The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,279 times Debate No: 22228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




While I know that this is a PFD topic, I feel that it is still a good one and that I wanted to debate. I'd also like to wish my opponent good luck, and i hope this will be fun.

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

1. Pakistan doesn’t want or need economic help.

a) Pakistani military doesn’t need US assistance.
Ahmed, Issham. "Pakistan Says It Doesn't Need US Military Aid." The Christian Science Monitor, 11 July 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. .
Pakistan’s Army said Monday that a US military aid cut worth some $800 million won’t affect its ability to conduct combat operations. Analysts call the cuts the strongest indicator yet of the deteriorating nature of the relationship between the two countries and say it could cause the Pakistani military to retreat to a more hostile anti-US position.
"The Army in the past, as well as at present, has conducted successful military operations using its own resources without any external support whatsoever,” Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, told the AFP. He added that the Army had not received any official correspondence from the US on the matter.

b) Anti-Americanism in Pakistan is growing
"Anti-US Sentiment Is 'rife' in Afghanistan and Pakistan." BBC News. BBC, 04 July 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. .
there is no doubt that anti-US feeling is growing in the country after a series of appalling incidents.
Afghan civilians have been repeatedly killed in night raids by US special forces and mis-targeted bombings by US aircraft while a handful of US soldiers have been charged with deliberately killing Afghans and committing other atrocities.
A great deal of public anger and frustration is due to the lack of good governance and overwhelming corruption, which could see the collapse of Kabul Bank - the largest in the country.
The Americans are blamed by Afghans for tolerating the failure of the government to get its act together 10 years after 9/11 and for fuelling corruption by giving money to the wrong contractors.
In Pakistan the case of the alleged CIA agent Raymond Davis - coupled with an acute economic downturn, massive energy shortages, corruption and the blasphemy issue that has led to two senior officials being murdered - has also led to widespread anti-Americanism.
Fast deteriorating
Mr Davis was charged with shooting dead two Pakistani men and remained in a Lahore jail for more than a month before his case was resolved.
Relatives of the dead Pakistanis accepted "blood money" worth an estimated $2m in exchange for his release - something that the Pakistani legal system allows for.
And while the US drone attacks on the Pakistani border with Afghanistan has claimed many Taliban and al-Qaeda lives it has also claimed the lives of Pakistani civilians.
All these issues have been overly exploited by the well entrenched Islamist parties and their extremist allies as well as by parts of the right-wing media.

2. Economic and Humanitarian assistance has been a failure.

a) Economic assistance is too expensive for our economy.
It's All Your Money: U.S. Aid to Pakistan - Fox News." America's Election HQ. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. .
More than $20 billion has been given to Pakistan since Sept. 11, 2001. President Obama is proposing almost $3 billion in aid for the supposed ally in the War on Terror for fiscal year 2012. That includes:
- $1.6 billion for police and military;
- $150 million for what the State Department calls "good government and democracy building";
- $122 million for health, AIDS and "family planning";
- $145 million for education.
The rest goes to economic development and humanitarian assistance.

b) Money is diverted.
Sumit Ganguly [Director of Research, Center on American & Global Security, Indiana U.], NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL, October 19, 2009, pNA, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration failed to hold Musharraf's government to account for the nearly $11 billion it received in U.S. aid between 2001 and 2008. The military diverted funds intended for counter-terrorism to obtain arms for use against India, and redirected money earmarked for social development to the military. It failed to meet U.S. benchmarks on counterterrorism, including targets for denying the Taliban sanctuary and aggressively pursuing Al Qaeda. Over time, many Pakistanis who had initially hailed Musharraf's coup turned against him and his principal benefactor, the United States. Their disaffection has only grown in recent months, as the internal battle with the Taliban has become more violent.

3. Pakistan has been actively aiding our enemies.

a) They provided shelter to those in the Haqqani network.
Charles Dent [U.S. Representative], THE HILL, May 27, 2011, p. 16, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP.

However, Pakistan's cooperation has been unsatisfactory when threats are directed toward the American people, but not the Pakistani government. Specifically, Pakistan has provided sanctuary to the Haqqani Network, a highly lethal terrorist organization that routinely attacks American forces in Afghanistan while seeking safe haven in the tribal region of North Waziristan. In September 2010, I met with American military leaders in Afghanistan who expressed frustration over the threat to our troops posed by the Haqqani Network and outrage over the
uncooperative nature of Pakistani officials in addressing the problem.

b) They provided sanctuary for Osama bin Laden
Editorial, UWIRE, July 11, 2011, pNA, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP.

According to MSNBC, analysts are hard pressed to believe that the al-Qaeda leader was hiding just a few hundred meters from Pakistan's version of the West Point military academy without its intelligence service knowing. It is striking that the U.S. chose not to notify Pakistan of the operation to capture bin Laden -- a decision that put American forces at risk of being engaged by supposedly allied forces. The clear implication is that American military and intelligence agencies believed that if they had notified Pakistan, bin Laden would have been tipped off and fled.


i accept i just debated this topic at cary academy last week.....we beat all our opponents but there was some corruption or some mess ups....the team we beat ended up in finals and it really pissed me hope to have a great debate.

