The Instigator
LaissezFaire
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Ending the Evil Empire

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,704 times Debate No: 17060
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (77)
Votes (11)

 

LaissezFaire

Pro

Resolution: NATO should withdraw from Afghanistan, soon.

Cost to NATO: So far, there have been 1,764 private contractors killed in Afghanistan, and nearly 60,000 injured. [10] More than 2,500 NATO soldiers have died there, [11] and many more thousands have been wounded. Congress has spent $345 billion so far on Afghanistan, with $72.3 billion in 2010 alone. [12] That’s many times over the amount that would be necessary to eliminate all extreme poverty everywhere in the world. [19]

Afghani Deaths: An estimated 14,000-34,000 Afghani civilians have been killed so far in the war. [13] And the picture hasn’t been improving—2009 was the most lethal year for Afghani civilians since the initial bombings in late 2001, [14] and 2008 was the most lethal year before that. [15] Professor Marc W. Herold estimates that around 8,000 Afghans were killed directly by NATO forces, but notes that this is a “absolute minimum” and likely a “vast underestimate” because it doesn’t include dead among the tens of thousands of refugees displaced by the war, civilian victims in remote mountainous areas with little communication with the outside world, or civilians that were injured and died later due to injuries caused by NATO forces.[16] [17] [18]

Drug addiction: There are almost 1 million drug users in Afghanistan—8% of the population 15-64, twice the world average. [1] This has greatly increased during the current war, with regular opium use increasing 53% and regular heroin use increasing 140% from 2005-2009. [1]

HIV: In 2007, 61 people tested positive for HIV in Afghanistan (with 2000 more suspected cases), [2] up from only 8 in 2002. [3] It’s estimated that about half of these cases are due to intravenous drug use. [2] It doesn’t seem like much, but not many Americans had HIV in 1980 either. With the increases in IV drug use and prostitution since the invasion, it’s likely that the rate of HIV infection will continue to increase.

HDI: The Human Development Index calculates well-being with things like income, life expectancy, education, healthcare, safety, etc. According to Afghanistan’s first National Human Development report published in 2004, "As was expected, the report has painted a gloomy picture of the status of human development in the country after two decades of war and destruction. The Human Development Index (HDI) value calculated nationally puts Afghanistan at the dismal ranking of 173 out of 178 countries worldwide. Yet the HDI also presents us with a benchmark against which progress can be measured in the future." [4] One would think that, from there, there’s pretty much nowhere to go but up—but no. In the 2009 report (data from 2007), Afghanistan was placed 181st out of 182 countries (at .352), having only a slight increase in HDI from 2005-2007 (.005), compared to an average increase in HDI during that same period of .011 for ‘Low Human Development’ countries.[5] The most recent statistics (from 2010) have an HDI value of .349 for Afghanistan. [6]

Karzai Government:
“Democracy”- The most recent elections in Afghanistan were characterized by widespread violence and fraud. Voters were often intimidated into not voting (turnout for the 2009 election was only 39%), [7] and a staggering 3 million voters on the register roles did not exist. [8] After correcting for fraud, Karzai was found to have won less than 50% of the vote, prompting a runoff. But his opponent, Abdullah Abduallah, dropped out of the race, stating that the runoff would be as bad as the initial election, and Karzai was sworn into office. [9]
Liberties- Civil and political liberties in Afghanistan remain severely restricted—Afghanistan was given a ‘Not Free’ ranking by Freedomhouse, with a civil liberty score as bad as China’s. [20] Freedomhouse cited widespread human rights abuses, corruption, and a repressive legal system. [20]
Corruption- The main function of Afghani government officials seems to be to accept bribes to get out of people’s way—bribery consumes the equivalent of 23% of Afghanistan’s GDP. [21] Public sector corruption in Afghanistan is ranked 2nd worst in the world. [22]

Terrorism: While Western aggression in the Middle East isn’t the sole cause of terrorism, it’s certainly a contributing factor. Even Bush administration war criminal Paul Wolfowitz admits that, “[American] presence [in Saudi Arabia] over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.” [23] Many Afghans resent American presence in Afghanistan just as much as bin Laden and other Saudis resented American presence in Saudi Arabia—likely more, since America is fighting a war in Afghanistan, rather than just having military bases stationed there, as we did in Saudi Arabia. The 9-11 Commission Report said, “Many Americans have wondered, 'Why do they hate us?' Bin Laden andal Qaeda have answered this question. America is held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, ridiculed by al Qaeda as 'your (America's) agents,' because of America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.” [24] America’s support for the Karzai government, which is widely considered illegitimate in Afghanistan because of the corrupt and fraudulent elections, fits this perfectly. Islam is often cited as the motivation for terrorism, but political scientist Robert Pape studied every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, and found that the country with the most suicide terrorism was the non-Islamic Sri Lanka, by the Tamil Tigers, a non-religious Marxist group that invented the idea of strapping bombs to one’s chest. [25] He found that the countries that are the most radical Islamists, Iran and Sudan, commit no suicide terrorism, and that the most important element in getting someone to commit suicide terrorism was occupation by a foreign force. [25] American occupation of Afghanistan, along with the continued civilian deaths at American hands, is sure to cause hatred of America and inspire terrorism, just as American interventions in the Middle East have in the past.

