The Instigator
amberlynnsnyder
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

"Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan"

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 7 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,167 times Debate No: 21834
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

amberlynnsnyder

Pro

I need someone to debate with me...Good Luck! :)
thett3

Con

Thanks Pro. I'll present my case first. Ignore the "my partner and I" and "we" nonsense.

If the sole practical effect of a policy is the destruction of innocent life and impoverishment, that policy should be avoided. With this in mind, my partner and I negate the resolution: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

We also observe that since the resolution is Pakistan specific, all objections to aid must be levied at Pakistan in particular, not foreign aid in general.

Contention one: Ending aid to Pakistan significantly increases the likelihood of a Nuclear Catastrophe.

Pakistani security is vital to U.S. strategic interests, as Washington Post[1] puts it Pakistan:

..already has the seventh-largest army and is close to overtaking Britain as the fifth-largest nuclear power. The country’s location, demographic heft, military might, nuclear weapons capability and links to Islamist terrorists ensure that it will remain central to U.S. interests even after NATO forces depart Afghanistan.”

Current events indicate strongly that Pakistan is deeply unstable and any upset could lead to disaster, as the Heritage Foundation[2] writes:

“The U.S. has a broader interest in maintaining steady relations with Pakistan and encouraging stability in the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million. If the U.S. were to cut all aid to Pakistan and prevail on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to do the same, the Pakistani economy would teeter on the brink of collapse. The chances of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into terrorist hands, while currently remote, would increase.”

The chances of having a Nuclear Strike against the U.S. would increase massively if the United States essentially threw Pakistan under the bus and left them to their own devices, political and economic instability would follow which could increase the likelihood of a Nuclear strike against the United States.

Secondly, India must be considered. India is also a Nuclear armed power, with massive amounts of historical enmity to Pakistan. A suspension of U.S. aid has a twofold effect: First, it economically and militarily cripples Pakistan (The U.S. provides massive amounts of Military aid to Pakistan as well) making them a good target for Indian aggression, but a U.S. cut off also shows to the world that the U.S. views Pakistan as an enemy, and India (or anyone else) can attack them with impunity, with no U.S. intervention. Thus the incentive to not go to war is systematically reduced. Millions of lives are at stake here, this is a significant impact that cannot be outweighed.

Contention two: Cutting aid to Pakistan will only punish the innocent

Washington Posts[3] writes about what the U.S. should do with aid to Pakistan:

by investing in Pakistan’s political and economic development, the United States could play a small but meaningful role in creating a prosperous, tolerant and inclusive nation that would be a force for peace and stability throughout South Asia.”

United States aid to Pakistan helps its citizens, and more efficient allocation would help them even more. Conversely, with no U.S. aid the situation is drastically different. For one, it would lead to the deaths of many relying on U.S. aid for subsistence, but it also harms the poor in Pakistan even more.

There can be no doubt that tensions with Pakistan have increased recently, but not only would cutting off aid be detrimental to solving the issues tearing our two countries apart, but it would not even punish those who are hurting the U.S. and its nation security interests.

“If we are mad at Pakistani failures in the security realm, we should not take our frustrations out on the Pakistani people, who are the primary beneficiaries of KLB and who have absolutely no control over the army.”

Blaming and harming the innocent because of governmental tensions is morally repugnant and should not be done.

Since cutting aid to Pakistan carries no positive benefits at all, and certainly none to outweigh the potential deaths of millions as a direct result of implementing a no aid to Pakistan policy. For these reasons, the resolution is clearly negated.


Cite note: Cards are physical. If my opponent wishes to see the specific card, she need only ask and I'll hunt down the links.

Debate Round No. 1
amberlynnsnyder

Pro

Resolved: The U.S. should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

definitions
suspend-To interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption. To forbid a public officer, attorney, or ecclesiastical person from performing his duties or exercising his functions for a more or less definite interval of time.

state: a government or politically organized society having a particular character.
-Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
1) US assistance to Pakistan has totaled over 20 billion dollars in the past 10 years and it has not been allocated properly.
2) The US should suspend assistance to Pakistan until they become more economically self-sufficient.
3) Stopping assistance will allow us to observe Pakistan to see if the system is working.

Framework) You the judge needs to vote this round in favor of the con if we can prove through reasoning that Pakistan is not using the assistance the US gives them effectively.

1) US assistance to Pakistan has totaled over 20 billion dollars in the past 10 years and it has not been allocated properly.

The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002. A little more than two-thirds
of that went to military use, the remainder to civilian. The biggest ticket item, at $8.9
billion, is something called "Coalition Support Funds." These are reimbursements for
Pakistan's military assistance in the war on terror. The second largest chunk, $4.8 billion,
falls under "Economic Support Funds." Most of this has gone to shore up the
government's budget, either as revenue or to pay off debt to the US. Much less is spent
on seemingly major US priorities: The Frontier Corps, the Pakistani force doing most of
the fighting, has received $100 million. Antiterrorism and nuclear nonproliferation
efforts: $90 million. "One of the things we should be doing is training the police, but
we're not doing it…. Pakistanis are not letting us. They want the Army to do everything,"
says C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington.#

2) The US should suspend assistance to Pakistan until they become more economically self-sufficient.

