The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
KADET_4N6
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,172 times Debate No: 23979
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

CiRrK

Pro

Specifically, Resolved: The U.S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India instead of Pakistan.

Definitions

1. Geopolitics: politics relating to certain regions or geographies throughout the globe.

2. Strategy: practical assessment used to attain a goal

3. Alliance: economic, military and political cooperation

Rules

1. No semantics

2. No new arguments in the last round

3. Drops are concessions

4. Forfeits are auto-losses

*Argumentation starts Rd. 2

Good luck to my opponent!
KADET_4N6

Con

I accept and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: The U.S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India instead of Pakistan.


Foundational Info

The U.S. has played a strategic game of geopolitics with the South Asian region stretching far back as the beginning of the Cold War. The two regional powers are India and Pakistan – and they generally have divergent views on pretty much every issue pertaining to South Asian politics. The U.S. in starting the WoT understood the importance of the region and had to make a decision: support Pakistan or India. Logically, due to the nature of the issue, the U.S. chose Pakistan. However, it is time to change that.


C1: Pakistan’s ISI is rooted in Islamic fundamentalism and has ties to terror organizations

One of the major distinctions that the Pakistanis make in their decision calculus in the War on Terror is the separation of the “good” Taliban and the “bad” Taliban: the “good” being the Afghani Taliban and the “bad” being the Pakistani Taliban. This fact had come to light to the public via Wikileaks cabals that were realized which indicated that the Pakistani ISI were continuing to fund and train the Afghani Taliban in despite of the United States seeking Pakistani assistance. What seems more disturbing is the attempt by authorities to portray Pakistan as assisting us in eliminating the Taliban, however at the same time omitting the fact that this Taliban is not the Afghani Taliban, but rather the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistanis do indeed engage the Pakistani Taliban, who is located in Eastern provinces, but they do not engage the Afghani Taliban located in the Southern provinces. This is a crucial distinction in the War on Terror because, even though as will be seen further in the paper that the Pakistani Taliban does pose a threat to internal stability, the primary adversary for the United States is the Afghani Taliban. 180 Wikileaks cabals has indicated that it has been reported that leaders of the ISI have met and provided assistance to the Afghani Taliban. [1]

Matthew Waldman, a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University has published a work called The Sun in the Sky: The Relationship between Pakistani’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents. This work was based off of numerous interviews with current and formers members of the Taliban: “The author conducted semi-structured interviews…with nine insurgent field commanders…ten former senior Taliban…5 twenty-two Afghan elders, tribal leaders, politicians and analysts; and thirteen foreign diplomats, experts and security officials”. This interviewed work demonstrates clearly the relationship between the Pakistanis and the Afghani Taliban and Haqqani network. Waldman isolates numerous points of contention when evaluating the impact and extent of the relationship between the ISI and these groups. First, that the Taliban and the ISI are involved in a reciprocal relationship which has developed into a necessary synthesis of the two groups. The interviews indicate that to sustain the Afghani insurgency, the Afghani Taliban need and are dependent upon the Pakistanis for supplies, training and sanctuary. This in turn gives the Pakistanis the advantage of increased regional strength and influence. Second, that the collusion between the Pakistani government, the ISI and the Afghani Taliban are much stronger than what appears prima facie. The interviews indicate that the Pakistanis understand that the United States cannot stay in the region forever, and thus must just wait the United States out. At this point, they see their relationship with the United States as temporary. The impact of this is that the Pakistanis need only put in the minimal effort in the War on Terror. This further elucidates the seemingly double faced or contradictory nature of Pakistani policy in that it can be taken as the Pakistanis simply placating the United States for the time being. Waldman writes: “According to a Talib… President Zadari told them they were arrested because he was under a lot of pressure from the Americans and that, ‘you are our people, we are friends, and after your release we will of course support you to do your operations’”. Throughout the interview it becomes clear that the government, as indicated by top level officials, is indeed colluding with these terrorist groups. [2]