Conclusion: America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost thousands of American lives in the Afghanistan war. And for what? Are we safer? There’s no reason to expect that we are—some terrorists were killed, but many could have been killed without the war (see: bin Laden). And new terrorists are replacing the ones killed, as American occupation and mass murder inspires hatred among the Afghan people. Is Afghanistan better off? By all accounts, no. Tens of thousands dead, many at American hands, many more wounded or displaced by the fighting. Well being, as measured by the Human Development Index, has stagnated among the Afghans that survived the war. The only way one would have a positive view of Afghan development is if you measured well being by the amount of heroin injections and HIV infections. The war in Afghanistan has been failure after failure, and should be ended as soon as possible.


[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://ti.me...
[3] http://bit.ly...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...
[6] http://bit.ly...
[7] http://bit.ly...
[8] http://bit.ly...
[9] http://bbc.in...
[10] http://bit.ly...
[11] http://bit.ly...
[12] http://reut.rs...
[13] http://bit.ly...
[14] http://nyti.ms...
[15] http://bit.ly...
[16] http://bit.ly...
[17] http://bit.ly...
[18] http://bit.ly...
[19] http://bit.ly...
[20] http://bit.ly...
[21] http://bit.ly...
[22] http://bit.ly...
[23] http://1.usa.gov...
[24] 9/11 Commission Report. p51.
[25] Robert Pape. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism


CiRrK

Con

HIS CASE

Cost to NATO

1. The job of soldiers is to fight in highly dangerous areas of the world. Just like policemen die in raids against criminals, NATO soldiers die in raids against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Moreover, the civilian perspective of war is much different than the military perspective of war. Also, support for the war is highest among the military, so it seems to be worthwhile to them. [1]

2. Saying we could eliminate poverty isn’t an argument. Unless affirming the resolution will result in Congress sending the exact amount of money to all 3rd world countries, you arent gaining any advantage.

3. At most a rapid-scale back would result in 15% savings, hardly enough to fix any impact from a large debt. [2]

Death Toll

1. The numbers are heavily skewed due to the nature of asymmetric warfare. For example, the use of “human shields” is a common tactic amongst terrorist and insurgency groups. These numbers dont accurately represent the true harm that has occurred because it cant adequately include the variables of Taliban asymmetric warfare. And this indicts is his study - it is important to note that the study did not control for civilians vs. insurgent-civilians, did not control for possible use of human shields and relied on self-reports in areas heavily influenced by the Taliban. [3]

2. The Taliban have been responsible for the majority of civilian deaths, not NATO. It has been proven that NATO deaths have actually decreased and Taliban civilian deaths have increased approximately 26%. Moreover, the nature of insurgency attacks, e.g. suicide bombings and the use of IEDs, result in mass casualties of civilians. 67% or higher are the direct causes of Taliban action, not NATO action. [4]

3. TURN: NATO leaving would only exacerbate Afghan casualties. It is worth noting that Afghanistan before 2001 was heavily involved in its own civil war. The Taliban, which were the Pushtuuns of Southern Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was responsible for mass civilian executions and killings before 2001. If we affirm two impacts occur: 1) Civil war would continue and 2) the Taliban would still be killing Afghans in retaliation and quest to revive power. [5]

Drug Addiction/HIV

1. Refer to pages 8 and 9 of the study. In the Northern Regions drug use has either remained the same, or perceptually decreased. In the Southern Regions drug use has increased. Now it is important to recognize that my opponent needs to link in the harms to NATO. However, the Southern Regions are the areas dominated by the remnants of the Taliban. So this isnt a reason to affirm. [6]

2. Extra-topical. How does this lead us to the conclusion that we should withdraw? Will opium use magically decrease? Remember the question is over withdrawal. Unless he can prove drug use would decrease, it is extra-topical.

3. This applies to AIDS since its due to drug use

HDI

1. As long as I prove Afghanistan is improving then the point is worthless in the long run. 1) After Taliban rule, the number of children being educated has gone from 1 to 6 million. 2) ⅓ civilians now own a cellphone. 3) Annual economic growth is over 20%. 4) 6/10 civilians believe the country is going in the right direction. 5) With the help of US companies, $900 billion of untapped mineral revenue has been discovered. 6) The Chinese have already invested $3 billion for a coppermine. 7) JPMorgan has invested $50 million for a goldmine. These are just some improvements, with many more. [7]

Karzai Government

1. Analyze the alternative. Its either the US or a resurgence of the Taliban. 1) 6/10 Afghans are optimistic about US involvement. 2) The Taliban has an only 10% favoribility rating among the Afghan people. 3) The Taliban had instituted extreme Sharia law, had violated most, if not all basic human rights. 4) Thousands of Shiites had been killed by the Taliban. 5) Thousands of civilians were killed or incarcerated. [7]

Terrorism

1. Withdrawing from Afghanistan doesnt solve US occupation in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. So affirming doesnt solve for terrorism.

