The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors

My case, his, then votersC1 points C and D.1. Nationality doesn't matter, raping and shooting of civilians will stand out no matter what country you're from. The Schwartz evidence specifically shows how these abuses are attributed by the people to America (nationals or not), because we are the ones who hired the contractors committing these abuses. 2. Toss the Wikileaks card. Nowhere does it say the military alone was responsible for the deaths. It is merely a tally of casualties, never saying who caused them. This tally therefore includes those killed by contractors, which turns this argument.3. Group with his C7.4. Turn, these translators would be in the military if PMC's didn't siphon them away by the lure of money. C2: Work on both sides1. My opponent literally tries to justify PMC's funding the Taliban. Unfortunately, this is a double bind for him. If PMC's are effective at security like he claims in C6, then they shouldn't need to pay off warlords to defend themselves. They should be able to fight back convoy attacks just fine. If they do have to pay warlords off, then he's conceding that PMC's aren't effective at security and need to resort to bribery to achieve it. So by making this argument he's either conceding that A. Funding Taliban is bad, or B. PMC's aren't effective. 2. This is what the source says."domestic security contractors might have actually paid the Taliban to stage attacks against coalition forces to help justify their existence"Read the source. Nowhere does it say the claim is unsubstantiated. If he wants to argue this, he needs to quote my article directly.3. My opponent says the US has arrangements that prevent PMC betrayal. Unfortunately for him, he dropped the argument that PMC's are subcontracting to Afghan warlords and working for them directly. Clearly ineffective. Also, we still have hundreds of thousands of contractors there despite their counterproductive nature, so no, the US is not firing them by itself.4. Contractors and Navy SEALS:Lacking source to validate this claim. Besides, in "sensitive missions" we would be more likely to use actual Navy SEALS, not former ones that are for hire.C3: Other disadsA.1. No evidence. He just arbitrarily states "the army does a better job", with no backing. I can do the same. "The military is better than PMC's". There, I won!2. Army could have pushed repairs:Con misses the point. The fact that it was necessary to push them to do repairs in the first place shows the lack of effort PMC's can employ.B. 1. Audit agency:Severely lacking a source here. Having an oversight branch only matters if its effective. He hasnt proven that whatsoever.2. Military wasting money:Turn: The leaders of all these programs he listed were fired (1, 2). That shows accountability.His caseC1: 1. Brain-Drain: My opponent concedes PMC's cause a shortage of skilled personnel, but tries to say its only for Elite officers. Unfortunately, he gave no evidence whatsoever to counter mine. I gave empirical and theoretical analysis about average soldiers joining a Contracting agency over the military, it doesn't just apply to the Elites. He can only counter with "this is not true for base support" with no supporting analysis or evidence. This is a huge win for the Pro, make this a voter.2. Combine the extra 90,000 soldiers with the personnel we would have back from the PMC Brain-Drain, and we could match the efficiency level we had before, especially since they would be under a better regulatory framework.My opponent misplaces some Draft arguments, I'll move and cover them in C3. C2: 1. Other crimes: My opponent once again makes a completely unsupported statement, arbitrarily saying oversight branches "have been successful in reigning in abuses other than shooting incidents", with no source, no quote, no warrant. Thats probably because his original evidence indeed only talked about shootings, nothing else.2. His "preliminary evidence" shouldn't be accepted either as his own source says its effort may not have worked. Dont draw long term conclusions from short-term results.3. Dropped. Even if PMC's can be regulated, his evidence says it is unsustainable. This will be my second voter, this will win me the debate by itself.4. Turn his source 4, it further substantiates my claim that PMC's destroy public opinion and commit murder in cold-blood. It even references the president of Afghanistan calling for a Ban of PMC's. Also, the source never says anything about Status of Force agreements or contractors being prosecuted, I'm not sure where he's getting this from. Again, he needs to quote the source.C3:1. Dropped. US will just limit its foreign engagements rather than institute a draft.2. Doesn't matter what Bush did, I said that Con must prove that Obama or any future president will violate democracy. George Bush is not a future president, so he has not refuted my argument.3. Dropped. Draft wont be effective, so it wont last anyway.C4: Con implies that the military is more expensive because they get hazard pay and health insurance. I'd say that if you walk into a terrorist warzone on a daily basis where you can lose a limb or two fairly easily, you deserve some insurance, expensive or not. Its ridiculous for Con to assume that this is a bad thing. Plus, his source still says that soldiers (who dont get shot) in the military are cheaper in war than PMC's.C5:1. Con makes more warrantless claims to refute my argument. I pointed out how PMC's have worked against humanitarian efforts before with evidence, and he just literally says "this is not true...whenever the US is involved. This in spite of him conceding that PMC's fund the Taliban (though he tried to justify it) and dropping that they are subcontracting to Afghan warlords. Empirically, PMC's do in fact undermine humanitarian efforts.2. Dropped. The lack of strong governance in nations requiring humanitarian assistance means that PMC abuses will be rampant, potentially worsening the situation.C6:1. Extend my argument on my C1 sub point C against Wikileaks.2. Its been established that the only reason Blackwater escorts people so well is because they give the Taliban millions to not attack them, which is empirically proven to be counterproductive to our counterinsurgency.3. As for the Iraqi police guarding diplomats, fine. Kick them. My opponent has completely dropped my Iraqi Military Alternative. Remember, I mentioned the Police and Military, not just police. Since he makes no arguments against the viability of their armed forces (and he can't do so in the last round), I win this automatically as you have a clear alternative to perform this service.C7: Remember, we will have more troops to counteract Air Strike dependency due to the lack of Brain-Drain affirming solves for. Combine that with the 90,000 extra troops we have, and we won't have to use the ol' Carpet Bomb.Now that all thats covered, lets look over why I win.Voting Issues1. Con gives no evidence or analysis on everyday troops being siphoned away from the military by PMC's. This means that by ceasing our use of Contractors, many of their forces will re-join our military, counteracting any loss of manpower we would experience. His entire case falls right there, as all of his impacts are on Troop Deficit. 2. He drops Accountability Unsustainable on his C2. This means that even if you buy every argument he's made regarding how PMC's are regulated, it doesn't matter because it can't be maintained. I win on all Accountability arguments.3. All of my defenses on my C1 sub points A and b were dropped, so extend the the following arguments.A. Military has Rules, PMC's don't.B. He can't compare military oversight to PMC oversight.C. Military has more incentive to not commit abusesD. Military rape can be solved for.The first two voters are independent reasons to vote pro, as thee subsume the vast majority of his arguments.Thus, I affirm. Awesome round!!1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...