U.S. assistance is not a Pakistani entitlement; and Pakistan, which has one of the lowest
tax rates in the world, should do much more to generate revenue. American aid should
augment, not replace, Pakistani funding. To this end, we should require Pakistani
investment in most KLB aid projects, which will ensure that our priorities are aligned.
We should accelerate our efforts to help build Pakistan's small-business sector, which
will provide most new jobs, and must resist the temptation to believe that trade can
replace aid; both are crucial for Pakistan's development. We must also enhance the U.S.
government's ability to deliver aid quickly and effectively by recruiting more seasoned
technical experts, extending the Pakistan tours of U.S. aid officials and bringing local
civil-society organizations and prospective beneficiaries more fully into the design,
implementation and evaluation of aid projects.

3) Stopping assistance will allow the U.S. to observe Pakistan to see if the system is working.

The resolution never states when or at what time we need to do this. It just states that we should suspend assistance. We cannot keep dumping money into a Pakistan forever. Eventually we need to leave Pakistan alone and let them function on their own. We have been heavily involved with Pakistan for over ten years now and we need to slowly allow Pakistan to run on its own money and its own economy so that we can tell if the last decade has been a waste or not. If Pakistan is not able to function properly without our assistance then and only then will we need to go back into Pakistan and further our assistance to them.

For these reasons we urge a pro ballot.
thett3

Con

Thanks fr the (quick) debate, Pro.

Extend all arguments. I posted my case in round one to give my opponent a chance to attack it, but she chose not to. Therefore all impacts are to be taken as true because drops=concessions. I'll attack my opponents case, and also explain how I outweigh.

Framework

--> No. The judge needs to weigh the cost/benefits of pakistani assistance, not whether it's used to its intended function or if it's used effectively, rather if the effect of giving aid is in of itself good.

1. Money

--> She never explains why spending money is bad--remember that my case goes undisputed, so you have to weigh 20 billion dollars (.001% of the US GDP) against a Nuclear attack on the United States, or Nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Either way, millions of people would die.

--> She brings in a card arguing: "we should be doing is training the police, but we're not doing it…. Pakistanis are not letting us.". Disregard this as he's never shown cutting aid to be a solution, and further he's argued no impact. It just states we aren't training the police; my response: who cares? Recall that the US also gives Pakistan military equipment to secure the Balance of power with India, and showing one example really isn't enough to affirm.

--> Turn: My opponent argues " The Frontier Corps, the Pakistani force doing most of the fighting, has received $100 million". This is a Neg argument, the context she puts it in (contrasting it with "wasted" funds) shows that she believes these funds to be effective, thus negating the resolution. We ought to keep sending that $100 million at least.

--> No impact argued, who cares? Recall that my case contains the deaths of millions as an impact.

2. Economically self-sufficient

--> My opponent argues (unsourced by the way) that Pakistan has "one of the lowest tax rates in the world" should "do much more to generate revenue." Essentially, she's arguing to raise taxes. Well there are a multitude of problems with that argument, for one unless US suspension of aid will lead to Paistan raises taxes, she gains no advantage. Further, shes given no reason for you to believe that these tax dollars would actually be used to help infrastructure.

Even more absurd is that she's arguing to create pakistani economic strength, while arguing to....raise taxes, which are acknowledged to be economically bad. When you take tax money, you take it from the productive private sector and hand it to the inherently unproductive public sector. The economic argument is therefore turned.

--> My opponent then procedes to make my case for me, she argues: "we should require Pakistani investment in most KLB aid projects, which will ensure that our priorities are aligned. We should accelerate our efforts to help build Pakistan's small-business sector, which will provide most new jobs, and must resist the temptation to believe that trade can replace aid; both are crucial for Pakistan's development." [Emphasis mine]

I concede here, she's arguing that the US should require Pakistan to do things that help it (thus aiding them) and negating the resolution.

--> As with the previous contention, no impact argued (except for a bit of Neg ground).

3. Moratorium

--> This isn't an argument. She hasn't explained to you why the US can't assess the benefits of Pakistani aid now.

--> My opponent tries to run an abusive argument, stating that: "The resolution never states when or at what time we need to do this. It just states that we should suspend assistance. We cannot keep dumping money into a Pakistan forever." That's a foolish argument. I could just as easily say that the resolution can't be affirmed because some day, far in the future, there will be no US or Pakistan, and its therefore inaplicable. Since the entire purpose of Public Forum debate is to debate current issues, theres no reason to believe that the resolution refers to anything other than the status quo.

--> My opponent argues: "If Pakistan is not able to function properly without our assistance then and only then will we need to go back into Pakistan and further our assistance to them." This makes no sense, because my case has given plenty of reasons why it benefits the US to aid Pakistan, and she's dropped it all. Further, she doesn't explain why we should suspend all assistance if we are just going to return it once they want it back.

--> Impactless.



Nuclear war and Pakistani deaths outweigh her impactless case. My case has gone undisputed, so there is literally no logical way to vote for anyone but Con.


Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
amberlynnsnyder
Thank you!!!
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Certainly.

Heritage card: http://www.heritage.org...

Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
amberlynnsnyder
Just for my help can you give me your cities on this
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 4 years ago
mariahjane
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Read others.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro case has been destroyed, Con's case is cleanly extended. Pro you need to address con's case next time instead of just posting your own.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better structure throughout the debate, posted a lot more clarification, and had splendid arguments. Good job.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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: what xerge said
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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: Pro dropped many of con's arguments in the second round and made unsourced claims. Con's arguments and rebuttals were also effective in negating the resolution.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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: Easy win as Pro did not even try to address the arguments from Con.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
amberlynnsnyderthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: con loses conduct points for not using the first round for acceptance (even though it wasn't specified, it still should have been implied). I noticed a few errors in con's spelling too, however he provided the stronger arguments!