2. This analysis is flawed. First, on Pape - the distinction between terrorism and insurgence isnt made. Terrorism would be actually trying to attack US soil and to hurt civilians. Insurgency is when people of a homeland try to defend against intervention. Of course this is going to increase just by the nature of the Taliban calling for assistance by Taliban members of Taliban sympathizers. Second, on root causes. It must be noted that the US had little to no involvement in the Middle East before 9/11. Terrorists don’t want to better the livelihood of people in the Middle East. For example, people had many more rights in Egypt under Mubarak than Afghan civilians had under Taliban rule. Moreover, the US will be the enemy regardless of more or less intervention. This is true because terrorist groups need an enemy to blame regardless of truth claims or not. Analyzing past terrorist actions show that whenever the US draws back from the Middle East, terrorist actions increase against the US. E.g. the bombing of the embassies and 9/11 [8]

MY CASE

C1: Afghanistan is vital in the WOT [1]

The strongest weapon against terrorism is to ensure that terrorist organizations cannot easily collaborate or have a place of safe-haven. This was the reason Al Qaeda was able to perpetrate a massive scale terrorist attack against the U.S on 9/11. Al Qaeda had safe-haven in Afghanistan. Affirming the resolution only brings back the clock pre-9/11. Without ensuring that Afghanistan is stable, withdrawing will once again give safe-haven to Al Qaeda. Now two other impacts:

1) The US would need to reenter Afghanistan which would make the job much more difficult than it is now. We would have to reintervene because the area would be way to unstable and a hotzone for terrorism. So by affirming the resolution you are exacerbating all my opponents harms which he outlines. This turns my opponents advocacy.

2) In-case TURN. Weakening resolve for the Afghanistan war leads to higher rates of Taliban support. This is true because the Afghans would need to hedge their bets: stay with the US and be killed in retaliation once the Taliban return, or help the Taliban and be spared.

C2: Destroys US Hegemony [2]

Perceptually the US is seen as an unbeatable power on the world stage - this is one link to US Hegemony. The US has the largest GDP in the world, and has the strongest military force in the world as well. Withdrawing from Afghanistan destroys this perception, which will make the facade of apolarity and thus instability would ensue. Ill highlight a few scenarios:

1) Iran. US presence in Afghanistan has been one main reason that Iran has been contained. Withdrawing from the Middle East removes the umbrella that protects Arab nations from Iranian adventurism and hegemony. The result would be arms races in the Middle East. This impact is not far-fetched because Iran is already on their way to developing the bomb, which places Saudi Arabia at a disadvantage. Basic international relations theory tells us that Saudi Arabia would HAVE to counter-balance Iran because by not Saudi dominance (due to US help) will be non-existent. I now link in to a higher probable chance of nuclear terrorism.

2) Pakistan-India. Pakistan is already being destabilized internally by jihadist groups looking to institute their own rule in that area. This includes Al Qaeda in the FATA region, and the workings of the Pakistani-Taliban near Islamabad. Not to mention that the ISI has multiple links to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Now, the only reason India and Pakistan hasnt destroyed each other yet is the fact that the US has maintained an umbrella over them which has quelled tensions. US withdrawal from that area will spark Pakistani and Indian tensions, both of which have nuclear arsenals. And Afghanistan is critical because losing it will allow another safe-haven for jihadist groups to destabilize Pakistan.


Sources on other page


Debate Round No. 1
LaissezFaire

Pro

Cost to NATO:
1. Soldiers did volunteer for a dangerous job, and may think the risks are worth it. But the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries still count as losses, and therefore must be included when considering the total costs of the Afghanistan war.

2. It isn’t a guarantee that the U.S. would use the savings from ending the Afghanistan war to end global poverty. But if it is the case that the purpose of the war is to help the Afghani people, then surely the U.S. government would want to help other poverty-stricken peoples as well. It could even help reduce the amount of terrorism, as poorer people are much more easily recruited by terrorist organizations. Of course, if humanitarianism isn’t the point of the Afghanistan war, and the U.S. government doesn’t really care about helping people, then they probably wouldn’t use the savings to end poverty. But, then again, if that’s true, then a lot of the rest of Con’s case seems to fall apart.

3. 15% savings? How is this calculated? What is the plan of rapid withdrawal, and what is it being compared to for this calculation? This claim needs to be explained—there’s no obvious reason that the cost of the war couldn’t be cut down to 0% of what it currently is.

Death Toll:
1+2. It doesn’t matter if deaths are caused by human shields or the Taliban, rather than NATO directly. The deaths are still the result of the war—the civilians wouldn’t have been used as human shields against NATO if NATO wasn’t there, and many of the deaths caused by the Taliban are because of the intensified conflict caused by NATO, as evidenced by the increase in Taliban deaths over the past several years as fighting has increased.

3. If Con would like us to believe that NATO leaving would make the civil war in Afghanistan bloodier, he should prove it. He claims that a large military aiding one side in a conflict somehow makes the conflict less bloody. This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence—evidence that Con does not have. It is also contradicted by the fact that the conflict has gotten bloodier every year for the past several years of NATO occupation, as noted earlier.

Drugs/HIV:
Con points out that the increase in drug use came from the Taliban controlled Southern regions of Afghanistan, not the North. This actually helps prove my case—‘Taliban controlled’ doesn’t mean NATO just leaves those regions alone, it means that’s where the fighting is, as this map illustrates. [5] And while it’s obvious that drug use would decrease if it was caused by NATO forces, and then NATO left—even stopping the recent rapid increases in drug use would be a bonus.

HDI:
“As long as I can prove that Afghanistan is improving then this point is worthless in the long run.” I agree—but Con does not do this. First, some of the things Con mentions have nothing to do with American intervention—the Chinese are investing all over Latin America, Africa, and Asia in countries without American military occupation. [2] There are reports of Afghanistan’s vast mineral reserves from the Soviet occupation decades ago. [3] [4] The Pentagon released the information recently, but it isn’t actually recent information, and has nothing to do with the American occupation.

Second, while a few indicators have improved, like education and cell phone use, many others have not. GDP is a misleading figure for overall well-being—it includes things like the government paying employees who are corrupt and don’t actually help the Afghan people. That’s why metrics like the HDI are used—they estimate overall well-being, rather than show only a part of the picture. And the HDI shows that Afghanistan has not been improving (at least, over the past 6 years or so, when the statistics have been available. But, presumably, the HDI would have decreased in the part of the war before that, when the fighting was most intense and the death toll was highest.)

Karzai:
Con’s proof that withdrawal automatically means the Taliban will regain control? Nothing. This claim is also contradicted by Con’s note that only 10% of the Afghani people support the Taliban.

Terrorism:
1. Obviously Afghanistan isn’t the only place the U.S. is intervening in the Middle East. But if interventionism causes hatred and terrorism, then surely less interventionism would result in less terrorism—particularly in the area concerned, Afghanistan.

2. The claim that America “the US had little to no involvement in the Middle East before 9/11” is clearly a lie. In addition to the interventions mentioned before by Wolfowitz and the 9/11 Commission Report—military bases in the holy land and American puppet governments like Mubarak, the Saudi monarchy, etc—the US also murdered hundreds of thousands of children with the Iraqi trade sanctions during the 90s. [1] Imagine that China was the world’s sole superpower. First, they install pro-Chinese dictatorships over us and our neighbors. Of course, this is for our own good, not for our oil or for the profits of Chinese military contractors—the Chinese just want to keep our region stable and safe. Then, to keep us in our place, they kill, say, every single person in Chicago and Los Angeles (The equivalent to the death toll of the Iraqi trade sanctions adjusted for America’s larger population). Would anyone consider this “little to no involvement” if it was foreigners doing these things to us, rather than the other way around?

Con points out that Mubarak’s government wasn’t as bad as the Taliban—but this is irrelevant to Arab hatred of the U.S. People don’t not resent X doing bad things to them just because Y is doing worse things to other people. And sure, some terrorists will hate the U.S. regardless of what we do—but my point isn’t that without U.S. intervention bin Laden would have loved us and been an upstanding citizen, it’s that interventionism makes recruiting for terrorists much easier for groups like Al Qaeda. The vast majority of people whose lives aren’t affected by America don’t really care much about it—certainly not enough to die attacking it. And people who are imprisoned and tortured by American-backed dictators, or have family who are, or have family who are killed by American puppets or the Americans themselves, grow up to be much more sympathetic to terrorist groups.

WOT:
Is there some reason that Afghanistan is special, that terrorists not having a haven there means that they’ll just give up, rather than go to one of the many other countries not occupied by the United States? No.

In addition, Con provides no evidence that withdrawing leads to higher rates of Taliban support. I could just as easily say that staying leads to higher rates of Taliban support, as people displaced or harmed by NATO forces turn against us and to our enemies.

US Hegemony:
First of all, I’d like to note that this debate is solely about U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Any other U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a side issue, for a different debate. Unless Con can show that U.S. withdrawal from ONLY Afghanistan will cause any of these problems, with all other U.S. foreign policy remaining the same, these points are irrelevant.

Iran- Iran has never attacked another country in its entire history as a country. There is no evidence that they would suddenly start doing so if the U.S. left Afghanistan. What, if we leave they’ll think we’re only strong enough to bomb their country to dust, occupy them for 10 years, then leave, rather than strong enough to bomb their country to dust and occupy them forever?

Pakistan/India- See my earlier points about terrorism. If NATO presence helps terrorists recruit to fight against the U.S., then this destabilizes Pakistan and makes it more likely to fall into the control of extremists. Also my earlier point about how this debate is solely about policy in Afghanistan.

