The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Should the United States 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,480 times Debate No: 21882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




The first round is acceptance.
I stand in affirmation of the argument and wish for a worthy challenger.


I accept and hope this debate doesn't turn into a bunch of forfeits.

Since no definition of assistance was provided, we will use this one...

Assistance: Assistance to foreign nations ranging from the sale of military equipment to donations of food and medical supplies to aid survivors of natural and manmade disasters. US assistance takes three forms--development assistance, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance. [1]

I wish my opponent luck and turn the debate over to him to start.

Debate Round No. 1


I feel it necessary to define the following terms:
Assistance- Assistance, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary,is the provision of money, resources, or information to help someone.
Suspend- Suspend as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is to temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect

Contention 1: Huge amounts of money are being wasted
Subpoint A: Corruption
During the 1990s, the World Bank and several donor partners provided a surge in external aid to support
Pakistan's social sectors. Despite millions of dollars of outside aid to support antipoverty programs, poverty
was higher in Pakistan in 2004 than it was a decade earlier when the program began according to the Center
for Global Development. Professors Flores and Smith of Political Science at NYU estimate of the $6.6 billion in military aid the United States gave Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million ever made it to the military.
Subpoint B - Aid is poorly structured/organized
The Belfer Center finds our aid to Pakistan lacks concrete benchmarks, and is "too vague to be effective". The Center for American Progress, argues that "there is little coordination among the various agencies of the U.S. Government which disperse aid to Pakistan. [They] are each responsible for only one aspect of the total program in Pakistan and oversee fragmented pieces of the overall assistance picture." The mismanagement of assistance essentialy makes it worthless. The Belfer Center also estimates that 70 percent of the funds have been spent illegitimately in that time frame. When the money becomes the property of Pakistani government, the United States doesn't know where the money goes, due partly to unorganized aid.

Contention 2: Pakistan helps insurgents who attack our troops in Afghanistan and other areas Documents, made available by WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders. The Center for Strategic and International Studies says "Pakistan pursues its own agenda in Afghanistan in ways that provide the equivalent of cross border sanctuary for Taliban and Haqqani militants, and that prolong the fighting and cause serious US, ISAF, and Afghan casualties." However, the most alarming news is found in testimony by Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs Admiral Mike Mullen. Through surveillance and data collection, Mullen found that the Haqqani, an Al-Qaeda ally responsible for many attacks on U.S troops, "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency." This is the same agency receiving and giving out U.S aid. Mullen specifically tied the ISI to bombing on the U.S Embassy as well as an air strike on a NATO base. According to The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Hafez Saed, mastermind of the Mumbai massacre, lives and preaches openly in Lahore. Fazul Rahman Khalil, head of the group which hijacked an Indian airliner in 1999, lives in an Islamabad suburb. Dawood Ibrahim who killed hundreds on Mumbai's metro in 1993 lives in Karachi. All three of these places are in Pakistan, and this goes to show how the money we give Pakistan is used by a corrupt system which harbors criminals and various terorists and insurgents.

Contention 3 - India
Pakistan is not using the money to counter terrorism, but instead to fight India, which is an extremely important ally to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service found that in late 2008 that Pakistan diverted much of the funds toward a military buildup, mainly focused on India. Pakistan uses our aid to invest in battle systems which are targeted at India—like fighter aircraft. In fact, Pakistan has spent over 50% of its anti-terrorism money on military equipment suited for conventional war. If Pakistan continues to buy weaponry targeted at India with our funds there is a major impact: our relationship with India could be hurt if they feel we are funding Pakistani battle systems which threaten them. The Mumbai massacre, which left 160 Indians and Americans dead and over 300 injured, was coordinated by Pakistani terrorists and conducted with the support of Pakistan's ISI. As previously stated, the man who masterminded the attacks is living safely in Pakistan. The money we funnel into Pakistan is being used for attacks against our ally country India. We would benefit more from having India as an ally versus Pakistan, because India is a fast growing economy, whereas Pakistan is a weak, unstable economy. Also, unlike Pakistan, India has never organized terrorist attacks against their neighbors. We actually recently saw an example of our relationship with India being hurt, when India's government rejected a Boeing bid to sell an older version of its F-16s to that fast-growing economy. It would have been the largest U.S. foreign jet sale in nearly two decades. "We weren't able to offer our most advanced fighters to India because of our relationship with Pakistan," says The National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. "We told them we wouldn't sell them anything more advanced than what we sell the Pakistanis." Because of this assistance, we are inclined more to ally with Pakistan, although India is a far more valuable ally. Pakistan is an unstable, economically weak country, whereas India's economy is actually growing at a huge rate. India also has money, and deals like Boeing that fell through could be huge boosts to the weak economy.

Extra aid is not a right to Pakistan, as they have done nothing to deserve the billions of dollars they are receiving. Since the US has nearly no say where the money goes in Pakistan, most of the money goes into the military, which is a) working with terrorists b) working against India. For these reasons, we strongly urge an Aff vote. According to the Belfer Center of International Affairs, The U.S. has been giving aid to Pakistan based on Pakistan's behavior. We have already suspended assistance to Pakistan multiple times when they have not been cooperative. Examples of this are during the Indo-Pakistan war and when Pakistan was creating uranium-enrichment facilities. Even through all of these aid suspensions, Pakistan has stayed our ally, and has never had a structural breakdown.Temporarily suspending aid to Pakistan will only result in Pakistan being cooperative with us, and will have minimum side effects.


