The Instigator
jingzhezhang
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TheLaw
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
TheLaw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2010 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 13567
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

jingzhezhang

Pro

I thank whoever that accepts my debate.

Resolved, NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens. I have to agree with this topic for the following reasons:
1.There has been substantial improvement
2.NATO Afghan has been much better than Taliban Afghan
3.Terrorism and safety

My first contention is the fact that there has been substantial improvement in Afghanistan due to NATO. The Afghan war has had one of the lowest death per capita rates than any other war (with actual skirmishes). Additionally, the human rights abuses, particularly for girls, have vastly become less frequent. Cutting off their fingers and noses, raping them, even weatherboarding are only a few examples of the kinds of mistreatment they have unjustly received. Since 2002, the amount of human rights abuses in Afghan have dropped in nearly every area patrolled by NATO according to Time Magazine. Since 1996 to 2001, the Taliban banned girls and women from obtaining an education. Women now have been attending schools in increasing numbers, been allowing to vote, and have run for political office. The BBC reports, that now over 1 million women are now in school in Afghanistan. The only thing holding these women is the Taliban and abuses, but NATO broke that up in nearly every area they patrol, and now Afghanistan is taking steps to become a better country. According to a study done in 2007, both civilian and infant mortality rates have declined substantially since the end of the Taliban rule. Moreover, a study commissioned by the Ministry of Public Health indicates a 25 percent improvement in overall quality of health services since 2004. These studies also indicate that access to care has risen dramatically in the last several years. Clearly with human rights abuses becoming vastly less frequent, women getting education and rights, civilian and infant mortality rates going down, and health services becoming accessible in Afghan's lives it is clear there has been substantial improvement.

My second contention is the fact that a NATO rules Afghan is much better than a Taliban ruled one. This continues from my first contention. Now according to the (http://www.ciaworldfactbook.org......), the death per capita rate in Afghanistan was 19.8 at the time when the Taliban ruled. After the intervention by NATO, that number dwarfed itself to a minute 14.1, clearly showing improvements due to NATO. According to the Bureau of Democracy (human rights, and labor) the Taliban committed tens of thousands of human right abuses every year, they were in control of such as weatherboarding, stretching them until they almost died drowned them in urine, lit them on fire repeatedly, and countless other abuses. After NATO run the Taliban out of office, no human right abuses occurred under their influence, once again showing an improvement in Afghanistan due to NATO. According to the New York Times, out of the 8,813 Afghans killed, 4,412 were killed by either the Taliban directly or indirectly 3,985 killed by the United States and only 1,416 killed from NATO. This shows that many more Afghans were killed or injured each year when the Taliban was in control then NATO, showing improvement which is the focus of this resolution. Evidently with much less negative impact occurring in Afghan due to NATO, it has a positive impact which proves my point.

Now on to my third and final contention is the fact that terrorism rates and attacks have become less frequent and hazardous to the Afghan people. According to a poll done by the Huffington Post, 73% of the Afghans believe that terrorism in their area has decreased, 81% believe NATO is doing a better job than the Taliban did, and 78% believe they are just all around safer now then compared to the Taliban rule. According to the Wall Street Journal, at the time of 9/11, an average of about 1,272 attacks occurred each quarter in Afghanistan. As of 10/6/10, there was an average of 612 attacks on the Afghanistan people per quarter since NATO entered Afghan showing substantial improvement. According to NPR, an average of 8 people died each day under Taliban rule compared to an unsubstantial 3 people per day under NATO rule, that's nearly 3x less. Obviously with nearly 3x times less people dying each day in Afghanistan compared to Taliban rule, less than half the number of attacks per quarter, and the vast majority of Afghans believing they are safer and acknowledging safer times-compared to before-Afghan has become improved due to the presence of NATO.

Thank you and I hope you would vote for the PRO as I am in affirmation of this resolution.
TheLaw

Con

I thank my opponent for making such an interesting topic and I will take the leisure to proceed with this debate.