[1] http://bit.ly...
[2] http://bit.ly...
[3] http://yhoo.it...
[4] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://n.pr...
CiRrK

Con

==His Case==

Cost to NATO

1. My opponent argues that even if he grants that its their jobs and they agree with it we still need to count it as a loss. Alright, but we need to weigh losses on different levels. Just like we wouldn’t stop fighting crime because policemen die in the fight. This means that this argument should be weighed lower on the scale of argumentation, comparatively. This is true because as I’ve said its their job to do so and as such agree to the terms of warfare, which includes possible death.

2. A few things need to be cleared with this argument. First, national interests have to be weighed with humanitarian interests as well. Thus, yes fighting poverty can help combat terrorism but then those humanitarian actions would be focused in the hottest of hotzones, like say Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, which we are doing. Second, its a false dichotomy - we can care about people but still put our interests first.

Death Toll

1+2. My opponent says that it doesnt matter who’s been doing the killing, just that the killing is occurring. But before I respond to this, judges make a note: he has dropped the specific evidence which tells you that it IS true that NATO is not responsible for the majority of deaths and that his study was a flawed methodology. Onto the objection - it matters highly who is doing the killing. As I mentioned in my last speech, he needs to show how the harms indict NATO and thus gives a proactive reason to withdraw. Two points: First, seeing as he dropped the indictment of his study we can say a lot of those deaths were Taliban insurgents and/or terrorist associated. Impact TURN: this is good because it shows the efficacy of our mission and how good we are at killing terrorists. Second, Impact TURN: it is good because it shows how comparatively worse the Taliban is to the US.

3. My opponent says I have to prove that it will be bloodier. Im not making the claim it will be bloodier - im saying its going to be bloody either way. My argument is that the US withdrawing reverts to the same divide: the Northern Alliance the Taliban and associated terror groups. Refer to the argument under Karzai for impacts.

So at this point, its a double-bind: either we stay and people will die, however in the longterm stability will be brought just like Iraq or we withdraw and we go back pre-invasion which means people will be dying over a longer term and thus you arent gaining an advantage by leaving. And the impact about Taliban returning to power is likely due to the fact they still have half the Eastern Region and a majority of the Southern Region. Moreover, he tries to XA my statistic about 10% but in response XA my argument which he dropped which states that weakening resolve will force the Afgahni’s to hedge their bets - join the Taliban or die. The 10% is in light of US protection, remember that. [1]

Drugs/HIV

1. At this point its an non-issue because its extra-topical, he just asserts drug use would decrease but doesnt tell you how or why. If X amount of people are addicted now, they wont be going back soon.

2. TURN: this point helps my case because if the US stays and solidifies its prowess in the Southern Region (as is Obama’s plan for 2012-2013) we could see an improvement like in the North after NATO took control - punitive and rehabilitative mechanisms. And this warranted form his own source.

HDI

1. My opponent says the Chinese are doing it anyway. Refer to the source - China only STARTED investing after they were relatively sure the areas were secure by NATO forces. So TURN: withdrawing will probable result in uncertainty which will lead to de-investment in the area. XA to JPMorgan example. Then he tries to kick the mineral deposit arguments. Again, refer to the source - it specifically says UNTAPPED.

2. My opponent says GDP is misleading and to prefer the HDI. True, GDP can be misleading but it still gives an overall indicator as to how growth is doing within certain countries. And I would say the HDI is a flawed methodology for two reasons: (1) in developing nations the HDI is limited to only certain aspects and lack certain indicators, such as increase in life expectancy, and (2) it only indicates present markings and not future long-term gains. This is critical to Afgahnistan since it excludes gains by education.[2]

Karzai

1. He basically made the same response as the one to death toll - we dont know if the Taliban would try and take over, and they have low favoribility rating. XA above arguments.

Terrorism

1+2. My opponent makes the argument that interventionism causes terrorism and thus we shouldnt intervene. But my opponent dropped key responses I made, so at this point they are concessions. 1) Pape’s study (which is the backbone empirical support for my opponent) lumps insurgency and terrorism together. And in my last speech I pointed out insurgency by the nature of war is going to increase, but that does not mean TERRORISM increases. As I previously said terrorism would be an act of trying to attack US soil, e.g. 9/11. He ignores this argument. 2) He ignores the Rubin analysis which tells you that terrorism insofar as it is not insurgency but is actual terrorism will remain the same regardless.

He tries to make an analytical argument intervention makes it easier to recruit for terrorist groups. I have a few responses: 1) most terrorist organizations are small and highly clandestine....they dont just recruit any-old Arab who wants to join. [3] 2) Its a cost-benefit - if the US seems to be winning the war it will have a deterrent effect. And 3) The dictator argument is so outdated - we have instituted a democracy in Iraq, trying to finish a democracy in Afghanistan and are helping the Libyan rebels against Qaddafi.


==My Case==

C1: WoT

1. Why is Afghanistan special?

→ Afghanistan is unique because it is one of the only countries that would provide safe-haven for terrorists. The other options include Yemen - which we are surrounding with drones and he government has sided with the US, so thats not a great place to go and Pakistan in the FATA region, where they are now. Al Qaeda have little choice but to win in Afgahnistan.