C2: Supporting India would force the Pakistani’s hand

Essentially all of Pakistani’s regional actions are a result of counter-balancing the actions of India, and visa versa. The balance of the South Asian region is fundamentally due to the actions of the U.S. – otherwise, India would have the regional advantage. This balance is something Pakistan cannot lose. According to Krauthammer the main geopolitical action that the U.S. can do to force Pakistan to uphold its WoT agreements is to strengthen our alliance with India. This is true because if we shift our aid, our diplomatic ties, our military ties then Pakistan will be at a severe disadvantage to the Pakistanis.Moreover, Pakistan relies on U.S. assistance to fight, as mentioned above, the “bad” Taliban which is internally destabilizing to the Pakistani government. Without our assistance the domestic government will be fighting alone against a complex terror network. This has led to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan to attack Pakistanis including even members of the ISI. To put this in perspective, in 2009 alone 3,021 Pakistani citizens were killed due to Islamic militant violence in the country, and the numbers keep rising as tensions increase. On November 23rd the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan had carried out an attack on a Pakistani police station which resulted in 2 casualties and 7 injuries.[3]

[1] Rooney, John. "An Inconvenient Truth: Pakistan's ISI and the Afghan Taliban."

[2] Waldman. The Sun in the Sky: The Relationship between Pakistani’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents

[3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

KADET_4N6

Con

OK, thanks for the arguments. I will concentrate on the fact that Pakistan is a more important to the United States than India.

My contentions:

1. Pakistan is an important ally in the War on the terror
While my opponent brought up the ISI and how it contributing against the US in the War on Terror, he didn't explain how Pakistan is such an important ally in the war on terror despite this rogue organization. Politicians in Pakistan are arguing that the War on Terror has cost the Pakistan economy $70 billion since 2001. (http://www.supportimrankhan.org...)
This 70 Billion dollars that Pakistan has spent already is much larger than the $20 billion we have sent in the form of aid. (http://www.reuters.com...)

Our closest ally, the United Kingdom, has contributed $30.6 billion dollars since 2001. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
So financially, this means that Pakistan is not only our closest ally in the Middle East but also our closest ally in the WORLD.
So why then, would we shift our focus to India, who refuses to help us in the war on terror? (www.atlantic-community.org/app/.../Presentation_India_PAPER.pdf)
To do such would be an unparalleled show of betrayal by our government.

2. The US alliance with Pakistan helps safeguard Pakistan's nuclear capability from terrorists.
Of the 50 Muslim-majority states in the world, Pakistan is the only which has developed nuclear weapons. Thus, it is a great target for jihadist organizations. The US influence over Pakistan helps keep Pakistan's nuclear secrets away from countries like Iran and organizations like Al-Qaeda. Keeping these weapons out of the hands of terrorists and Iran is paramount to national security concerns. Whereas India's weapons are safely guarded.

http://www.irantracker.org...
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org...

3. China is increasing its influence over Pakistan

China recognizes the importance of Pakistan, and thus is increasing it's influence on Pakistan. By shifting the geopolitical strategy to India, the result would be less cooperation from Pakistan. Whereas India would not come under the sway of China due to tensions in between the two. Therefore, a shift toward India would maintain the alliance with India only, and it is logical to say that a shift with Pakistan would preserve the alliance with both.

(http://articles.cnn.com...)

Now onto my opponents case:

C1: Pakistan's ISI is rooted in Islamic fundamentalism and has ties to terror organizations

I will not deny that the ISI supports terrorism, but he ISI is a rogue organization which operates independently of the government.
The Pakistan Spectator even stated, "Even though technically ISI is an organization funded/controlled by the state, it is a controversial, sometimes rogue organization that Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistani prime minister, once termed a "state within a state" for its tendency to operate outside of the Pakistani government's control, thus answerable neither to the leadership of the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister."

If anything, this unstable organization dictates more US involvement, not less, so a geopolitical shift away from Pakistan would be illogical and unsupportable.

C2: Supporting India would force the Pakistani's hand

I believe this contention falls because my opponent does not take into account China's increased presence in Pakistan. It can therefore be contended that Pakistan is likely to just give up playing this diplomatic game with the US and India , and instead go to China, who has shown full support of Pakistan. It would be illogical to assume that Pakistan will continue being forced by the US into change when they have an equally powerful and eager ally in China. See my third contention for information about China's increased presence as I believe it counters this contention. In the end, a China-Pakistan bloc competing with a US-India bloc is undesirable given the tensions between all the countries involved.

I look forward to your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

Remember – all drops are concessions (that includes independent warrants or evidence)

Flow/Record is gonna be weird in order:

Con C1: Pakistan as ally

My opponent argues that they are a strong war-ally and this is proven through the cost of $70 billion. However there are a few problems with this argument:

First, as indicated by my opponent’s evidence we already subsidize Pakistan with around $20B, so in essence it has only cost them $50B.

Second, Pakistan as indicated by my evidence is waging its own war on terror separate and non-advantageous for the United States. Remember, the U.S. is waging a war to dismantle the Afghani Taliban and the Haaqani Network – both of which the Pakistanis refuse to take action against.

Third, my opponent needs to make an argument about why the amount of money Pakistan spends should determine if we ally with them. Otherwise there is no impact to this argument.

Fourth, evidence TURN: my opponent’s evidence on the Pakistani Budget is advocated by the opponent to President Zadari (Kahn) who wants Pakistan to end its war-relations with the U.S.. This turns my opponent’s case because his authority is advocating de facto for the position that I am advocating.

==

My opponent argues that India has not helped in the War on Terror. However there are a few problems with this argument:

First, the United States made a tactical choice in the region to ally with Pakistan over India. Clearly India who detests Pakistan would not be as helpful knowing we chose their enemy over them.

Second, they have not categorically refused to help – they have been part of many co-counter-terror operations in the South Asian region even including operations in Afghanistan. They are part of the group known as the Joint Working Group. [1]

Third, India has increased its support after the Mumbai terror attacks. From that point India has realized its own stake in the war on terror. [1]

Fourth, TURN India in a long-run geopolitical sense is more important than Pakistan.

Tolpolar writes, India became the sixth largest bilateral donor to Afghanistan, it has pledged to spend $1.2billion on helping rebuild the country’s shattered infrastructure. Funds have been committed for education, health, power and telecommunications. There has also been money in the form of food aid and help to strengthen governance… On Pakistan’s side, there are concerns over the increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan has been a prize that Pakistan and India have fought over directly and indirectly for decades” wrote analyst Robert D Kaplan. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf openly accused Afghan President Hamid Karzai of being subservient to India.”

This is highly important because as Pakistan is devolving further into anarchy and factionism, India is continuing to expand its geopolitical power in the region. Between the two it makes most sense to favor progression rather than regression.

Pro C1: Pakistan and Terrorism

My opponent argues that the ISI is distinct from the government which means we shouldn’t hold the government accountable. However there are a few problems:

First, is evidence even indicates the government funds the entirety of the ISI – if the government really wanted to reform this organization they could easily restrict funding. However this is not the case, which makes the government complicit in the actions of the ISI.

Second, he dropped my evidence which indicates that the president of Pakistan himself has come out in support for the goals of the Afghani Taliban and released prisoners for being associated with said group.

Third, regardless of the ISI acting rouge it is still the main intelligence agency for the Pakistani government and has continuously spat in the face of people trying to aid the U.S.. As much as my opponent has faith in Pakistan, the ISI literally has the country’s government officials and military in the palm of their organizations hand. The ISI had hid Bin Laden, refuses to take necessary actions in the FATA region and both implicitly and explicitly aids the Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Con C2: Pakistani Nuclear Capability

My opponent argues that because of the U.S.-Pak relationship their nuclear weapons have been safe away from the hands of terrorists. Few problems:

First, Pakistan, regardless of a U.S. alliance will protect its nuclear arsenal from terrorists because India has a nuclear arsenal of its own (also a stronger conventional military) which would deter nuclear terror and also that as mentioned in my own evidence there are many terror groups looking to destabilize the Pakistan state, e.g. the Pak-Taliban. In both cases Pakistan has a clear incentive to protect its arsenal.

Second, terrorists can get nuclear materials from North Korea, Iran (low grade for dirty bomb) and also evacuated sites in the former U.S.S.R.

Con C3: China

My opponent argues that China is seeking a relationship with China and moving towards India would solidify this relationship. Few problems:

First, this relationship is going to occur with or without a U.S. Indian Alliance. As my opponents evidence indicates: “Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last year called Sino-Pakistani ties ‘firm as a rock,’ and his Pakistani counterpart echoed the sentiment Monday.” Thus, even if the U.S. moves away from Pakistan, a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future.

Second, TURN: this Sino-Pak relationship actually helps the U.S. WoT. Pakistan must deal with the Pak-Taliban regardless of a U.S. alliance since the very stability of Pakistan deals with this issue. However, with a Sino-Pak relationship then Pakistan will have its own obligation to China to combat jihadist groups linked to other groups within China. [2] By extension the terror networks that are intermingled on the Sino-Pak border will be dismantled.