.....Resloved: the united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan

First it needs to be stated that this debate is about if suspending assistance to pakistan is going to further U.S policy objectives. the judge should vote con because the awnser is definitely no.
The con needs to prove that suspending humanitarian aid, military aid, economic aid, Donations of food and medical supplies etc….because the resloution states all assistance should be suspended.

We reject the resloution; the united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan. For some very strong contentious reasons. We are currently in alliance with pakistan to further U.S strategic goals. Be it suppling toops, helping it’s economy, and psycologically motivating the people to irradicate the threat of terrorism.

contention 1. Suspending assistance to pakistan would jeporadize years of strategy. pakistan has already reacted to Obama suspending 800 million dollars recently by shutting down U.S and NATO supply routes that run through pakistan to coalition troops in afghanistan and is even threatening to shut down CIS institutions in pakistan. Containing the terrorist threat that weve worked so hard to organize a task force, and our ability to supply them has been jeoporadized. We now have to spend 6x the amount of money to go through other countries.Suppling troops takes longer now because of complications. in war you need to supply your troops or there chances of winning has decreased. evidence thatevaluates pakistans contributions since aid states pakistans efforts to combat terrorism has improved 86 % since 2001 when we started giving huge chunks of aid. Since giving assistance to pakistan 17,742 terroists have been arrested or killed. So obviously we have injected capitol into pakistan whitch is a good strategic investment. The pakistani intellegence and the CIA have cooperated for years and have been successful in aprehending 17,742 terrorists. If we stop assisting pakistan then our symbionic relatioonship will sease, and we will loose 140,000 troops to assist the 100,000 troops in afghanistan fight terrorism. So obviously suspending assistance to pakistan will jeoporadize the fight on terrorism negitively in the terrorists favor.

second contention; We need to invest more into pakistans infastructure to combat terrorism and preserve relations in the long run. According to the pakistan assisstance strategy report, we aim to assist and develop pakistan by economic means, healthcare, education, and democratic structure. theres absolutly no reason to suspend assistance. 1/3 of the people live off less than a dollor a day. ¼ is malnourished. these poor conditions drive people to be terrorists in pursuit of financial security. Rather than have them rely on terrorists in pursuit of financial security they should rely on america, by america providing economic aid the people will favor the U.S more and are less likely to become terrorists. same thing applies with healthcare witch is also bad in pakistan at the moment by providing educational assistance we can push there society to allow more girls to learn and work. Over half the population is illiterate. If we invest in a better education system people will be more equipped for jobs and will raise the high unemployment rates in pakistan. If we train the people via investing more than the 2% than currently in educational assistance to be more literate members of society. they will be more active and will promote democracy because they will now have the tools to coherently voice there opinion. If we provide more assistance to pakistans economy we can weaken terrorist influence in pakistan. if we suspend all assistance to pakistan terrorist groups will have more influence on the people, and we don’t want that to further hinder our counterterrorism efforts.

Lastly ; suspending all assistance like in the past wont work on the present.
We first started giving assistance in 1954-1964. we suspended funding due to indian -pakistani conflicts. In 1972-1979 funding resumed once again in. In 1979 the carter administration suspended all aid due to the pakistan building uranium enrichment facilities. Aid resumed due to the invasion of the soviet union into afghanistan. In 1990 aid was cut again due to suspicion of nuclear arms. Since 2001 we have again been giving assistance. We have suspended aid about 3 times. if we suspend again it will be the fourth time. Pakistan cant take suspension seriously. they know that if theres conflict in their region then the U.S is going to give aid again. No changes happened the last 3 times. By einsteins definition of insane being: doing the same things repeatitivly and expecting different results. Doing this again would be insane.

for these reasons suspending all assistance to pakistan would impeed upon U.S policy objectives.
Debate Round No. 1


aggiefan2019 forfeited this round.


it seems my opponent agrees with my case since they forfeited. but I will rebut their case and resummarize the stronger case here being the contenders(

Rebuttal to my opponents case

1. Pakistan doesn't want or need economic help.

if you look up the source the army said that the 800 million in cuts wont affect military operation
  • first this doesn't this prove that Pakistan doesn't need economic aid. military and economy have 2 separate definitions.
  • secondly Pakistan feels operations wont be effected because we've already purchased the materials for them. suspending assistance doesn't mean we take our tanks,ships,planes,or bombs back. They still have the materials to fight. but the fact of the mater is, they need the information we share with them via the cia. If we suspend assistance the fight on terror will be jeopardized because Intel will not be effective like when intelligence agencies share intelligence.
  • thirdly going into what the sentence says......saying Pakistan doesn't need economic help.......first his source doesn't prove this also,

My opponent tries to state;........"The Army in the past, as well as at present, has conducted successful military operations using its own resources without any external support whatsoever,” primary response to this is that its a lie.......I've looked all over the Internet and there is not one time that Pakistan has conducted operations while not being funded or having co-operation. So obviously this is false also backed by the fact my opponent offered no valid source to back this up.

