The Instigator
twsurber
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
gavin.ogden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Modified Policy Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
twsurber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 14417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

twsurber

Con

Gav, Thanks so much for helping us test our Negative Policy harms. Poke all the holes in it that you can, I would rather get creamed here in DDO than have my team's case dismantled at a tournament. Thomas

Resolved: The United States government should substantially reduce it's military and/or police presence in Afghanistan.

We stand in negation of the resolution. Richard Holdbrooke, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government, stated that our purpose in Afghanistan was to help the Afghan people stand on their own feet. Source: USA Today 26 MAR 2009.

The negative will demonstrate the harms involved in significantly reducing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

C-1: Both al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and trainees pose a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, their allies, and interests. Members of these groups are dedicated to the principles of their cause, and will continue to carry out terrorist acts, and human degredations if they are not stopped. The U.S. is among the few nations even capable of putting a stop to and/or reducing this violence. Further, the U.S. has a responsibility to all Americans to keep them safe from said terrorist attacks. Then President Bush stated that it is better to fight them over there, than to fight them here in America.

C-2: A primary responsibility of any government is to protect the citizens under it's governance. With rogue organizations with radical ideologies such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimate government of Afghanistan is unable to address the problems and harms that these organizations pose. Both NATO & the U.N. are assisting, however, the U.S. makes up the lion's share of assistance. If the U.S. were to leave, elements of NATO and the U.N. would likely follow.

C-3: Exigence. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are not stopped, there remains the strong probablility that they will flow over into neighboring Pakistan. Pakistan is on eof the few nations in the world that possesses nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of rogue terrorists with nothing to lose, the results could be catastrophic. Efforts to keep this from happening are imperative, and U.S. presence is paramount to that end.

C-4: Human rights violations are occurring as we debate. If the U.S. forces were to leave, unimagineable atrocities are bound to occur. The entire nation will be propelled into a state of disorganized chaos. Citizens will tire of the degredations and revolt against their oppressors, but will ultimately be crushed due to lack of training and weaponry. The Afghani police assets will be unable to control the situation. The resulting carnage will be unthinkable.

C-5: An estimated 90 % of the world's opiate based illegal drugs are produced in Afghanistan. These drugs are a cancer to the world. By removing the U.S. forces, we are all but endorsing the production and sale of illegal drugs on an international scale.

Sources include: Brookings Institute Card, DOD Card, & Forensic Quarterly cards.

For these reasons, we respectfully request a negative ballot.
gavin.ogden

Pro

Thank you very much, Thomas, for bringing this very important topic to light. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution, and believe we need to bring our troops back home immediately.

I will carry the burden of proof in this debate, and I will draw from my opponent's contentions to start. This is not a clear cut case , however, my arguments are going to be based on what is right for our country at this very moment in time. Therefore, it will based on economic climate and the welfare of our troops. I will continue with those points later, but first I would like to address my opponent's contentions. I apologize in advance, if this is not the format Thomas requires, but it helps me stay organized.

C-1: Both al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and trainees pose a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, their allies, and interests. Members of these groups are dedicated to the principles of their cause, and will continue to carry out terrorist acts, and human degredations if they are not stopped. The U.S. is among the few nations even capable of putting a stop to and/or reducing this violence. Further, the U.S. has a responsibility to all Americans to keep them safe from said terrorist attacks. Then President Bush stated that it is better to fight them over there, than to fight them here in America.

While I agree that these groups do not have our best interests in mind, there is absolutely no way that we are going to stop them from attacking us while we are attacking them. The only way this would work, is to wipe them out completely, and since the majority of these groups is now in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, we are spinning our wheels in Afghanistan.

C-2: A primary responsibility of any government is to protect the citizens under it's governance. With rogue organizations with radical ideologies such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimate government of Afghanistan is unable to address the problems and harms that these organizations pose. Both NATO & the U.N. are assisting, however, the U.S. makes up the lion's share of assistance. If the U.S. were to leave, elements of NATO and the U.N. would likely follow.

I agree that the government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens, but I also believe that our troops are citizens. More troops have been killed as a direct result of this war, than the total number of civilians killed by these groups. Our government does NOT have a responsibility to other nations' well being, and frankly, we can't afford it. I will elaborate later.