[2] http://www.cacianalyst.org...

Pro C2: U.S.-Indian Alliance would force Pakistan’s hand

My opponent argues that since China and Pakistan are in this emerging alliance, Pakistan won’t be compelled to give into the U.S.’ demands because China will fill this spot. Moreover, he makes a very interesting argument that says a Sino-Pak and U.S.-Indian bloc will be undesirable for all parties involved.

However, TURN: if the U.S. does not counter-balance the Sino-Pak alliance with a U.S.-Indian Alliance then Chinese expansionism will be undeterred. This evidence indicates that China is vastly infringing on Indian waters in the Indian Ocean and establishing both military and commercial sites in the Indian Ocean. Chinese expansionism in the region, for the long-run, is undesirable for the U.S. because it increases Chinese competitional power against the U.S.. [3]

AND TURN: this destabilizes the region. This evidence indicates that India will be cornered without U.S. assistance which would result in clashes on the Sino-Indian and Pak-Indian borders. And as mentioned above, all of these nations have a nuclear arsenal…and put into the light of historical analysis India has not gotten along with Pakistan or China (India had major wars with both). [3]

[1] Tolpolar. War On Terrorism: What Role, if Any, Does India Play?

[2] http://www.cacianalyst.org...

[3] http://japanfocus.org...

KADET_4N6

Con

I will rebuild my Case and then attack my opponents.

Con C1: Pakistan as ally

"First, as indicated by my opponent's evidence we already subsidize Pakistan with around $20B, so in essence it has only cost them $50B."

He is trying to understate that fact. Pakistan's GDP is $204 Billion [1]. So this war has cost 25% of Pakistan's annual Gross Domestic Product, and that is a massive number for any country. In a comparable situation with the US, this percentage (25%) would be the GDP of California (our largest state) two times over[2]. This goes into my overall point which shows the sacrifice that the Pakistani people have given in the name of the War on Terror.

In addition, Pakistan has also taken huge numbers of casualties in the process. They have taken 30,452 casualties since they joined the War on Terror [3].

"Second, Pakistan as indicated by my evidence is waging its own war on terror separate and non-advantageous for the United States. Remember, the U.S. is waging a war to dismantle the Afghani Taliban and the Haaqani Network – both of which the Pakistanis refuse to take action against."

I reject this claim that Pakistan is waging it's own independent war on terror especially given the fact that they have killed 17,742 terrorists since 2001 [3]. It only took 9-10 people to plan the 9/11 attacks, they have stopped 17,000 from trying the same thing, this deserves some recognition. Plus Pakistan is working on killing the Taliban at its source, which is the Pakistani Taliban, if they fall, then the Afghan Taliban has no recruits, and will die, so for that reason the US needs to show support for the alliance with Pakistan.

They too, are fighting the same war we are, they are responsible for the capture of many terrorists. [7]

"Third, my opponent needs to make an argument about why the amount of money Pakistan spends should determine if we ally with them. Otherwise there is no impact to this argument."

My claim is that Pakistan has spent $50 billion on the War on Terror, which is $50 billion more than India [4] who as I stated is not even in the war on terror. I challenge my opponent to prove that it is.

"Fourth, evidence TURN: my opponent's evidence on the Pakistani Budget is advocated by the opponent to President Zadari (Kahn) who wants Pakistan to end its war-relations with the U.S.. This turns my opponent's case because his authority is advocating de facto for the position that I am advocating."

You are correct in stating the PRESIDENT's standpoint but you forget that in Pakistan the President is a ceremonial position much like in Germany. So his words matter little. However, the person with the power, prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has been called by the Associated Press as "A consistently strong U.S.-ally prime minister", and he was called by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a "Man of Peace" [5]

So no, the authority in Pakistan advocates for my position, not yours.

-

Then, my opponent brought up some points about India and the War on Terror:

"First, the United States made a tactical choice in the region to ally with Pakistan over India. Clearly India who detests Pakistan would not be as helpful knowing we chose their enemy over them."

So then you are advocating for an alliance with a country that chose petty international rivalries over help with the war on terror? It sounds like India would make a pretty inconsistent ally.

