing money)(missing improvement). Also if we know that were missing billions of dollars because its not going into the places we want it to go to, hen how are the people going to get they money? .. .. they cant because of corruption. America should not tolerate corruption of taxpayer money when we don't have money to give in the first place being trillions of dollars in debt. Also here's some more evidence linking terrorists to pakistan and its intelligence agency. .. .. the fact that America is asking them to break ties with terrorist means there supporting terrorists. http://www.ndtv.com...The fact that pakistan is refusing to fight these terrorists means there supporting them compiled with my other evidence. .. .. .. http://www.military.com...here's more concrete evidence taken from the terrorists themselves. .. .. .. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... His last subpoint saying that the U. S will lose geogrphical influence. Ive already proven that 75% of pakistanis dont like us. So suspension wont change a thing. They wont be inulenced by other places any differently than hey do now. some off my pointsin my case I have proven that suspension is the best means of handling pakistan(so say)(giving money wont fix the problem) and that we cant just stand by and give them money while their supporting the very terrorists were trying to combat. I have also proven that there is millions of dollars of missing money supposedly given to pakistan. We also need to fix our own debt problems before we fund someone Else's. thus I fit the standards for winning this debate. My opponent has not met the criteria what so ever. he hasn't proven why we need to fund them while they support terrorism,That were not missing money,and that were not in debt. lastly, He has not proven that pakistan is handling the money wisely,Therefore since he doesnt fit the criteria he should lose this debate. My casewe should suspend all assistance to pakistan for the following reasons.1. contention 1:pakistan is supporting the very terrorists were trying to combat becoming a detriment to U. S foreign policy objectives. ( why should we give money to a state who's policy objectives contradict our own? pakistan is hurting counter terrorism efforts by supporting terrorism. )2. Contention 2: Missing money proves this investment is a failure. (106 million dollars is missing in assistance to pakistan. Where did it go? .It obviously didn't go to the people of witch it was supposed to be going to. We need to suspend to reform how we invest in pakistan so money wont be wasted. )3. Contention 3 :America is in trillions of dollars of debt Where is this money to help pakistan coming from? (The debt as of Jan 1st, 2012 is 15,170,600,000,000. Thats more than our annual GDP. Giving money to be wasted or lost is not a ethical option. )4. Contention 4 :suspending assistance will act like shock therapy. ( suspension will prove that we wont stand for a contradictive alliance. We also need to take this time to reform how we spend money in pakistan so we wont be wasting taxpayer money. There needs to be more accountability. ) my opponent didn't even attack my case fully. silence equals concurrence.