C-3: Exigence. If the Taliban and al Qaeda are not stopped, there remains the strong probablility that they will flow over into neighboring Pakistan. Pakistan is on eof the few nations in the world that possesses nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of rogue terrorists with nothing to lose, the results could be catastrophic. Efforts to keep this from happening are imperative, and U.S. presence is paramount to that end.

They have already flowed into Pakistan, and Pakistan has proved to be on board with their fundamentalist objectives. I might even agree that we need to put some weight on Pakistan, but that is moot in this debate.

C-4: Human rights violations are occurring as we debate. If the U.S. forces were to leave, unimagineable atrocities are bound to occur. The entire nation will be propelled into a state of disorganized chaos. Citizens will tire of the degredations and revolt against their oppressors, but will ultimately be crushed due to lack of training and weaponry. The Afghani police assets will be unable to control the situation. The resulting carnage will be unthinkable.

I assure you that this is not the case. I agree that human rights are being violated, but I contend that we are the guilty party. What if another country were to just come and occupy the United States? No matter what their intentions were, we would want them gone. There are always two sides to a coin. These people live in a completely different culture, so what may seem horrible to us, may seem a better alternative than becoming an American colony.

C-5: An estimated 90 % of the world's opiate based illegal drugs are produced in Afghanistan. These drugs are a cancer to the world. By removing the U.S. forces, we are all but endorsing the production and sale of illegal drugs on an international scale.

Opiates are used daily in medical practices around the world. Our country has ZERO jurisdiction in respect to another county's commodities. This includes the Poppy plants of Afghanistan. Our jurisdiction ends at our borders, so if you want to fight the drug war, it must be done here. Otherwise, we become an empire, instead of a republic. We are not international police, and we are not anyone's mother or father.

My opening argument will be very quick. We cannot afford to be at war, period. How is our government paying for this war? Who is paying to rebuild these countries? Who is paying for all the weaponry? We are! The problem is, there is no money, and we are going to kill ourselves with debt. Then, we will actually be in trouble, because what is going to stop another nation(Al-quada and taliban are NOT nations) from coming in and taking what is rightfully theirs? After all, if we keep borrowing money, and have nothing to back that money with, we are basically selling off shares of our country to be liquidated when we can't pay the bill. Furthermore, we are needlessly wasting young lives that would better serve our economy right here in this country.

I guess the question is, who do we take care of first? Ourselves, or a bunch of other countries that don't necessarily like us? With that, I will pass to Thomas for what I am certain will be a thought provoking second round.
Debate Round No. 1
twsurber

Con

Thanks again to Gavin.

I will address my opponent's challenges, then address my opponent's case.

RC1 - My opponent stated that there is no way to prevent their attacks while we are attacking them. I invite the judges to recall the events of September 11, 2001. We were attacking neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban, yet we were attacked on our own soil. We will not stop them from attacking us by simply taking a reactive and quite frankly a passive approach by not attacking them. Further, if the majority of their numbers truly resided in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, our Intelligence agencies would be aware of this information and redirect our assets to those locations.

RC2 - Our troops are among the bravest of our citizens, yet the military is comprised of members who voluntarily accepted employment knowing in advance the risks associated with such a career choice. I speak from experience having served 20 plus years in the U.S. Army, including Operations Desert Shield & Desert Storm. As I stated, Afghanistan is unable to defend itself, and requested assistance from Karzai. Why did we not refuse the request and leave? Friends help friends in time of need.

RC3 - The substance of this premise was missed. We want to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Left unchecked, this would open a door of catastrophic mischief for terrorists groups.

RC4 - While there is always unfortunate collateral damage in any conflict, if we were not there at the behest of the Afghan government, perhaps we would withdraw. We are not in Afghanistan to make it an American colony, we are there to eliminate terrorists, and make it safer for both Afghan citizens, and ultimately American citizens.

RC5 - American pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer produce sufficient quantities of lab tested and FDA approved opiate based medicines. Unfortunately, self serving elements within Afghanistan attempt to send illegal drugs to the U.S. with an ulterior motiff of harming our citizens. Similar international crime occurs from Russia, Mexico, and South American countries just to name a few. Our government is attempting to protect our citizens by taking necessary actions to thwart the import of these poisons to our citizens.