2. No evidence people would support the Taliban.

→ Some wont like the Northern Alliance, but others will be forced to like in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan where Taliban presence is the highest.

→ And this is non-responsive. It ignores the analytical warrant in impact 2. So consider it a drop.

C2: US Hegemony

1. Ignore arguments that dont deal with Afgahnistan

→ The world isnt an isolated bubble. The following arguments deduce consequences based on geopolitical considerations. If I prove a link exists, you cant ignore it on face.

2a. Iran hasnt attacked anyone.

→ My argument doesnt say it will definitely attack anyone, but the threat is there.

→ This ignores the regime change - it is now ruled by fundamental Muslim clerics and a president who believes Europe prevents it from raining over Iran.

→ This just links to my argument - Iran is counter-balanced by Saudi and US presence. It would have been stupid for Iran to become aggressive. And now it doesnt make sense at all since as my argument points out Iran has US forced in Afghanistan which has contained its adventurism.

2b. We could bomb and occupy them

→ TURN: Withdrawing from Afghanistan reduces our geopolitical advantage over Iran so no we couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan to Iran - Iran has a much more developed conventional army, has anti-aircraft defenses and is proliferating nuclear technology.

3. Pakistan would be more destabilized if they can recruit terrorists.

→ XA my above responses on terrorism

→ This doesnt make sense since they would be fighting in Afghanistan. There wouldnt be a need to destabilize Pakistan. This argument has a distinct link - US withdrawal mobilizes these jihadist forces since it will be seen as a win against the US. THIS is what would send Pakistan over the brink.
Debate Round No. 2
LaissezFaire

Pro

NATO:
1. Soldiers do agree to fight in Afghanistan, but only because that is what the Commander in Chief is currently telling them to do. They’d also agree to come home to their families, if that’s what the government decided. A life is a life, and ending the war means fewer soldiers dying.

2. Oh, so the US government cares about helping people when it’s convenient for them, when they aren’t in the way of our interests? That doesn’t seem to really count as caring about other people. In addition, this argument is about spending the Afghanistan war money on ending all extreme poverty instead. If we were arguing about why we aren’t ending all extreme poverty now, and spending that money in Afghanistan instead, Con’s argument would be correct. But this argument is about what the government would do with that money GIVEN that we’re ending the war in Afghanistan. Accepting Con’s theory of US humanitarianism, surely in that scenario the government would spend the money on ending all extreme poverty. This would save millions of lives, and reduces terrorism because richer people are less likely to become terrorists—advancing our interests and helping others.

Death Toll:
1+2. Again, it does not matter who does the killing. If NATO occupation increases conflict, which increases the amount of people killed by the Taliban, then those deaths are caused by NATO occupation. And there’s good reasons to believe this is true—total civilian deaths have increased yearly in the past several years, exactly what would happen if I’m right and NATO does increase total conflict, and the opposite of what would happen if Con’s theory of NATO stabilizing the region was correct.

And me dropping Con’s criticism of the study doesn’t prove that “a lot” of deaths are actually Taliban deaths, it just means that some indeterminate amount is. Con provided no evidence showing that this is a large amount, or even a significant one—just reasoning suggesting that it’s SOME amount. In addition, this is countered by an earlier note about the death estimate being a vast understatement (see Death Toll R1). There’s no reason to think that Con’s indeterminate amount is larger than mine.

3. The evidence of the past 10 years suggests that NATO occupation makes Afghanistan bloodier, which Con does not contest, merely saying that it’s going to be bloody either way.

Then, Con tries to sneak in the idea that NATO occupation will bring long-term stability to Afghanistan. There’s no reason to accept his claim at face value—Con provides no reasoning or evidence to back this up. I don’t have room to rebut all of Con’s 1 line assertions with full arguments, so I’ll leave my rebuttal at “nuh-uh.” He uses N. Afghanistan as an example, but that part of the country was already against the Taliban—there’s no reason to think the US can stabilize S. Afghanistan when they haven’t gotten close in 10 years.

He also just asserts that Taliban support will increase if NATO withdraws, again with no evidence. He has reasoning this time—that people will be pressured to join without NATO protecting him, but there’s no reason to think that this is more likely than support decreasing because NATO is no longer bombing people and turning people against the U.S. and toward our enemies. Con provides no evidence backing up his assertion, and it should be discounted.

Drugs/HIV:
1. Again, I said that even if drug use doesn’t decrease, it will stop increasing, which Con drops. Since he drops this, he concedes that this will happen—extend arguments about heroin addiction and HIV infections.

2. Oh, Obama plans for NATO to take control of South Afghanistan and stabilize it? Oh, well then in that case, my plan is for withdrawal to bring peace and stability to the region. What’s that—my plan doesn’t have any arguments or evidence backing it up? What a coincidence! Con’s doesn’t either. Maybe there is evidence suggesting that Obama’s plan will work—but we’ll never know.

HDI:
1. Con states that the region will become too unstable after NATO leaves, and so the Chinese will withdraw their investments. But he offers no evidence or analysis showing that this is the case. I could just as easily say, ‘When NATO leaves, the region will become more stable due to there not being a war, and so Chinese investment will increase’—and I’ve matched Con’s level of analysis. Again, China has invested all over the world, in unstable countries, even those without NATO military occupation—see my R2 source.

2. The HDI does include the things Con mentions it not including, national income statistics, life expectancy, and education (including expected future education based on how many people are now in school). [1]] It is a far more comprehensive measure of well-being than Con’s indicators, because it includes those indicators, as well as others.

Karzai:
1. Con argues that the Taliban was worse, but fails to show that the Taliban would actually take over—choosing to merely assert it instead.

Terrorism:
1+2. It really doesn’t matter if Pape’s study doesn’t make a distinction between terrorism on U.S. soil and “insurgency” in the Middle East. Both kill people, and all lives are of equal moral worth. And I did not ignore the Rubin analysis, I showed that the assumption he makes, “the US had little to no involvement in the Middle East before 9/11”, is clearly wrong, making his conclusion that US intervention has nothing to do with terrorism flawed.

1) is simply false—any group of people anywhere in the world can call themselves ‘Al-Qaeda’ and be in Al-Qaeda, for example. There’s no membership cards or uniforms—it’s just what a bunch of completely disconnected groups with similar ideologies call themselves. Besides, anyone can just pick up a gun/bomb and be a terrorist by themselves. 2) There’s no reason to think that the war creates any sort of “deterrent effect” for terrorists—how could one deter people who are willing to die for their cause anyway?—nor does Con provide any evidence of such an effect.

WOT:
1. Afghanistan is certainly not the only country that provides safe havens to terrorists. See: any government to weak/corrupt to stop terrorists in their country, like Pakistan and much of Africa. Nor does Con provide any sort of analysis or evidence about the benefits of removing Afghanistan as a safe haven for Al-Qaeda to weigh against the costs.
2. See earlier response on Taliban support.

Hegemony:
1. Con misunderstands—we can consider global impacts, but just the impacts of withdrawing from ONLY Afghanistan.

2a. Con argues that even though Iran has never attacked anyone before, “the threat is there.” Why? Who would they attack, and for what reason? Con merely asserts that some vague threat is there. This is just empty lip service.

2b. The US military is still much stronger than Iran’s. This is off-topic—there’s no reason leaving Afghanistan would stop the US from pressuring Iran.

3. See my above response on terrorism. And again, Con merely asserts something without backing it up. I could just as easily say many terrorists will stop after “beating” the U.S., because we aren’t there for them to fight any more, which makes Pakistan’s government more stable.

Conclusion: I have shown that NATO occupation increases the total death toll, helps terrorist recruiting, and stagnated living standards.

Many of my other arguments are simply some variant of “nuh-uh,” or bare assertions about what would happen without any supporting evidence. This is because many of Con’s arguments are nothing but bare assertions without evidence—as Christopher Hitchens famously said, “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” He is just spamming arguments, trying to get me to drop one. There’s no room to respond to all of his assertions with full arguments and evidence, so I’ll dismiss them with the amount of evidence Con used. Voters should also ignore Con’s points if he tries to substantiate his claims in his R3.
CiRrK

Con


==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:

    1. 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
    2. 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: WoT

1. 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.


    1. 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.
    2. 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 Hegemony

C-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) Iran

1. 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.

WEIGHING

At 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.

    1. 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.
    2. 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) Pakistan

1. 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.

    1. Magnitude: refer to Iran
    2. 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.





Debate Round No. 3
77 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
No no, not support. We still supported them, but plans for troop withdrawal and also for support of a 2 state system.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
We were going to stop supporting the Saudi dictatorship? I don't remember that happening.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
And for clarification, since ive been asked. The Rubin evidence, when I said "draws back" that means when we were in the process of withdrawing from Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine terror escalated instead de-escalated. This is under the terrorism point.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
For new voters. My sources: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
I missed this:

"Oh and my arguments were DA's from the very beginning. In everyone I linked into nuclear terrorism. Did you miss that or something? That wasnt new analysis"

In round 1, you said "higher probable", which you have no warrant for.

In round 2, you just said "proliferating"

So you basically just say - "nuclear weapons exist in the region". Saying that nuclear weapons will be abused in the last round is a different argument.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
"He doesnt answer my consent argument. BV pointed out LF dropped it. His argument was a life is a life...but nothing else."

Right. This isn't a direct rebuttal to you consent argument. It just says your consent argument doesn't matter.

"Death Toll wasnt lip service - I outlined 3 clear warrants."

Yes it is lip service. Point to your warrants and I'll show you hot air.

"And I guess you didnt read it...Rubin had NOTHING to do with the terrorist vs insurgency"

Sorry if I don't remember evidence tags correctly. I was making a contextual inference... The Ruben card says that neither side secures advantage over international terrorism 911 type stuff. LF said he didn't care, and you can also XA his terrorist recruitment analysis (which was also just hot air from both of you).
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
"CX is much different than LD since LD all you need to do is win strength of link."