"Second, they have not categorically refused to help – they have been part of many co-counter-terror operations in the South Asian region even including operations in Afghanistan. They are part of the group known as the Joint Working Group.[1]"

"Third, India has increased its support after the Mumbai terror attacks. From that point India has realized its own stake in the war on terror. [1]"

The source cited in both of these attacks clearly stated that India should "reconsider its non-aligned position and join the war on terror". So both are logically fallacious as they were taken out of context in an article not parallel with the position of the citer

"Fourth, TURN India in a long-run geopolitical sense is more important than Pakistan"

My opponent stated that because India was expanding its influence over Afghanistan, that it was a more important ally geopolitically, but this is wrong as India's drive to influence Afghanistan s not related to Pakistan, but China. India is desperately trying to beat China to Afghanistan's resources, but in the end, it is unsustainable for India due to financial and political risk involved [6]. So India's "growing influence" in South Asia is nothing but an overstatement, and therefore it is not a better ally in the geopolitical sense.

PRO C1

"First, is evidence even indicates the government funds the entirety of the ISI – if the government really wanted to reform this organization they could easily restrict funding. However this is not the case, which makes the government complicit in the actions of the ISI."

Countries cannot always control their intelligence services, (I mean just look at the CIA in recent years). The fact of the matter is despite the ISI being a rogue organization in some cases, it is important in the catching of terrorists. They are responsible for capturing some of the terrorists that we could not, and by doing so have helped prevent terrorists acts against the US.[7] Just because they are having trouble with some of the more rogue aspects does not mean the US should pull f the alliance with Pakistan. As I stated in Round 2, it dictates more involvement, not less.

"The ISI had hid Bin Laden"

Source? Any proof that they actively hid Bin Laden?

His attack on Con C2

"First, Pakistan, regardless of a U.S. alliance will protect its nuclear arsenal from terrorists because India has a nuclear arsenal of its own (also a stronger conventional military) which would deter nuclear terror and also that as mentioned in my own evidence there are many terror groups looking to destabilize the Pakistan state, e.g. the Pak-Taliban. In both cases Pakistan has a clear incentive to protect its arsenal."

You contradict a previous argument..... "This is highly important because as Pakistan is devolving further into anarchy and factionism"
definition of anarchy- "Political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control"

So if government control is devolving into anarchy, then how will they protect their 90-110 nuclear weapons from terrorists?[8]

"Second, terrorists can get nuclear materials from North Korea, Iran (low grade for dirty bomb) and also evacuated sites in the former U.S.S.R"

Terrorists are not scientists, they know how to detonate a bomb, but not create one. So a fully operative Nuclear device would obviously be very enticing.
His C3 attack-

"Thus, even if the U.S. moves away from Pakistan, a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future."

It may be true that a Sino-Pak relationship is inevitable but by shifting away from Pakistan we would undermine our influence in the region and allow China to sway Pakistan, by shifting toward Pakistan, as stated before, we preserve both.

I have run out of space so I will attack Pro C2's defense next round, I will also add more to the defense of C3

[1] - https://www.cia.gov...
[2] - http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
[3] - http://www.ummid.com...
[4] - http://www.hindu.com...
[5] - http://indiatoday.intoday.in...
[6] - http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com...
[7] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] - http://www.fas.org...
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro


So my opponent ran out of space and says he will continue in his next round. However seeing as my opponent is a real-life debater himself and has already agreed to the rule, No new arguments in the last round, he cannot do so. He is allowed to use the arguments that he has extended into the 2nd round, and also he can weigh with these arguments. Last speech for purposely for that – weighing and comparative analysis. As you will notice there will be no new sources or arguments in this round. If my opponent does, he loses the conduct vote.


Con C1: Pakistan as an ally


My opponent cannot gain much ground on this argument because it comes down to simply a question of cost. He argues that since Pakistan spent X amount of money, it is clear that they are a better ally than India. This argument holds no weight since I’ve already shown that India is already part of the Joint Working Group and has been fighting the war on terror alongside the U.S. His only response to this argument is that my evidence argues that it should change its “non-aligned” position. This is a non-issue because that’s its only on-record position, but in actuality makes little difference. As my evidence indicates India is functionally active in the war on terror, and the “non-aligned” position is just a paper position.


My opponent argues further that the Pakistani’s are helping us fight these terrorists, and he substantiates this by citing casualty reports. The problem with this is that it isn’t distinguishing which terrorists they are primarily killing. As I mentioned above, my evidence indicates Pakistan is only killing terrorists in areas with the Pak-Taliban, and not Afgahni Taliban or the Haaqani Network. His response to this is that killing the Pak-Taliban prevents recruitment for the Afghani Taliban. The problem with this argument is that it’s completely false – the Afgahni Taliban are recruited from Southern Provinces in Afgahnistan…not Pakistan (that’s why its called the Afgahni Taliban). But moreover, if the Pakistanis wanted to kill the source from the Pakistani side, they would need to take out the Haaqani Network. However as my evidence indicates the ISI prevents any action from being taken against the Haaqani Network.


Pro C1: ISI and Terrorism


My opponent argues that it’s not the government’s fault if the ISI goes rouge. However, this argument responds to nothing of the warrants of the warrant, thus it is a dropped argument. I brought up that if the Pakistani government wanted to stop the ISI, then it can easily restrict it from government funding and support.


My opponent argues that the ISI has killed terrorists as well. The first issue with this is the only relevant ones are from the beginning of the WoT – a time when Pakistan did help us. But the phrase comes along: what have you done for us lately? Thus the other issue is that the only ones listed from 2009ish are terrorists from the Pak-Taliban, not the Afghani Taliba, Haaqani Network or Al Qaeda. My opponent asks for Proof that the ISI were hiding Bin Laden: first, his compound was only a few miles outside the main military city in Pakistan; second, anyone involved with the case, including now the Doctor, has been arrested and tried; third, the very reaction from the Pakistani government claiming that the U.S. violated its sovereignty for Pakistani’s lack of action shows Pak’s rage.


**1st Voter: Refer to bottom for the argument


Con C2: Nuclear Weapons


My opponent argues that if my argument is correct about anarchy and factionalism, then I link into this argument. The problem with this is that unfortunately it’s a non-unique argument since the argument tells us that Pakistan is going through this devolution regardless of U.S. aid and assistance. That being said, neither my opponent nor I gain any ground in this argument.


My opponent argues that terrorists are not scientists so they know how to create a nuclear weapon, just detonate it. This misunderstands the point of my argument. All terrorists need is nuclear material to create a small dirty bomb. My opponent is wrong about terrorists not knowing how to make bombs – they can make dirty bombs and incendiary weapons. How do you think they make suicide jackets? They don’t buy them.


India Advantage


My opponent argues that India’s involvement with Afghanistan is in response to China, not Pakistan. There’s a few problems with this: first, it misconstrues intent and unforeseen consequences. Regardless of what India is doing, the consequence of it is less Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. As my evidence indicates, Karzai and India have a much stronger relationship than Karzai and Pakistan. This consequence is that in the long-run, having a relationship with India will be much more beneficial in determining regional policy than Pakistan. But secondly, this argument links into my argument about deterring Chinese expansionism. Seeing as my opponent couldn’t get to this argument, it is dropped and conceded. Note on evidence: he makes a claim that India can’t sustain itself for economic reasons, but nowhere in the evidence he provides makes that argument.


**2nd Voter


Important Dropped Arguments


First, that a Sino-Pak relationship is beneficial for the U.S., even if the U.S. joins an alliance with India. The evidence indicates that China has a stake in the WoT due to its very volatile Sino-Pak border. This benefits the U.S. because it both Pakistan and China will need to help each other in this region.


Second, Pakistan will still need to fight the same terrorists because they are an internally destabilizing factor. Remember, my opponent says Pakistan has been doing well in the Wot, but he dropped my argument which tells you that even conceding these arguments (Con C1 and responses on Pro C1) they give no reason to vote Con because its non-unique – Pakistan has to fight in the WoT for its own survival.


Voters


The first voter as indicated at the top is the argument about the ISI and terrorism. At this point it’s been clear that an alliance with Pakistan makes no real headway for the U.S. because the ISI prevents any major action from being taken against the three main groups the U.S. is trying to combat – Afghani Taliban, Haaqani Network and Al Qaeda. And my opponent can gain no effective argument against this considering the important drop that is listed above – about Pakistan fighting the Pak-Taliban regardless of U.S. assistance


The second voter is the Indian Advantage. Since my opponent could not sufficiently answer the argument that India is needed to combat Chinese expansionism, then this is a clear reason for the U.S. to ally with India. As the evidence indicates, an Indian-U.S. alliance is necessary to prevent naval expansion and also to prevent territorial expansion is volatile areas like the Sino-Indian border. And this links into the TURN I made on my opponent which effectively counter-acts the nuclear arsenal argument – A U.S.-Indian Alliance will prevent regional destabilization in the region and thus prevent the potential for a nuclear spawned conflict between a Pak-China relationship and an alone India. (this argument went dropped as well)


Third third voter comes from Pro C2 – that a U.S. Indian alliance will force the Pakistani’s hand to take serious measures against terrorism. Since my opponent couldn’t extend his arguments into the 2nd round, it’s a functional drop and concession by my opponent. As such, my evidence indicates that Pakistan cannot afford a stronger U.S.-Indian Alliance and by necessity must give in to U.S. demands. And he already conceded the truth that a Sino-Pak relationship is inevitable, and that even China has a stake in the WoT.


*Unfortunately there are too many drops for my opponent to gain significant argument ground for a Con Vote – Vote Pro


Good debate! :D


KADET_4N6

Con

I will now demonstrate why I believe I won this debate.

First off, it is evident that my opponent did not fulfill his BOP. His two contentions circled around Pakistan, however the resolution was that the US shifts its strategy to India. Given that he did not support that a shift to India would be preferred to Pakistan and only argued about the problems with Pakistan, he essentially only has half of an argument, and doesn't fully pay attention to his own resolution. Whereas I supported clearly with sources that a shift to India is unpreferable using India's record in the war on terror, and that one with Pakistan is preferable, thus taking into account the entire resolution.

Now onto who won contention-wise starting with pro's contentions.

Pro C1: Pakistan's ISI has ties to terrorism

My opponent argues that Because Pakistan's ISI has links to terrorism, that the US should shift it's focus to India away from Pakistan, I conceded that there were indeed links but that the organization was a rogue one which operated independently of the govt. He stated that the Pakistani govt. could cut funding but when I brought up that it was indeed contributing to the alliance and helping us in the war on terror by catching terrorists he distorted the source by saying that "ones listed from 2009ish are terrorists from the Pak-Taliban, not the Afghani Taliban" despite ones of those in the source from "2009ish" (actually 2010) was Abdul Ghani Baradar, The FOUNDER of the Afghani Taliban. So he either made this statement without reading the source or consciously lied. Either way, this contention falls due to fact that it was proved that the ISI has been helping the US in the war on Terror since 2001 to the present.

Pro C2: Supporting India would force the Pakistani's hand

In response to this contention, I stated China's increased presence and that Pakistan would abandon their alliance with if the US pressured them by going to India. He conceded that part when he stated that "a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future". So he essentially changed the contention to one which stated that a US-India bloc must deter an oncoming Sino-Pak bloc, but in changing the contention like that it was never re-demonstrated how such a situation would force Pakistan to do anything, thus committing a jump in logic which means that this contention falls. Furthermore, he stated if the US did not develop a relationship with India that Pakistan and China would declare war on and nuke India, which is painfully speculative.

On to my contentions-

Con C1- Pakistan is an important ally in the War on the terror
He attacked this by saying that the amount of money that Pakistan has given to the War on Terror does not dictate whether they are truly the USA's ally, as well as state that Pakistan was waging it's own war on terror independent of the USA's. I countered that by showing a sourced list of terrorists wanted for crimes against the USA who were killed by Pakistan. I also proved that India was choosing a non-aligned position over helping the US thus proving that Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror and India is not, so clearly this contention still stands.

Con C2- The US alliance with Pakistan helps safeguard Pakistan's nuclear capability from terrorists.
He attempted to counter this by stating that Pakistan had an incentive to protect it's arsenal but contradicted himself when he stated that Pakistan was devolving into anarchy, in which Pakistan obviously could not protect its nuclear weapons. He also stated that terrorists would not try to get their hands on these weapons when they could just get materials for a "Dirty Bomb" but it can seen as obvious to anyone that terrorists would snatch at the opportunity to get any nuclear device regardless of the "quality". Since it was proved that the US needs to safeguard these weapons with an alliance, this contention still stands.

Con C3- China is increasing its influence over Pakistan
My opponent attacked this contention by stating that a US-India alliance would be necessary to counter a Sino-Pak alliance. However he utterly ignored to face my point which was that while a shift toward India would undermine the US-Pakistan alliance, a shift toward Pakistan, or if the situation remaining unchanged would preserve both due to tensions between India and China. Due to this, the contention still stands, completely unchallenged.