OPPONENT's CASE
We are paying for this war with tax revenues. Every nation has debt, yet no nation owns the U.S. We are, and we remain a sovereign nation. The war also generates revenues which go back into the GDP. Military and private companies make and spend money. This creates the need for goods and services.

To quote Zig Ziglar, We get the things we want by helping enough other people get the things that they want. While there are certainly folks that do not want us in Afghanistan, there are others that do. Our presence there helps us protect our citizens which is an inherent responsibility of government.

Other than a loosely worded short paragraph, my opponent has yet to affirm the resolution with substance beyond a hint of a Lincoln-Douglas type CBA. Thus my opponent's self imposed burden of responsibility has not been achieved, therefore at this point, I respectfully request a negative ballot. Thank you.
gavin.ogden

Pro

gavin.ogden forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
twsurber

Con

Obviously I will extend my arguments from Round 2. Unfortunately, my opponent had a computer malfunction while preparing his case for Round 2. I encourage due empathy for my opponent from the voters.

NEGATIVE CRYSTALIZATION
The NEG has cited various justifications to maintain our presence in Afghanistan. Without introducing new evidence, I will touch upon the major voting issues.

1. Leaving Afghanistan with the job undone is unprofessional and sends a message that we can't finish what we start. The Global War on Terror is not a sprint, it is a marathon. That was clearly communicated at the outset by President Bush that it would take a very long time.

2. Every terrorist that we eliminate is one less terrorist that can attack us or our allies.

3. We have the lead role in NATO and UN actions to put a stop to Taliban & al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.

4. All things considered, we are the best outside solution to helping protect the innocent Afghan citizens that are being victimized.

5. Under no circumstances can we allow Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of terrorists.

6. The production and export of illegal opiate based drugs is a crime against the humanity of the international community.

Ultimately, it seems that if the Taliban would simply live and let live, Afghanistan could exist in harmony and tranquility. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and will not be the case. Unless someone stands up to the Taliban, they will continue to terrorize Afghan citizens, threaten the U.S. & their allies, and cause destabilization throughout the south central region of Asia. The U.S. is the only force that has the resources and the will to stop it. For these reasons, the U.S. should maintain their presence in Afghanistan.

I respectfully request a Negative ballot. Thank you!
gavin.ogden

Pro

I want to sincerely thank my opponent for being such a gracious sport, and allowing me the time to put together a respectable final round, after my troubles. I take full responsibility, and do not intend on taking the vote, but I do intend on affirming the resolution. I will begin with my opponent's responses, and end with a final summation.

RC1 - My opponent stated that there is no way to prevent their attacks while we are attacking them. I invite the judges to recall the events of September 11, 2001. We were attacking neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban, yet we were attacked on our own soil. We will not stop them from attacking us by simply taking a reactive and quite frankly a passive approach by not attacking them. Further, if the majority of their numbers truly resided in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, our Intelligence agencies would be aware of this information and redirect our assets to those locations.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com...
http://middleeast.about.com...
http://www.google.com...

While my opponent makes a valiant argument here, I have provided reliable information that is available to any and everyone who is interested. If the readers will recall, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and the country even recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate political power. The reason we have not involved them in this war is oil, plain and simple. The U.S. embassy in Yemen is under constant attack, and there was even a recent 60 Minutes segment on the rise of Al Qaida in Yemen. Also, we have occupied middle eastern nations for 20 years now, and they are about as happy about that, as we would be.

RC2 - Our troops are among the bravest of our citizens, yet the military is comprised of members who voluntarily accepted employment knowing in advance the risks associated with such a career choice. I speak from experience having served 20 plus years in the U.S. Army, including Operations Desert Shield & Desert Storm. As I stated, Afghanistan is unable to defend itself, and requested assistance from Karzai. Why did we not refuse the request and leave? Friends help friends in time of need.

This argument is an appeal to emotion. It is irresponsible and illegal for the U.S. government to occupy a foreign, sovereign nation, especially when it costs the lives of thousands of soldiers and marines. I also served 6 years in the U.S. military and I did my job. That does not mean my superiors were correct, or following protocol. Also, our friendship with Afghanistan is one sided, to say the least.

RC3 - The substance of this premise was missed. We want to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Left unchecked, this would open a door of catastrophic mischief for terrorists groups.

This is a straw man. If you want to keep Pakistan's weapons out of terrorist hands, you must go into Pakistan, where these terrorists already are. The resolution is set in Afghanistan. This was my original premise, and it still stands.
http://www.google.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

RC4 - While there is always unfortunate collateral damage in any conflict, if we were not there at the behest of the Afghan government, perhaps we would withdraw. We are not in Afghanistan to make it an American colony, we are there to eliminate terrorists, and make it safer for both Afghan citizens, and ultimately American citizens.

We did not go into Afghanistan at the behest of the Afghan government, originally. We basically pulled a Mafioso tactic by simply going in and demanding access, in exchange for monetary and military support, and without the consent of the UN. I hope the readers understand that we were not attacked by a country or nation, but an extremist group that spreads throughout the middle east. We have no right to occupy any nation but our own, regardless of our intentions.

RC5 - American pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer produce sufficient quantities of lab tested and FDA approved opiate based medicines. Unfortunately, self serving elements within Afghanistan attempt to send illegal drugs to the U.S. with an ulterior motiff of harming our citizens. Similar international crime occurs from Russia, Mexico, and South American countries just to name a few. Our government is attempting to protect our citizens by taking necessary actions to thwart the import of these poisons to our citizens.

Another straw man. In fact, he may have strengthened my argument when he listed all the other countries that send illegal drugs into this country. If our government wants to control the personal lives and decisions of its citizens(which I served for the opposite reason) then it needs confine these unconstitutional acts to its own borders. We are not the worldwide law enforcement angency, and again, we don't have the finances to complete such a mission. We are not discussing the war on drugs here, which is a total failure by any standard.

"We are paying for this war with tax revenues. Every nation has debt, yet no nation owns the U.S. We are, and we remain a sovereign nation. The war also generates revenues which go back into the GDP. Military and private companies make and spend money. This creates the need for goods and services."

I'm sorry, but this argument lacks a solid foundation in any economic theory, whatsoever. I'm not sure if my opponent is taking into consideration the kind of money this operation costs, but it has already led our nation into several TRILLION dollars worth of debt. Does every country have debt? NO. Many nations have more coming in than going out, and we have even been included in those nations in the past. We cannot sustain this war, or any other right now, and our country is suffering because of it. Every aspect of our nation, from economic to educational, is suffering for our fiscal and social irresponsibility. We need to put our country sized ego away, and pull out immediately. We would gain a huge amount of respect from the world leaders, and have a massive budget cut to get us started on the rebuilding process necessary for our country to thrive again. Enough scare tactics and ridiculous spending. The final source I am going to post is the U.S. Constitution. It is very clear regarding the rights of the government, and it is clear that the government has overstepped its boundaries by leaps and bounds in recent years.

I believe I have properly rebutted my opponent, at least enough to affirm the resolution. I am greatly appreciative to my opponent for this debate, and I would like to thank the readers for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Policy debate FTFW
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
http://www.archives.gov...

The constitution of the US. Yet another thing that was absent in my debacle of a debate.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
I am currently working on my final round, but I'm trying to cram 2 into one, so... Also, I have my info backed up this time. Thanks everyone, for your patience, and vote CON, at least for conduct. Thanks...
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Attention:
To twsurber and all the readers, I owe you all a sincere apology. My computer bit the dust last night(while I was on this site, no less) and my round was lost. I am not making excuses for myself, and am 100% guilty of procrastination. Of course, I urge a CON vote on all accounts, no matter how convincing my final round may be. I will certainly try to live up to the challenge by squeezing as much into my final round as possible, but this should have no bearing on the outcome. My oppponent obviously get's the conduct vote, and at this point, all other votes as well. This is unprecedented for me, and will certainly not happen again(at least due to procrastination). Thank you everyone, for your time.
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
Hay Gavin, I'm sorry we missed the 2nd round. I'll wait a bit longer before posting my 3rd round summary in case you have any rebuttals or statements you would like to post here in comments.
Posted by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
Dont worry about it. If there is something cool, we may want to use it :o)
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Shoot! I forgot to list my sources. Tom, can I post those in the second round, or here in the comments section?
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Thanks for the debate, Tom. I am looking forward to it, and know that you will teacvh me a thing or two about what debate is all about. I am working on an acceptable opening round, so please don't be alarmed that I have not posted. Thank you in advance for affording me this time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
twsurbergavin.ogdenTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
twsurbergavin.ogdenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10