I also want to point out that Pakistan doesn't have access to clean water. Only 19.4 per cent have clean safe drinking water!...........

this alone proves that Pakistan needs economic assistance. and the claim that they don't want our help is denial on there part if its true, human instinct doesn't care where the water comes from when your about to die. Studies also show that lack of water causes one to loose cognitive function witch would mean a water deprived person will not care where the water comes from they just want water......

my opponent states in his subpoint that anti Americanism is growing

1. Pakistan doesn't like us because we keep killing their troops, witch is why since suspending assistance plus the killing of 24 Pakistan soldiers by the us that pakistan has blocked supply routes...........

The u.s now has to spend 6x the amount of money now to supply troops. this obviously shows that suspending will hurt the U.S and slow down military operations.

2. this his whole paragraph mainly talks about Afghanistan's problems, this is not resolution relevant therefore should not be considered. The small snippets about Pakistan isn't true. The source he provides is not a source therefore all of this is here-say and is invalid.

My opponents second contention........economic aid is a failure.

1.according to the USAID department who is giving the aid..."since September 2009, USAID has disbursed over 1.7 billion in development assistance to Pakistan- a substantial program that has already begun to yield results.......http://blog.usaid.ov...

Pakistan economy has improved 10% since injecting the low 2% since 2001 when we started giving aid.............

yes this is a low number and yes we need reform but we need to do it without suspending assistance to Pakistan cause it will hurt both parties.

My opponents third contention..........Pakistan has been aiding our enemies.......provided sanctuary for bin laden

1. once again my opponents sources don't hold up

2. all the claims of Pakistan supporting terrorists is speculation, no one can prove how this is happening or provide concrete evidence that its happening. In a debate we need to discuss facts and not speculation. thus this contention should be rejected.

3. Pakistan has killed/captured 17,742 terrorists and that's just since 9-11.........also terrorists operations have increased 86% since we started giving assistance............

this shows that successful operations are dependent on u.s aid

also if Pakistan is killing terrorists it doesn't make sense that they would be killing these same terrorists that they supposedly are helping. They would be more at risk of revenge from these militias and since that isn't happening Pakistan is not supporting terrorists.

4. Bin laden- this as a failure yes, but just because they made one mistake doesn't mean there not fighting terrorism supported by the 17,000 plus terrorists killed since 9-11

theve also captured many key al-queda operatives...........

My case

this debate is about the awnser to the question of will suspending all assistance of humanitarian,economic, military,educational, donations of food, and medical assistance, and water further u.s policy objectives like fighting terrorism. he has also not defended why we should suspend the types of assistance i listed. Witch proves this resolution has to be negated because all assistance has to have a reason to be suspend.

the awnser is clearly no. first off, suspension has already jeopardized military operations. it will jeopardize years of strategy if all assistance is suspended. When obama suspended, Pakistan blocked nato supply routes and that cost the u.s billions.........Worse would happen if we suspend all assistance. 17,7742 other terrorists might not get caught.

2.we need to invest more into pakistans infrastructure to combat terrorism.

1/3 live off less than a dollar a day, 1/4 is malnourished, only 14 percent have access to clean water.

these poor conditions may lead the poor to be active in terrorism in pursuit of financial security. If America reforms without suspension how it invests in its economy we can lower this risk. we also need to invest more in education to give the people the tools to promote democracy.........thus fighting the terrorist influence. half the population is illiterate witch is why democracy is weak. Witch is why we need to reform without suspension.

3.lastly suspending all assistance like in the past wont work on the present

we have suspended assistance before, my opponent has not made clear what suspension a 4th time will accomplish. the awnser is nothing.

by repeating this action over and over again and expecting different results......according to Einstein's this is absolutely insane. This suspending all assistance to Pakistan will jeopardize operations, hurt the u.s and the people, and just simply wont work.









Debate Round No. 2


aggiefan2019 forfeited this round.


well i have successfully refutted my case. Con should obviously be the winner of this debate. My points were unrefutted and still strongly stand.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
lol....yea bro
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
xD Frozen. Reusing those arguments LIKE A BOSS.
Posted by aggiefan2019 6 years ago
Haha, that's what I get for writing this at 3 in the morning :P
Posted by InMyAbyss 6 years ago
you should know that israel announced they are going to attack iran in the spring. We are allies with israel so it would be easier for our troops to be over there already if they need our help.
Posted by imabench 6 years ago
Those first two arguments are really really weak....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 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 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF