Ending the Evil Empire

==Argument Analysis==A. My opponent's misconceptions of my argumentation. Somethings need to be cleared up, since he is convinced hat I didnt warrant my arguments:Return of the Taliban. There are a few simple analytical warrants which have been made throughout:(i) The Taliban are fighting now to gain control. The point of the insurgency is to force NATO and the democratic government out and re-establish Taliban rule. The WAR ITSELF is proof of my analysis. The insurgency wouldnt have a purpose if my analytical point was wrong. (ii) The Taliban still maintain strongholds in the Southern Regions, as been stated many times. Withdrawing takes the pressure off those regions giving the Taliban pretty much unhindered access to Central, Eastern, Western and Nothern Afghanistan. (iii) Analysis of pre-invasion. As Ive mentioned Afgahnsitan was in a civil war pre-invasion already. The Northern Alliance and the Taliban accompanied by Al Qaeda. The point of the civil war was to control the Afgahni provinces as a whole. Refer to past speeches and sources.Geopolitical Considerations. States dont act within isolated bubbles. They act when other States act. If you think this is unwarranted think of the Cold War. My analyses arent unwarranted because I analyze the status quo and how withdrawal affects that state individually. B. Implied Framewrok. Neither of us directly stated a framework, but for the sake of weighing I will explain why there is a framework at play. Refer to the NATO Costs argument my opponent. There are two important points here: He dropped the argument from the very beginning that the vast majority of soldies WANT to continue fighting in Afghanistan. The argument is of DESIRE not OBLIGATION. This kills his analysis He asserted that a "life is a life." This is the competing framework. However, he makes the crucial mistake of not warranting it. No where did we agree on a Universal Consequentialist Framework. On the otherhand, he ignored the fundamental argument I made - consent alters the framework for weighing. Iold you consenting to fighting makes it less on a weighing scale than those that DO NOT consent. This is true because one is cedeing and agreeing to the possible end results of war. ==My (Con) Case==C1: WoT1. My opponent argues that other countries provide safe havens to terrorists. He gives analysis of weak/orrupt governments. Refer to my last speech. The two biggest regions and locations for Al Qaeda are now Yemen and the FATA region. Yemen is surrounded with drones and their government is on our side - this has stoped the movement of Al Qaeda. The FATA region borders Afghanistan. Note he dropped this in his analysis.WEIGHING: the impact here is terrorism. Al Qaeda was able to perpetrate the killings on 9/11 unhindered. This is clear due to Al Qaeda's inability to successfully strike the US homeland post-9/11. Mangitude: Basic Terrorism. In one day 3,000 people were killed in cold blood on 9/11. This is much more likely to happen again in my opponents world than mine. Probability: High. The analysis tells you that withdrawing gives the Taliban unhindered access to harboring terrorist groups within the Souther Regions right off the bat since it is mostly in Taliban hands at the moment. But, even if we do withdraw Al Qaeda has an incentive to perform more terrorism in retaliation. C2. US HegemonyC-Overview: He argues that we can only look at the impacts that deal directly with US withdrawal. And I do meet this. If yu look to the analysis I give - US withdrawal DIRECTLY impacts foreign relations with different countries and the acts of those countries. I) Iran1. My opponent tries to extend his analysis of Iran never attacking anyone. But remember thats not SPECIFICALLY the impact I was going for. But also, he dropped the argument I made that a historical analysis of Iran is skewed because new leadership under the Muslim clerics and an irrational leader has come to be. And his rrationality is seen through his belief that Europe prevents it from raining over Iran and that he believes homosexuals should be stoned to death. At that point, dont accept his analysis since its based on a huge change of variables. 2. My opponent tries to say our military is stronger anyway. But I told you the variables are MUCH different - Iran has a much stronger and unified conventional military, they have anti-aircraft weaponry and they have the protection of a possible nuclear bubble. He ignored this analysis and just says oh we can attack. WEIGHINGAt this point. Lets return to the substance of the Iran Scenario. US withdrawal from that region takes away the containment the US has on Iran at the moment. Its because of the US and Saudi presence that contains Iran. However its not actually a balance. Iran has the upperhand, especially in light of its nuclear activities. And this forces Saudi Arabia to counter-balance with proliferation and weapons buildup. And the impact is nuclear terrorism. Magnitude: think of the basic terrort analysis I give under WoT. Exacerbate those harms 100x - that is the harm of nuclear terrorism. Think of the harms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and exacerbate those due to improvements on the nuclear weapon. Probability: High. Just by the nature of more proliferation, the probability of becomes higher. Plus, adding to it the resurgence ofthe Taliban and Al Qaeda with the retalitory factor. 2) Pakistan1. He says look to his terrorism arguments. So I will answer it here - he tries to indict Rubin by saying little to no involvement is wrong so his entire study is wrong. Well first, its true - the US had little contact with the Middle East besides some stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. But second, and moreimportantly he drops the analysis that Rubin makes which says whever the US was withdrawing from the middle eastern stage terrorism escalated, not descalted. The rest he dropped. So consider it true.WEIGHING: US withdrawal gives the perceptual impression that the jihdists have won - this empowers the jhadists globally, including PAkistan. US withdrawal also destabilizes Pakistan over brink since they rely on us as a detterent. The it is nuclear terror x2. Magnitude: refer to Iran Probability. High. Destabilzied Pakistan increases the chance of these empowered jihadist groups gaining a nuclear weapon. ==His Case==1. NATO costs dont matter at this point since my framing analysis kicks it.2. Death Toll. This point is a wash. We know that a civil war will continue after we leave. This is true from my pre-invasion analysis and the geopolitical setup of Afgahnistan now. The Northern Alliance against the Taliban. And he dropped my analysis that the Taliban have mass executed Shiites simply for their beliefs. The only way he tries to garner any reason to vote for him is that the US has killed a lot of people now. Two points here: First, my analysis still holds true that 67% or higher are deaths from the Taliban. He says I dont tell you how many, but he percentage is from round 1, which he has ignored. Second, he tries to say that the values are skewed and undervalued. Well this assumes he refuted my indictment of THAT study. He hasn't he conceded the attack I made against the study - the methodology is off since the author considers insurgency deaths, civilian deaths. WASH.3. He ignored my argument that NATO presence in the Northern and Western Regions saw a decrease, not an increase. But even so, its a wash. NATO presence has done both - increased in the South and decreased in the North. 4. As I pointed out first, as long as I win that economics have increased, this point flows Con. Extend the JPMorgan investment and NATO overseeing of mineral operations which was not done under the Taliban. 5. Karzai. His only argument was that I didnt warrant Taliban takeover. Refer to analysis at top.6. Terrorism. Refeo Rubin analysis. THE IMPORTANT PART OF RUBIN - not LF's straman of Rubin.At best my opponents arguments are a wash. Compare these to my weighing analysis.