The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
PublicForumG-d
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

34. The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,407 times Debate No: 4661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

In today's case, I will prove the resolution, The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, true behind any reasonable doubt. The judges for this debate are Luke Cumbee, Dorian Walker, and Matt McGirr.

This debate may be forfeited by myself, as I leave for camp on the day that PFG gets back from vacation, Sunday.

Let's start off this debate with key definitions, all from dictionary.com:

SHOULD- must; ought to

ADOPT- to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent (In this case, to use a timetable by the United States)

TIMETABLE- any schedule or plan designating the times at or within which certain things occur or are scheduled to occur

WITHDRAWL- (Noun form of WITHDRAW-) to draw back, away, or aside; take back; remove (In simpler terms, it means to remove U.S. troops from Iraq.)

I will now move onto my contentions and show you why the United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

CONTENTION I: The cost.

Ah yes, the state of the economy right now. Most all economists agree that the United States is indeed in a recession. Some fear worse than a recession, a possible depression. Reasons for this could be the collapse of the housing market and rising oil prices. However, one major factor often is overlooked, that is, the War in Iraq. The War has cost the U.S. over $500 Billion. The War approximately costs $341.4 million per day (http://www.nationalpriorities.org...). Just think of what we could accomplish with this money: dramatically improve our schools, curb high gas prices, fight global warming, provide grants for the advancement of science… the list goes on. We could also kick-start the fallen economy, get the stock market back up, get business going again, and prevent that feared depression.

CONTENTION II: The initial invade was under false pretences.

Before the war started, the Bush Administration claimed that Iraq was a ‘threat to world peace,' that they had ‘weapons of mass destruction,' and that they are able to produce ‘mushroom clouds.' Now we know that these statements are completely false. First off, the so-called ‘threats to world peace,' if there were any, were al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But wait: both of these terrorist organizations are from Afghanistan. So, why are U.S. troops stationed in Iraq? That is the question that baffles me. Right now, we're not fighting the War on Terror, we're fighting the war on innocent civilians.
Let's look again at the aforementioned reasons. The main reason the Bush Administration claimed that the war was necessary was because of W.M.D.'s. During the extensive search of 18 months, no weapons of mass destruction were found (http://www.cnn.com...).
At this point, myself, as well as 7 in 10 Americans (http://findarticles.com...), are asking the question, why is the U.S. in Iraq? What logical reason remains? Here, I say none.

CONTENTION III: Deaths.

About 4,118 Americans are dead as a result of the war, and over 30,000 are wounded (http://icasualties.org...). According to the Iraqi body count, about 90,000 Iraqis are dead (http://www.iraqbodycount.org...). Some even say those numbers are low (http://ipsnews.net...).
This is where PRO wins the debate. There is nothing more sacred than human life. This war is completely unjust. What kind of country have we become where we have to send 4,000 of our American heroes to their death, and take down 25 times that of Iraqis? I have a relative that is fighting in this war, and I can see how truly traumatizing it would be to get a call from a fellow soldier. THAT is unjustified.

CONTENTION IV: Opinion.

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans, as I have stated, have a negative opinion about the war. I realize we are discussing whether we should or should not adopt a timetable, but one argument is often misinterpreted. Many people on the CON side say that Iraqis love what Americans are doing. However, this is not nearly the case. Nearly 7 in 10 IRAQIS want the U.S. out (http://rawstory.com...). That same amount also believe that the surge has failed, and that they are less safe (http://news.bbc.co.uk...).

Recently, Iraq has raised, and insisted upon, the idea of a timetable withdrawal (http://news.yahoo.com...). If Iraqis don't even want us to be there, whom are we exactly fighting this war for?

With all these reasons combined, I must urge you to vote PRO. These factors combine for all the more reason to adopt a timetable in order to successfully remove American troops from the country of Iraq. Thank you, I now patiently await PublicForumG-d's response.
PublicForumG-d

Con

I negate.

Observation 1: That the resolution is in the present tense ("should adopt"), which means that my opponent must prove why the US should adopt his plan *right now*. Saying that an action must be taken first, THEN withdrawing is a negation of the resolution.

I accept my opponent's definition of should and adopt. I oppose the definition for "timetable for withdrawal from Iraq". My opponent defined this in piecemeal, and then put it back together. I, however, believe this definition is incomplete, and does not capture the intent of the term as it is used in the military community. The distinction is small but key.

My definition is better because it comes from a number of sources (comments) that give contextual meanings:

"A plan to which only entails the removal of troops from Iraq."

I negate this idea on the idea that a Soft Partition is a superior plan.

Contention 1: Soft Partition is an inevitability.

Galbraith, Peter W. [Former U.S. Ambassador]. "THE CASE FOR DIVIDING IRAQ."
Time. November 13, 2006. Vol. 168, Issue 20.

The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened. The Kurds, a non-Arab people who live in the country's north, enjoy the independence they long dreamed about. The Iraqi flag does not fly in Kurdistan, which has a democratically elected government and its own army. In southern Iraq, Shi'ite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias that now number in the tens of thousands to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule. To the west, Iraq's Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, with Islamic insurgents controlling Anbar province while Baathists and Islamic radicals operate barely below the surface in Salahaddin and Nineveh. And Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now partitioned between the Shi'ite east and the Sunni west.

Contention 2: If the USG does not implement a soft partition, there will be over 1,000,000 civilian dead.

The Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "The Case for Soft Partition in Iraq." Analysis Paper Number 12. June 2007.
http://www.brookings.edu....

While Iraq may not yet resemble Bosnia in 1995 in which ethnic separation had
progressed to the point where fairly clear regional borders could be established, it is well beyond the Bosnia of 1992 when the separation was just beginning. Moreover, while Bosnia eventually wound up as a reasonably stable federation, as many as 200,000 may have lost their lives before that settlement. A comparable per capita casualty toll in Iraq would imply one million dead. It should be the goal of policymakers to avoid such a calamity by trying to manage the ethnic relocation process, if it becomes unstoppable, rather than allow terrorists and militias to use violence to drive this process to its grim, logical conclusion.

Contention 3: The United States has a moral obligation to stop the ethnic cleansing - something which simply leaving ("timetable") does not solve.

Larry Diamond, James Dobbins, Chaim Kaufmann, Leslie H. Gelb, and Stephen Biddle. "What to do in Iraq: A Roundtable." Foreign Affairs. July/August 2006. http://www.foreignaffairs.org...-
chaim-kaufmann-leslie-h-gelb-stephen-biddle/what-to-do-in-iraq-a-roundtable.html

In any case, it is beyond the power of any Iraqi government to stop the violence between the communities if they are not separated first. Although the main Shiite militias are controlled by factions within the uia, they do not answer to it or to one another. The most active death squads seem to be those of the Badr Brigades, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which controls the Interior Ministry. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has also killed many people. As a result, Iraq is breaking up into communal cantons. As they become unsafe, mixed towns and urban neighborhoods are becoming segregated. No one knows how far this process has
gone already; some reports suggest that many towns have already become monoethnic.

Shiite and Sunni militias have been inundated by new volunteers, and new independent neighborhood militias are forming, too. Free movement between Sunni and Shiite areas will be increasingly curtailed by checkpoints manned by militias, if not by government forces, as is already happening within and around Baghdad. Iraq will eventually develop internal communal borders with a few heavily guarded crossing points. Since the ethnic makeup of Baghdad is far too complex for the city to be divided into just two parts, some of its neighborhoods will become isolated enclaves surrounded by barbed wire. This ugly solution has worked before: in Jerusalem, Mount Scopus was a Jewish island
from 1948 to 1967. Any such partition of Iraq would likely be de facto, because many Shiite leaders still hope that a unified country can emerge, and no regime in the Middle East would tolerate formal independence for the Kurds.

In the meantime, the United States will remain the strongest military force in Iraq. As such, it will have one remaining duty: the moral obligation to minimize the damage, human and otherwise, caused by ethnic cleansing. This is also a U.S. national security interest: the U.S. government is - and will continue to be - blamed by most of the world for all of the harm that befalls the people of Iraq. The shorter that bill of indictment, the better.

