NATO Presence Improves the Lives of Afghan Citizens

I know this topic has probably already been made several times on this site, however I need some practice because I wil be deating this topic soon. I was assigned the con side so I will debate on that side here as well. In this first round I'll give my first negative speech and my opponet will refute my points and introduce his/her own points. This will continue on for three rounds. Thank you to anyone that accepts this challenge and my speech will follow:

Definitions:
NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization consisting of several members from North America and Europe. They are commited to the peaceful resolution disputes as well as the promotion of democratic values. [1]

Presence/Military Presence - Group of official personnel, especially police, military forces, or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest. [2]

Improves - To enhance in value or quality: make better. [3]

NATO has taken it upon themselves to try to help stabalize the Afghan government, stop insurgency, and improve civilian lives. However, they haven't been doing a good job at it. I have three compelling contentions that prove NATO presence does not improve the lives of Afghan citizens. Civilian lives are put into danger, military victory is far from possible, and the president has been shown to be tolerant of corruption.

NATO has been responsible for the killing of several innocent Afghan citizens that is not acceptable. According to an article on reuters[4], a NATO-led force acknowledged it had killed five Afghan civilians. Not only that but according to an article on latimes[5], the president of Afghanistan said how up to 52 civilians were killed by NATO rocket fire in southern Afghanistan. Finally, in article on cbsnews[6], it was reported that a NATO airstrike killed at least 27 civilians. These numbers are adding up. These killings are not improving the lives of Afghan citizens but merely worsening them by putting them in constant danger. Additionally, according to an article on huffingtonpost[7], "each time U.S. or NATO forces accidently kill Afghan citizens, insurgents and their sympathizers typically retaliate with six additional assaults on foreign forces over the next six weeks." This leads me to my next contention.

If NATO forces continually cause the deaths of innocent civilians, more and more insurgents will come out of the shadows and attack. This contributes to a nearly impossible to achieve military victory. Also, according to an article on thefirstpost[8] "Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement." This also contributes to a nearly impossible military victory. If the Taliban is making negotiations with the Afghanistan government and more and more insurgents continue to rise, it's pointless for NATO forces to continue fighting in Afghanistan. All it will lead to is more civilian deaths which definitely does not improve the lives of Afghan citizens.

Finally, my last contention points to how the president has been shown to be tolerant of corruption. If the Taliban, like I said earlier, is making negotiations with the government about sharing power then this president is too lenient. NATO has not been able to help the president realize that being lenient to the Taliban and letting them come into the country even though the people fear them is not a good idea. Being unable to get this through the president is not improving the lives of Afghan citizens.

To conclude, it is obvious that NATO needs to pull out of Afghanistan for the three contentions presented. NATO is causing too many civilian casualties, insurgents are on the rise and power-sharing negotiations are responsible for a near impossible military victory, and NATO is not stopping the president from making bad decisions. This is leading to no improvement to the lives of Afghan citizens and it is from the arguments and evidence shown that it would be better for these Afghan citizens if NATO pulled out.

Refrences:
[1] http://www.nato...
[2] http://encarta.msn...
[3] http://mw1.meriam-webster...
[4] http://www.reuters...
[5] http://articles.latimes...
[6] http://www.cbsnews...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost...
[8] http://www.thefirstpost.co...

One word: taliban

First I would like to thank my opponet for accepting this debate and I hope this can be an interesting one.

Next, my points and contentions still stand as my opponent was unable to refute any them. These assertions included how civilian lives are put into danger, military victory is far from possible, and the president has been shown to be tolerant of corruption.

Finally, onto my opponent's argument "One word: Taliban", I do not find anything to refute here as my opponent is being unclear with their statement.

Im sorry as I did not realize hat this was a measly PF debate.
Im all policy.
So I forfeit.

Oh, alright then, I apoligize I wasn't clear enough, but next time I will be.