The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

Following my opponent's example, I will try to keep this rebuttal concise and to the point. The debate topic reads: "The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s)." In affirming the topic, it is my job to show that some amount of planning took place in a failed nation(s). On the other hand, in negating the topic my opponent must disprove it. In other words, EHS_Debate has to show that no planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in a failed nation(s). The negation makes the statement that "All NEG has to do to win is show that any part of the planning of 9/11 was outside of the United States. If I cannot show that, then AFF deserves the win." However, this is not the case. It is the burden of the negation in this debate to show that planning for 9/11 took place exclusively in nations that are not failed. What we have to see is that while part of the planning for 9/11 took place in nations such as the U.S. and Germany, parts of 9/11 were planned in failed nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan (I would like to just make the observation that according to the Fund for Peace Index both Afghanistan and Pakistan are failed nations. It hasn't been debated, I just thought it deserved mention). Now, I have shown this. My entire 1st contention describes the development of the 9/11 plot as Khalid Sheikh Muhammed formed it, and how parts of this process did take place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This part of my case went undisputed by my opponent and so remains strong. That in and of itself is enough to win the debate round for me, because that first contention described how parts of the planning process took place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addressing my 2nd contention, my opponent referred to "Weapons training and push-ups," and said they would have had no effect on the training of the 9/11 attacks. However, 2 things must be made apparent. 1) The definition of "planned" decided on for this round (as my opponent did not pose any objection to my own) is "formulated, trained for, or prepared for." This definition does not specify the type of training, nor the type of preparation. Indeed, to do so would be to narrow the scope of the word "planned" irrationally. Now then, according to this definition, even if the 5 9/11 hijackers mentioned in my case only received "weapons training and push-ups" at these al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, that does constitute training. What must be understood, though, is that training in proper use of weaponry and indoctrination into the suicide bomber mindset were necessary to carry out the 9/11 attacks. 2) In addition to this "basic" training, some of the hijackers were brought to Pakistan to be taught about Western culture and travel by Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in order to better infiltrate their destinations. This was another crucial piece of training as it enabled the hijackers to penetrate the societies they did and go unnoticed until the time was right. So, too, we see that my 2nd contention remains strong in the face of my opponent's argumentation. Looking at my opponent's case: His entire argument is that some of the planning, training and preparation for 9/11 took place in nations like the U.S., Germany and Spain. Now, that's all fine and dandy, but as has already been established he does not merely have to show that planning took place in these countries, but that, in addition, NO planning took place in failed nations. He has not done so. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote. 1] 9/11 Commission Report: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu... 2] Boston Globe Article: http://www.boston.com...