===============
Refutation
===============

Contention 1 - Cost. I agree - cost is an issue. But I should win this point because Soft Partition is one of the fastest solutions to leaving Iraq, and allows the Iraqis to begin self government (leading to an eventual removal of troops) by as early as 2010. This is - by any account - an excellent schedule. And when considering how long it will take to set up a government in Iraq that is stable (I assume that my opponent isn't advocating we just leave them screwed over with no govermnet), Soft Partition may actually work FASTER than just leaving.

Why? It solves the problems in Iraq. It removes the sectarian fighting that plagues the region and promotes a peaceful solution, rather than simply treating the "symptoms" (just leaving).

Contention 2 - Pretenses. This furthers my argument about a moral obligation; we screwed their sovereign country over, and now they are powerless (see my evidence) to remedy their situation. We MUST fix the situation before leaving, which is a negative position.

Contention 3 - Deaths. This also furthers my argument; soft partition solves the main catalyst to violence, reducing the number of troop deaths. As for civilian deaths; my evidence has already shown that without a Soft Partition, there may be as many as 1,000,000 civilian deaths. So my side solves the affirmative's issue, making this a Con point.

Contention 4 - Opinion. My opponent is correct in saying the Iraqis want the US out. What he neglects to mention is that they also explain how.

ABC NEWS/USA TODAY/BBC/ARD POLL – IRAQ: WHERE THINGS STAND
Monday, March 19, 2007. "Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss Marks a National Survey of Iraq"

"Over 98.7 percent of Kurds voted in a nonbinding referendum for independence synonymous with soft partition divisions. 85.3 percent of Shiites and 56.9 percent of Sunnis voted similarly."

The Iraqis voted in 2007 in favor of a soft partition. So I agree with my opponent; lets listen to the Iraqis! In percentages greater than have elected any president in the history of the United States, they've spoken; soft partition Iraq.

So as for voters:

I outweigh my opponent's entire case on the fact that we have a moral obligation to implement soft partition as the only capable military force in Iraq. If we don't, we risk over a million civilian dead. But beyond that, my plan is well backed and solves all of my opponent's contentions. Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

DEFINITIONS: Okay, I accept. Although, my opponent dooms himself. A timetable is not an immediate withdrawal: it sets up dates where a certain number of troops can leave. Therefore, the ‘Counter-plan' is stopped at the start. WE CAN DO BOTH. First we can soft partition, then leave.
SOFT PARTITION:

First off, most Iraqis want their country to remain unified. (http://www.csmonitor.com...)

"Moreover, in poll after poll, a majority of Iraqis has indicated that they wish the country to remain unified. For example, the International Republican Institute reported in July 2006 that 66 percent of Iraqis opposed segregation by ethnicity or sect."

Also, the U.S. is causing more problems. The reason most terrorists are terrorists is because they hate a person, cause, or group (in this case the United States). If U.S. troops killed one of the 80,000 civilians, and that person was in your family, you probably would seek revenge. (http://balancedpolitics.org...)
"Much of the Muslim world resents the presence of American troops, and it is an easy source of terrorist recruitment and anti-American propaganda. The lifeblood of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is propaganda. To ensure successful continuance of their war, they must replenish their losses with a steady stream of new recruits. They also must be able to manipulate the press and weak politicians. In short, they must make themselves look like "freedom fighters". As long as American troops are in Iraq, all they have to do is put together videos showing soldiers in Muslim lands, as well as videos of Iraqi civilians suffering in hospitals. It won't matter to Al Jazeera & other biased media "reporters" that almost all civilian deaths in Iraq are a result of the terrorist insurgent actions, the Americans will still get blamed. And a new generation of terrorists and America haters will continue to grow."
Therefore, by leaving, we solve the Sunni- Shiite- Kurdish conflict.
Finally, soft partition is immoral. This completely contradicts American values. We had ethnic separation, and look how that turned out. We should not prevent conflict by separating people: we should be trying to meld every person in the middle east into one big community.

CON #1 says soft partition is inevitable. That is a highly abusive argument. If it is inevitable, I have no ground to argue. It's like saying my shirt is white. It obviously is, and it's not arguable. Also that carries no weight. The fact that it is inevitable does not change whether it is good or not. Throw this card out.
CON #2 says 1 million would be dead. This card has no warrant. It simply makes a comparison to a Bosnia situation and throws an Iraq opinion in there. Also, as I said, much of the hate is ignited by Americans: something that can be solved.
CON #3 says that we have a moral obligation to help. I agree. But the way we do that is to leave Iraq. Once again please cross-apply the argument about how we are causing the problem. If we really want to prevent this conflict, we send aid to the UN to keep the peace or something of the like.
MY CASE: Cost- This is obviously a win for PRO. The cost of the war is costing the U.S. over $500 Billion. Bringing our troops home will free up billions of dollars that can be used to fix our economy, help decrease crime, and educate our children. THAT'S what we should be focusing on. Using a soft partition would possibly cost MORE, albeit making it go quicker, but it would take a lot of time and effort to do.
Pretenses- My opponent again links it back to soft partition. Cross- apply my argument to the ‘Americans causing' and the ‘opinion' arguments to this one.
Deaths- my opponent concedes my case. Building a soft partition would lead to a LOT more deaths of Americans. Many Iraqis won't want to move and they will get mad at the U.S. They could go as far as to kill them. Again, that's why this war is immoral. We must keep our troops from dying. As for Iraqis, we've already killed 80,000 of them. I negated my opponent's argument about the 1 million dying. The best thing we could do is to just back away and let them live their lives.
Opinion- I DID answer this. Look at the first card. CSM says most Iraqis favor a unified country. 66% of the OVERALL population, not just specific groups, want a unified country. We should look at what the population wants, not just what individual ethnic groups wants. My evidence is superior.
Thank you.
PublicForumG-d

Con

//DEFINITIONS: Okay, I accept//

I'd like to remind the judges that my definition of Timetable was:

"A plan to which only entails the removal of troops from Iraq."

and that I included this (unchallenged) observation:

"Observation 1: That the resolution is in the present tense ("should adopt"), which means that my opponent must prove why the US should adopt his plan *right now*. Saying that an action must be taken first, THEN withdrawing is a negation of the resolution."

So my opponent's claim of "WE CAN DO BOTH." is negated immediately, based on my warranted definition and unchallenged observation.

==Re: Iraqi Opinion==
My opponent tries to disprove my argument by saying that the Iraqis do not want a soft partition. I note that his article is dated in 2006. Mine is dated in 2007 - a more recent, and more accurate picture. This is critical, because Iraqi leaders and citizens are beginning to recognize soft partition as the only viable option.

But all of this pales in the face that Iraqi citizens ARE moving - look for yourself at how separated the religious populations of Iraq are:

globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/iraq-ethnic-map2.jpg

So the Iraqis are making their opinions known with their mouths - by voting - and with their feet - by leaving. For reference, the Sunni, Shia and Kurd are the three main groups in Iraq, and comprise more than 95% of the population. It is about them who we are debating.

==Re: US Causes the Problem==

I agree that to a degree that US presence is an issue in Iraq - but I do not think my opponent is taking the ignorant position to say that the ONLY problem in Iraq the fact that the US is there. Surely he is not saying that the religious differences that plague the region are no problem.

The problem in Iraq right now is not the U.S. presence; its the sectarian violence that plagues the region. Ethnic cleansing is EVERYWHERE. It plagues every region, and is a constant and violent problem.

Joseph Biden. "The Way Forward in Iraq" May 1, 2007. biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=254933

Some will ask whether this plan will lead to sectarian cleansing. The answer is that it's already happening. According to the Iraqi government, 90,000 people have fled their homes since the February bombing of the Samarra mosque for fear of sectarian reprisals. That's a rate of more than a 1,000 people a day. This does not include the tens of thousands of educated Iraqis from the middle class who have left the country. We must build in protections to prevent more cleansing and to improve security in the big cities, which the Administration has failed to achieve. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely-populated areas with mixed populations would receiveboth multi-sectarian and international police protection. A global political settlement won't end the Sunni insurgency, but it should help to undermine it. The Zarqawi network would no longer have the sectarian card to play. Sunni Nationalists and neo-Baathists would still be unhappy but they would be easier
to contain.

===

Joseph, Edward P. and O'Hanlon, Michael E. "Soft partition much better than sectarian genocide" The Washington Times. January 8, 2007. COMMENTARY; Pg. A16. Lexis Nexis.

We must not wait for slaughter in Iraq to reach the exhaustion point before finally confronting the reality of mass ethnic movements. Facilitating ethnic movement is not risk free. But it may soon become the only option before condemning Iraq to years of Bosnia-like fratricidal violence.

=====

What's going on in Iraq is a genocidal, ethnic, religion-based slaughter. It is displacing families, causing deaths, and is the primary cause of problems in Iraq. Iraq is not some unified state that is unifiably hating the US - rather, it is a congregation of ethnic groups who were unwillingly put together by British colonialists, and now the impossibility of their "unity" is coming out, as per the US Ambassador to Iraq.

====

"Forced unity will continue to fail in Iraq" Galbraith, Peter W. [Former U.S. Ambassador]. Time. November 13, 2006. Vol. 168, Issue 20.

A U.S. effort to put Iraq back together would involve endless micromanagement of Iraqi affairs and an open-ended presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. Breaking up Iraq, on the other hand, could provide an exit strategy for U.S. troops, mitigate the worst effects of civil war and give all Iraqis a greater stake in shaping their future. Few Americans imagined that 3 1/2 years after "liberating" Iraq, the U.S. would be presiding over the country's demise.

But in a war in which there have never been good options, partition is the best we have left. Iraq has never been a voluntary union of its peoples. Winston Churchill, as Britain's Colonial Secretary, created Iraq from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire in 1921, installing a Sunni Arab King to rule over the Shi'ite majority and a rebellious Kurdish minority. CHURCHILL LATER DESCRIBED IRAQ'S FORCED UNITY AS ONE OF HIS BIGGEST MISTAKES. In 2003 the U.S. not only unseated the last and most brutal of Iraq's tyrants but also destroyed the institutions--notably the army and the Baath Party--that held Iraq together. The sectarian slaughter that followed the Feb. 22 bombing of the Shi'ite
Golden Mosque in Samarra accelerated Iraq's disintegration.

--------
So to sum this up for you - the problem in Iraq is that there is sectarian violence, motivated PRIMARILY by these starkly different religious and cultural people's being forced to constantly rub shoulders. US presence is admittedly a factor; but it is not the primary factor, and it is completely eliminated by the Soft Partition.
--------

Now to discuss the remaining issues:

My opponent contends that Soft Partition is immoral. He then compares it to US segregation. What he does not realize is that this is not analogous at all. The British threw a bunch of different ethnic groups (who HATE each other) together. It wasn't like the US situation at all.

===Re: Soft Partition Inevitable===
My opponent contends that my contention is abusive. He is incorrect because he could argue that the US must make efforts to prevent it, or that the US should try to mitigate its effects. OR he could possibly even just say that we should leave anyway. My advocacy is that the US should SUPPORT it; he can argue against that all he wants. One reason to support it, however, is that it is naturally going to happen, but violently; so we may as well try to facilitate it peaceably. This is why this article holds weight, and should be considered as a Neg point.

===Re: 1 Million Dead===
I gave you an expert opinion from the The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, who said that similar situations dictate that it is a reasonable estimate to fear over 1,000,000 dead. My opponent just says "There's no proof" but gives no reason to disbelieve this expert, nor why it is not a comparable situation.

===Re: Morality===
The fact that I have proven that the best method for leaving Iraq is Soft Partition, combined with the fact that NOT Soft Partitioning may lead to 1,000,000 civilian dead, means I win this point. My opponent's refutation is that the US is the problem, and leaving fixes that. However, I disproved this by showing it was not the primary problem, nor the driving force of violence in Iraq.

===Re: Cost===
My opponent admits that a soft partition is one of the fasted viable options for leaving Iraq "albeit making it go quicker". He says it will cost more, but provides no explanation for this, as the main cost factor is TIME. We decrease time, and therefore cost.

So to sum this round up, my opponent has the idea that the US is the only problem in Iraq. I've disproved that. From there, his entire framework falls. I've shown how Soft Partition is the best idea, and is superior to a timetable. I answer all of his contentions. Vote Neg
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

PFG makes one big mistake in his last round: he massively undercuts the ‘perm'/ Framework. This is a much bigger argument than he thought.
I am still advocating the resolution, or plan, but you should vote on the perm.
1.Extend my non-mutually exclusive argument. This is the only thing he argued. He argues that the resolution is written in present-tense. True, the word ‘SHOULD' is. But what he fails to recognize is his OWN DEFINITION of ‘timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.' A timetable is a set of dates. That is NOT an immediate withdrawal. Therefore, the plan and the counterplan are not mutually exclusive. For example- June 1st, 2009 could be A. Have all troops out B. Have half troops out C. Fully implement the soft partition, etc. The perm is this: implement the soft partition, then leave, both at set dates.
2.The perm captures all the benefits of soft partition. Since we can do both, we can solve all of CON's advantages as well as my R1 advantages.
3.You must vote for PRO in this debate. I concluded that the counterplan is not mutually exclusive, and therefore both can be done. There is no benefit from doing the soft partition by itself, so there is no reason to vote CON. By voting PRO, we get double-solvency, or solve the problems much better.
At this point, there is nowhere to vote but PRO. Thanks to PFG and the judges.
PublicForumG-d

Con

My opponent's final speech was very brief. He only touched on the "Let's do both" concept, so I will begin with that, and then do a quick overview of why I should win the main voting issues in the round.

=========Re: Do Both=============

First, I'd like to point out my opponent accepted my definitions in his R2 speech. I pointed this out in my R2. He even argued from this standpoint by trying to attack soft partition. If he wanted to do both, and was not simply making a last ditch attempt in R3, then why would he attack soft partition?

***************************
//DEFINITIONS: Okay, I accept//

I'd like to remind the judges that my definition of Timetable was:

"A plan to which only entails the removal of troops from Iraq."

and that I included this (unchallenged) observation:

"Observation 1: That the resolution is in the present tense ("should adopt"), which means that my opponent must prove why the US should adopt his plan *right now*. Saying that an action must be taken first, THEN withdrawing is a negation of the resolution."
**************************

However, my opponent has decided to change his advocacy now, to attack the definitions he once accepted, and to finally challenge my observation.

Going back to my R1, I challenged his definition of Timetable based on the fact that it was a "piecemeal" definition, and did not capture the true intent of the word.

For example, if I defined "time" and I defined "table", and combined the two, do I get the meaning of timetable? No. You need to know the context in which the word was used to fully understand the meaning. The community using the term is as much a part of the definition as the dictionary portion.

For this reason, I said that my opponent's definition was lacking. The manner in which the word "timetable" is used in the military community is the manner in which I presented; simply leaving Iraq. Hopefully leaving it without terrorism - but all a "timetable" entails is a scheduling for troop withdrawal. That's why "soft partition" gets a separate name. They don't say "timetable with a soft partitioned government" - they say "timetable" OR "soft partitioned government". You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

So, to sum this up, I've provided a good, contextual definition with sources, which was accepted - in words and in the way he advocated his debate - and only now is being rejected. But I have proven that you should still accept my definition nonetheless.

Going from there, my definition of timetable completely excludes the possibility of doing a soft partition AND a timetable. A soft partition For this reason, my opponent's only remaining contention falls.

=============================

Remaining contentions

=============================

Cost
--------
The main factor in cost is the time we're spending in Iraq (ie, paying for more supplies, armor, munitions and weaponry, bombers, fortifications, etc)

I decrease cost by (even according to my opponent) being extremely quick. Hence, I win cost. Vote Con

One Million Dead
-----------------------

I provided you an expert who took a similar situation and cross applied the logic to predict that civilian casaulties would total over 1,000,000 dead if we didn't implement soft partition. My opponent says that the author has no proof. My answer is that the author took an analogous situation, and cross applied the logic.

For example, if my brother touches a stove and burns his hand, when my sister goes to touch the stove...well I can warn her.

And this isn't Joe Blow speaking - its an expert giving the official opinion of The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, an expert who is also a United States Senator. So the expert opinion combined with the logical analysis he provided, means I win this point.

Morality
---------------------

This ties into my previous argument - we decimated their government and now, as per my evidence, they are just that; decimated. They can't regulate the ethnosectarian genocide that's going on in the country, and so they need our help to soft partition it. We have a moral obligation to do it.

I will tie three of my opponent's other arguments in here; "false pretenses" first applies. I agreed to this contention, and turned it in my r1. We invaded on false pretenses, so we have an obligation to do what's best for them. As per my evidence, it's a soft partition.

The other argument is "against American ideals". He tries to make it sound like I'm a racist - but I pointed out that these aren't people trying to reconcile, and they're not being segregated; Winston Churchhill and the British threw these incompatable people together and now they're saying "ENOUGH!". In the polls, they've begged for it. Its not comparable to the U.S. situation at all.

The final argument is deaths. I've proved that as for civilians, soft partitioning prevents as much as one million deaths. As for soldiers; as I said before, you solve the main thing causing violence; angry religious groups being thrown together and forced to interact.

Imagine a hasidic Jew, fundamentalist Christian, and fundamentalist Muslim all thrown into a tiny room, held there by a foreign force. Now imagine all three of them were extremely angry at each other personally (Ie, outside of the religious doctrines). That's the situation now. Yes, they are mad at the US for forcing them to remain together, but they're more mad at each other, over perceived religious and personal differences. That's the problem. When we partition, we solve BOTH of the problems.

Hence, vote NEG.

Partition inevitable
-------------------------

Soft Partition is beginning to happen, and violently. Its fairly certain to say its inevitable as per my evidence. However: The point in saying this is that the US should FACILITATE the partition. This will stop it from happening violently, and simply just happen.

This isn't abusive because my opponent could argue the US shouldn't encourage it. My advocacy is ENCOURAGING/FACILITATING the Soft Partition. He simply has to argue against the encouragement.

Iraqi's Voted
--------------------------

We have conflicting evidence here. So lets look to the factor making mine better; recency. My evidence is over a year more recent. He tries to respond to this criticism by saying only the Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd populations are covered. The other groups in the BBC poll voted similarly (same source, see r1) , but I didn't mention them because they are so minute. The main 3 ethnic groups that exist are the ones I listed; it is they who are fighting and they who need to be solved for. They comprise over 95% of the Iraqi population. Since that's his only criticism of my evidence, I should win this point.

Overall, I feel I've turned every specific point, and then destroyed his idea that we can "Do Both". I'd also like to reiterate that my opponent argued AGAINST soft partition and only in r3 decided to change tact. I don't think this is very fair, and it means that there isn't a stable advocacy throughout the round. Therefore, for all these reasons, please Vote NEG.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Congrats on a good debate guys. Loved both of your cases.

*just so you know, none of the other judges were voting, and you guys told me that it ways ok for me to judge. Please mention that to Luke C., ok? Thanks*

I vote: CON (PublicForumG-d)

Basically: Didn't buy "perm" framework, among others.

My full RFD is on Facebook.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Sources for definitions

http://www.iht.com...
Legislation that uses my definition

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Senatorial plea for withdrawal, using my definition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Dated TODAY - also uses my definition.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Lakeville votebomb
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by i-only-want-to-vote-lol 9 years ago
i-only-want-to-vote-lol
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 9 years ago
SoutherngentFL
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MuadDib 9 years ago
MuadDib
Pluto2493PublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30