The USFG should substantially reduce its military presence in Japan

I will try to address Pro's argument as orderly as I can. ==Pro Contentions== 1) Pro admits that "Army does its fair share to create the conditions for such crimes" after detailing a series of rapes committed by US servicemen. My contention for this is to have stricter enforcement for servicemen overseas, or at the very least remove their immunity to local laws. a) Like I stated before, removing military bases will only improve the conditions in the immediate area. Removing US troops will not improve the national attitude towards women, which I might add has still not been addressed by Pro. b) Pro makes mention of prostitution ships being funded and manned by the US Navy. I find this HIGHLY unlikely and I would debate the sources she is using. http://www.pslweb.org... seems to be of a radical ideology. I would also like to add, in order to bring out the foolishness of these prostitution ships, that why doesn't the US use local women instead of bringing Filipino women halfway around the world? Just some food for thought. c) At any rate, I feel that I have countered her argument well in advance of her actually posting it. I stand by my original contentions about this matter. ==Pro's Counter== I will move down my list of contentions and see where Con actually debates anything. A) Crimes by Servicemen 1) I did not say we change Japan's policies, I said we change US military policies. Pro seems to be of the persuasion that you cannot and should not change something because its been there for a long time. It is not easier nor does it solve more problems to pull out of Japan entirely, and how this will change the national mood on women, which is still undefined, remains a mystery to me. 2) Pro does not address this issue, I assume she cedes it to me. 3) "Remaining in Japan enforces the patriarchal and imperialist mindsets that cause war in the first place. That fact will always outweight anything the con brings up in round." --- I have clearly shown that the US was instrumental in bringing about the end of the patriarchy in Japan, and giving rights to women. Once again, Pro has no proof for her assertions. Pro then talks about US imperialism, which is irrelevant to the current topic. She also does not make any solid connection between women's rights and imperialism, which only adds to the irrelevancy of the matter. A&B&C&D) Pro just rambles on about the matter. No citations, no proof, nothing. She repeatedly denies truths I presented before, and makes wild claims about how removing troops will solve anything. I don't even think my opponent understands what patriarchy is. You know what, I don't even think my opponent knows what the treatment of women in Japan currently is, aside from some rape cases detailed on an anti-US website. I really don't know what to say as Pro has almost ignored my entire argument. Pro refuses to accept the fact that the US brought women's rights to Japan. =========== If you want to debate this matter your going to have to do a lot better. Just because you feel you have a better political ideology does not mean you can just ignore opposing logical arguments. I'm not going to make the effort to type out what you did not address if your going to just throw it at me again without any proof or logic. My previous contentions stand as my current argument. Oh also, Wikipedia is a means to an end, the website itself condenses knowledge which is cited on other websites. Citations to outside sources are included on the wiki page.