Refutation:

Firstly, my opponent declares the low death per capita statement which doesn't help his case as comparing this war to other wars doesn't mean that people's lives are improving in Afghanistan. Even if this figure is low, people are still dying, and if people are still dying, how is that improvement to their lives? Next my opponent declares a number of things that he says improves the lives of the citizens, however he doesn't realize (I will elaborate on this more later) that people are still dying, and if people are dying these benefits are nullified. In fact, to contradict your statements even further, on a survey from bbc [1] 54% of Afghan citizens said no health clinic was rebuilt, reopened, nor built in the last five years. Next, my opponent talks about how a NATO Afghanistan is better than a Taliban Afghanistan, however they don't realize a couple things. NATO is supposed to "promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan" [2] not takeover. Regardless, however, my opponent states a number of human rights abuses which he doesn't equip with any recourses, so I can't believe that until I know it is credible. To continue, my opponent states the number of people killed by NATO and the Taliban and says there is improvement. A couple of things are wrong with this, though. Firstly, as long as NATO is still killing Afghans, they're not improving their lives because the Afghans are still worried for the safety of their lives plus the fact that NATO is not even supposed to be killing civilians. Additionally, the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, even if they're not ruling [3] which contributes the extra deaths. Finally, my opponent says there are less terrorism attacks, however, like my first contention elaborates even further on this, insurgents continue to rise because of NATO and their countless attacks on civilians.

Contentions:

Next, I have three compelling contentions that prove NATO presence does not improve the lives of Afghan citizens. Civilian lives are put into danger, NATO is destroying the economy of Afghanistan, and the Afghan citizens don't want NATO.

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 means that more and more civilian deaths, more insurgents will rise.

Additionally, NATO forces have been responsible for eating away a major part of the Afghan economy. According to an article called ‘U.S. Navy Public Relations Officer Interviews Afghan Farmers' by Chris LeCron from associatedcontent [8], the eradication of farmer poppy fields and the encouragement of wheat farming has been started because of NATO. Also from this article, it says how this strategy has made several farmers angry as this is their only source of income. From an article on msnbc [9], Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world's opium. All this supply of opium could be gone and that could severely damage the Afghanistan economy if their main export is gone. Finally, from an article on tvnz, it explained how there have been violent protests from poppy farmers who refuse to have their fields destroyed. It went on to say that eight people were killed in the southern province of Helmand during this protests. Not only has NATO damaged the Afghan economy because of they destroyed several poppy fields, but farmers have shown resistance to this act causing the deaths of several individuals. With deaths and a blow to the Afghan economy, this further proves NATO is not improving the lives of Afghan citizens.

Finally, my last contention points to how the Afghan citizens don't want NATO. Based on a poll conducted from 2005 to 2009 on that same bbc survey[1], several questions were asked to Afghan citizens. One of these questions asked each year was whether the citizens thought the things in Afghanistan today were going in the right direction or wrong direction. The percent that thought it was going in the right direction decreased from 64% to 40% from 2004 to 2009 while the percent for those believing it was going in the wrong direction increased from 11% to 38% from 2004 to 2009. The rest of the civilians questioned were either mixed or had no opinion. Keep in mind, these were five of the years NATO was in Afghanistan. To continue, another question was how confident the Afghan citizens were of NATO forces and 56% were either not very confident or not at all confident. All in all, the Afghan citizens are not pleased with what NATO has done and that they are not improving their quality of life.

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, NATO forces have been responsible for destroying a large part of the Afghanistan economy, and the Afghan civilians don't want NATO in Afghanistan. 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.

References:

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://www.fas.org...
[3] http://www.cfr.org...
[4] http://www.reuters.com...
[5] http://articles.latimes.com...
[6] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[8] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jingzhezhang

Pro

jingzhezhang forfeited this round.
TheLaw

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round, so my arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
jingzhezhang

Pro

jingzhezhang forfeited this round.
TheLaw

Con

My opponent has forfeited the round again, so my arguments still stand. Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jingzhezhang 6 years ago
jingzhezhang
let us test your debate skills............
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yogurt 6 years ago
Yogurt
jingzhezhangTheLawTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by TheLaw 6 years ago
TheLaw
jingzhezhangTheLawTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03