I would also like to reemphasize that the resolution was that "The U.S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India instead of Pakistan." My opponent, throughout the entire debate attacked Pakistan's alliance with the US but did not, in any way, demonstrate why India's alliance with the US is good. Thus, he did not fulfill the resolution.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable debate, but I must say VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Conduct - you can change my RFD for conduct to "argued with my decision and insulted my judging."

lolwin
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
I'm sorry, did I disregard your new responses in the last speech? That's what you're supposed to do with new arguments. Mullah Omar isn't dead btw, so you definitely deserve to lose the sources point cuz your source is super illegit if it says that. CirRk's evidence says China = belligerent now. You can't answer that by saying "they will only become belligerent if."

Conduct - you can change my RFD for conduct to "argued with my decision and insulted my judging."
Posted by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
Actually, it seems more and more apparent you didn't read what I said in the last round, I showed that he disregarded my source which stated Pakistan targeted and killed the founder of the Afghan Taliban in 2010, and I showed that his argument about Chinese belligerence was irrelevant by saying that this US-India and Sino-Pak showdown would only happen if we took the route of increasing the alliance with India, and showed that both alliances would be preserved if we didn't and that this showdown would never have to happen.

You also didn't take into account that he didn't fulfill his BOP. (wouldn't that violate conduct as much as "dropping arguments"?)
and the spelling points shouldn't be awarded "because you liked his sentence structure better"

I almost never argue with people's votes but I felt in this case you were being ridiculous.
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
conduct - you dropped his arguments; grammar - CirRk had more complex sentence structures, which I liked. Or amend it to - CirRk won, thus all 7 points.

I'm allowed to award my points however I see fit, no?

An accusation of bias assumes I knew who I was voting for before I read the debate. I didn't. Your assertions in regards to Pakistan being a good strategic partner were not remotely compelling and didn't actually answer the argument that Pakistan only attacks groups that threaten their own security. You made an okay nuclear argument, but it's answered back by MAD, assuming the US or India would retaliate if Pakistan let terrorists get nukes. And you don't answer his China turn; it's definitely true that China is showing increasing belligerence in the S. China Sea. Thus, any increased deterrence by allying more strongly with India is a net benefit not offered by Con. I didn't see much value in voting for you. You should have focused more on the future as well. Pakistan can't unspend the money they already spent fighting the T-i-T, so that's a hard impact to weigh against future ones.
Posted by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
*not violated
Posted by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
Bluesteel can you explain why I lost Conduct and spelling? I understand why you may have voted for the others but we both know conduct was violated and spelling on both sides was fine, I think you're a little biased.
Posted by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
lol, CiRrk, you basically just end up going for this part of the rez: "Resolved: The U.S. should shift its geopolitical strategy to create a stronger alliance with India"

the latter part of the rez ends up being pretty moot
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
What hogwash some of the votes on this debate are...
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Why did TheOrator block a valid block? Tyler's RFD isnt a sufficient RFD
Posted by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
Yeah I know now, no new args in last round. For some reason I though was a five round debate so ignore what I said about continuing into round 4
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's explication of the various challenges the status quo of US geopolitical strategy, and subsequent argument of the implications of effectuating the shift described (across his various contentions) in the resolution were ultimately overwhelming to the sum of con's proposition. While Con's second contention had the potential to be a strong point, it was ultimately insufficient to counter pro's stronger points.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BOP, being against the status quo being pro and being the instagator. I feel he did indeed have the higher quality argunments, I felt the pakistan and inda argunment convincing. (helping india would hurt pakistans terror organizations) but con did indeed refute small parts of each of the argunments. His war on terror contention was good but was not as eye opening as pros. So basically I think CiRK had better argunmentation but con prevented him from fufilling the BOP. -> tie
Vote Placed by bluesteel 4 years ago
bluesteel
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct - no dropped argument; grammar - pro had more pleasing sentence structures; args - pro's turns prove benefits to a stronger alliance with India to counterbalance China; Con doesn't do enough to outweigh with nukes and doesn't make the not mutually exclusive argument well enough; sources definitely go pro. Con didn't seem to understand the difference between the Afghan and Tehrik-i-Taliban
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter to THEORATOR
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to tyler - His RFD doesnt explain why Pro's presentation was weak nor why Con's arguments were hard to refute. (Ill vote entirely on this later) So I request TheOrator un-block my counter.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
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: Counter to Cerulean
Vote Placed by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
CiRrKKADET_4N6Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought CiRrk presentation was weak and hut him greatly. In addition, the arguments Kadet made were hard to beat.