Actually in logic you need strength of link. If CX differs, it is illogical and I vote down its prevailing paradigm. I've already hinted that I think CX paradigms are bad.

:You dont need to win magnitude and probability (and maybe timeframe).

If this is true, it is a weakness of conventional LD. I think you should have to win all these things if your case logically depends on them.

My only point in bringing up LD is to give an example of a form of a debate that successfully doesn't leave weighing mechanisms to the last round, and in fact thrives on them even though the resolutions are often similar (and almost always contain "should")

:And CX doesnt mandate an outlined framework thats why its "impact analysis" and not "impacting back analysis". So your not leaving your moral analysis till the end of CX...since there is none, unless the NC runs deon alternative."

I don't care what the convention is. "Should" means moral. You can't leave it out. And if there are no morals then you can't do impact analysis because the opposition should just ask why they should care if 500,000 children die. "Its bad" "ok but this isn't moral debate" zzzzzz
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
"1) It would only make sense if it was a drop extension because if it wasnt then its just an extension without a piece of weighing to make it offense."

All your rounds are extension without weighing to make it offense. Until the last round when all of the sudden your couple of lines of about nuclear proliferation turn into holocaust land.

"Sure weighing could be done in the 2nd round but that time is better spent kicking back. It would just waste time round 2 because Rd. 3 will exist either way in this case, s it might as well be utilized. "

If both debaters have to weigh at the same time, there is no time disadvantage. Its not a waste of time because it gives debaters a chance to contest each other's weighing mechanisms. You have never rebutted that LF had NO WAY to contest your weighing strategy.

You probably didn't read what I said to Ex Nihilo (you shouldn't), but what if LF had the last word and ran a deontological weighing mechanism against you? Then you would automatically lose the debate. The long story short is that weighing arguments is itself a form of argumentation, and therefore not exempt from the "no new arguments in the last round" rule.

"You could TRY and weigh but theres no point cause the opponent can simply skip the weighing argument and just strengthen the kick or turn. "

If they drop the weighing argument then its conceded and you can just focus on the nuts and bolts. If your opponent just nitpicks you can also just claim autovictory because they have no weight-analysis.

"That would nullify the weighing. So at that point its also abusive because it majorly skews the opponent's strategy and time allocation."

Why does it skew their strategy? Just because there might be some asymmetric argumentative burdens placed on participants? So what? No matter how bad you think the alternatives are, nothing is worse than allowing new (weighing) arguments in the last round because it autobreaks the debate.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
He doesnt answer my consent argument. BV pointed out LF dropped it. His argument was a life is a life...but nothing else. Death Toll wasnt lip service - I outlined 3 clear warrants. And I guess you didnt read it...Rubin had NOTHING to do with the terrorist vs insurgency
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
strike #2 for now, u responded. Ill read it over
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 6 years ago
ohnoyoulost
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons hegemony impact was not outweighed.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: 5:2 Con. I feel that Pros impacts were mostly outweighed, although he did well on the death toll, Con showed how its a war and the benefits outweigh. Con won on U.S. heg for sure, and also won on WOT, and knocked down most of Pro's impacts. Still, Pro did great (better than I could do haha)
Vote Placed by Jason77 6 years ago
Jason77
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had by far the best arguments
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Many points had little to no actual evidence and directly contradicted each other. All else being a mess, the significant argument was the cost of $325 billion, which can be avoided. The vote is seven points as part of the tournament rules.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: the only really substantial argument I saw Pro make was on the death toll. but when Con responded by showing how skewed the numbers really where I saw reason to vote Pro. I also really love the round 2 rebuttals from both sides
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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: Pro accused Con of lying "clearly a lie." That's a conduct violation. It claims to know Con's intent. Tournament requires 7 pt. vote. Pro's case is fundamentally pacifist, that not defending oneself saves the lives that it costs to resist. That's true in the short term, but Con's arguments about long term consequences were dismissed by Pro rather argued. Arguments to Con. Despite the any sources, they were not important in the debate. Pro established was is harmful in the short run
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of Pro's arguments were based on sunk costs and offered little analysis of future benefits. Pro offered little to show that pulling out would limit deaths. Or show that the saving of lives in the here and now was an adequate goal. Con had some is/if/it mix ups that spell check wouldn't catch. Pro had moments of being patronizing, and so lost the conduct. Both had a good number of sources, as well as good sources, I felt no need to give this to one or the other.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 6 years ago
ExNihilo
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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: Pros impacts (like drug and HIV) were heavily outweighed by the broader arguments presented by Con. Con also winds Pros biggest impact, terrorism, by showing that NATO has eliminated AQ a base from which to attack the U.S. I think its easy to show qual of life is better now for Afghans, and Con had a hard time doing this, it seemed. But overall, Con outweighed and showed the impacts of withdrawal would do more harm than good.
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Commments
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
LaissezFaireCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Uber-long RFD in comments. Forgot that tournament participants have to give 7.