US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

In this last round, I will tie the whole debate back to the resolution and show why Con has won. ========== MEANING OF RESOLUTION ========== Resolved: U. S. policies established after September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the threat of terrorist acts against the United States. ---------- Scope ---------- My opponent claimed in Round 3 that domestic terrorism doesn't apply to the resolution. I urge her to read the resolution one more time. Does it say anything about DOMESTIC acts of terror? No. It simply refers to terrorist acts in general. Therefore, domestic, international, or extraterrestrial acts of terrorism would still apply to the resolution. Whatever my opponent claims the intent of the resolution may be is irrelevant; we can only take the motion at its word. ---------- Definition of Risk ---------- Pro's definition of risk provided in Round 3 is "a hazard. " Just for clarification, "hazard," is a synonym of "risk" and also has the exact same definition I provided for "risk" in Round 1. Therefore, my opponent's introduction of the word "hazard" does not change anything. ---------- Pro's Criteria For Winning ---------- I would like to reiterate the conditions in which Pro must win this debate (my opponent never objected to these terms so I assume she agrees). (1) There is a risk of terrorist actions against the United States. (2) This risk since September 11, 2001 has been SUBSTANTIALLY reduced. (3) This substantial reduction in risk has been a DIRECT result of U. S. policies established after September 11, 2001. After going through each key voting point one last time, I will return to the above criteria and show they have not been fulfilled. ========== MILITARY ACTION ========== ---------- Increased Risk ---------- Claiming I don't HAVE to prove that the risk of terrorism has increased doesn't mean I concede all the points that make that claim. I can still show how terrorism has increased, but as I said in Round 3, it isn't a requirement to negate the resolution. There are many paths Con could have taken, and an increased risk was just one of them. My first and second sub-points under my first contention simply stated whatever the risk might be, it had to have increased. There is no reason to concede these points, and my opponent was only trying to skirt around these topics instead of addressing them directly. ---------- Military Policy v. s. Action ---------- My opponent has only tried to confuse the issue. I showed in my second Round 3 syllogism (that my opponent never objected to) that because U. S. military policy EQUATES with (i. e. is equal to or is the same as) U. S. military action, it is applicable to the resolution. A policy can only be judged by the actions that result from it (contrary to my opponent's subsequent analogical attempt) so my point stands. ---------- Iraq ---------- My opponent said I did not cite my claim of the disorganization of terrorists in Iraq. I would like to direct her to my Contention 1, Sub-Point B where I cited the Office of National Intelligence. My opponent never questioned that anti-U. S. sentiment in Iraq is increasing, so I assume she agrees. Because we are on the same page at that point, I have appropriately shown how this increase in sentiments makes terrorists more inclined to harm the U. S. , thus indicating a heightening risk. Con has clearly won this point, because my opponent's only counter-evidence was that Hussein's sponsor of terrorism had ended, and my opponent never defended that point once I negated it. ---------- Afghanistan ---------- Because my opponent never addressed my syllogism on Taliban expansion in the last round, I'll assume she agrees with it. Therefore, she has effectively conceded that Taliban expansion increases the risk of terrorist acts against the United States. Because I have shown that the Taliban is currently expanding, the U. S. military policy on Afghanistan has been unsuccessful, and this point effectively flows to the Con side. ========== DOMESTIC POLICIES ========== ---------- Patriot Act, Surveillance Program and General Policies ---------- I showed in Round 2 that while my opponent shows the INTENT of domestic policies, she hasn't shown how they have decreased the risk. In cases where terrorist acts where thwarted, I showed that does not necessarily indicate a decrease in risk of terrorist acts. It may decrease the risk of SUCCESSFUL acts but my opponent agreed that UNSUCCESSFUL acts also fall under the banner of terrorist acts. Regarding the quote from Alberto Gonzales, my opponent never denied that the source wasn't biased. Seeing as I negated both the information from fas. gov and have shown that Gonzales cannot be considered a credible source, the general policies argument has been negated. ---------- Guantanamo Bay ---------- Even if 8% of real terrorists being locked up represents a reduction in terrorism, my opponent never indicated that it would have been a SUBSTANTIAL reduction. Pro therefore failed to successfully tie this point to her side of the resolution, so this argument still supports Con. ---------- Fort Hood ---------- I gave evidence in Round 3 showing that Major Hasan was a terrorist who committed a terrorist act (also showing that you can be both a madman and a terrorist). I have given evidence on the Fort Hood shooting since the first round, and seeing as my opponent gave no counter-attestations showing why Major Hasan was not a terrorist, my evidence must stand. ========== TERRORIST ATTACK LIKELIHOOD ========== You can see my negation of my opponent's third contention in Round 2. Her only response to my rebuttal was that a risk doesn't apply to what may happen in the future. In Round 3 I showed how a risk actually is precisely indicative of future events. Since in Round 3 her only recovery was that I never addressed her third contention (which I actually did address in Round 2), we can see that Con has won on this point as well. ====================================================================== Let us now return to the three criteria that I listed at the beginning of this round that shows what my opponent must prove in order for the resolution to be affirmed. As I said before, keep in mind that she agreed to these terms. ---------- (1) There is a risk of terrorist acts against the United States ---------- Despite my requests, Pro has never established the risk that terrorists posed to the United States on September 11, 2001. That had to have been shown for the risk to be reduced. In 2001 was there a large risk of terrorist acts, or a relatively small one? The fact that 9/11 occurred doesn't indicate a large or 100% risk. Even if it was a 0.0000000001% possibility (small risk) the attack still could have occurred. Therefore, because a baseline risk was never established, we can't compare the risk now to the risk then. As a result the first criterion was not upheld. ---------- (2) This Risk Since September 11, 2001 Has Been SUBSTANTIALLY Reduced ---------- I showed in Round 1 that "substantial" means "for the most part" or "to a great or significant extent. " My opponent never showed, even IF her arguments show that the risk (albeit one she never defined) was reduced, that the reduction was substantial. A way to measure the reduction must have been provided to show it was substantial, and because it never was provided, this second criterion has not been upheld. ---------- U. S. Policy Causing Substantial Reduction ---------- This goes in line with the other two criteria and with my counter-arguments. Because I have shown that policies have failed and that criteria (1) and (2) were not upheld, this criterion has not been upheld either. Pro never met the burden required to uphold the resolution and was negated accordingly. Con therefore has won this debate.