PartamRuhem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Iampro forfeited this round.


I had to say something about forfeits round 1. I formally apologize for mine, real life was taking up much of my time and I didn't get around to making any argument.

Seeing as there is only one round left, I won't refute anything my opponent said, as it would be unfair because he doesn't have another round. So, I will simply present my own case as to why the united states shouldn't suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Please let the readers note that my opponent has not gotten online since he created his account, a sure sign that he no longer will be participating in this site. So either way, a win in my direction would be appreciated.

Pakistan is not a stable nation
Pakistan has nuclear capabilities, and also hosts a terrorist organization. These two things, if mixed properly, cause a catastrophe. Now, when I defined foreign assistance, I devolved it into three forms: development assistance, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance. My position in this debate is saying the US should not suspend all assistance to Pakistan, as in we shouldn't eliminate all three facets of assistance.

We should, I believe, eliminate the factors of humanitarian and development assistance. Security assistance is vitally important in defending our troops in the middle east and defending the world economy. This whole debate for me will revolve around this point.

Now, the Taliban control the majority of the upper half of Pakistan. Only 30% of it is actually government controlled [1]. There are areas that the Pakistani army hasn't even laid foot on for fear of the Taliban. This shows a couple things. One, it shows how poorly trained and minimal the Pakistani army is. Two, it shows that the Taliban have a major sphere of influence over Pakistan. Taliban hegemony in the northern area is influencing many young men to join their cause, and others across the country are opening up to it [2]. The number of young men suitable for Taliban recruitment numbers in the hundred thousands, and the Taliban find it easy to spread lies about US soldiers targeting women and children and emboldening the men to a level of anger that embodies there every thought. They then funnel that anger towards US troops and Pakistani security officials. This has been going on for quite some time now, and without the help of US drone attacks, the Pakistani' would very likely face death and occupation.

US drone attacks have been able to eliminate very key members of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda [2]. It's through these attacks the the Taliban have been limited. They can't call a place home for fear of a drone attack, so they are always on the run, unable to plan strategic assaults. Their higher ups are also continuously thinned out, nourishing confusion in their ranks.

Another point I would like to make is that the refugee camps that are scattered all along Pakistan are the grounds that they Taliban recruit the most young men from [2]. It's no doubt that if these camps were more hospitable and safe, then more men would stay there. However, this is not the case. The camps have long lines for drinking water that still infects the people with diarrhea, and substandard food is given out by the government. Little shoddy tents are given out, one per family. This is all not enough to help relieve anyone from their suffering. The Government needs to focus more on these refugees and helping provide public services to it's people. The best way we could assist in that, short of proving that aid, is by providing security assistance.

If the Pakistan government is having this much trouble keeping their nation together WITH us helping them out, imagine their country without us. While many would argue it's not our position to be helping them, you must look at the big picture. If the Taliban, a terrorist organization that hates America, were to spread out and take more areas of Pakistan, they could potentially get a hole of nukes. Then, it's all a matter of where they target, and the world could possibly be in nuclear winter. If nukes were exchanged with India, then counter nukes would come and so on.

In this conclusion, I would remind the readers that my opponents round had NO sources for anything. For all we know, everything he said was made up.So sources should be defaulted to me, who had sources. Also, we both forfeited a round, so conduct should go tied, for fairness. I have not responded to my opponent's argument out of fairness in the debate, although it seems my opponent will never log back in to DDO.

My points on the Taliban being able to control Pakistani nukes without our assistance is supreme over all else because of it's disaster like consequences. I have elaborated on the ability of the Taliban to recruit members to it's cause, and the lack of the US would simply give them time to settle down and really plan out strategic attacks and recruitment ideas.

Thank you. Please vote CON.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Iampro 5 years ago
Sorry im a 9th grader and I had a bunch of homework and tests recently
Posted by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
Did not get to the debate fast enough....don't really know why I even accepted this one, but I will present some sort of argument in the last round I guess...
Posted by thett3 6 years ago
Iampro, I dont know if you're going to use this case in real life, but you should seriously consider srapping contention 3. It's ridiculously easy to turn.
Posted by Iampro 6 years ago
I added it and partam its your turn
Posted by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
Just don't bother with it now. I mean, unless you really feel you had a better definition of assistance. Mine is pretty unbias if you ask me.
Posted by Iampro 6 years ago
Oldfrith sure
Partamruhem I didnt know that we were supposed to define in the first round so I will add my definitions
Posted by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
Philosophy...HA! I could ruin you in a debate if you used philosophy and I used facts. Facts >Theory
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Ewwww PF debates xD I just want someone to go to a PF tournament and run something super philosophical and just wreck everyone xD
Posted by Oldfrith 6 years ago
Wanna debate this with me? You're on the same side. I have a CON constructive I was gonna use for districts. but then my partner bailed, so I want to see how well it works.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok. Well I looked back over this and I'm giving 2 points to Partam for sources since Iampro didn't have any. Both players FF.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con explained to me why him posting last round is fair, so counter budda.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
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: All arguments in last round being unfair aside. Both participants put in one round. My judgement of the better argument goes to Pro.