The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,708 times Debate No: 24683
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This was my topic at state, and my partner and I will be re-debating it soon, so I figured I'd try this out.

Would prefer a very skilled opponent who won't forfeit (and I'll do the same).

Round 1 Acceptance
No new arguments or evidence in Round 5
Drops are not concessions
Each side may use their own definitions/framework


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I affirm the resolution: Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Nothing in the resolution mentions what will come after aid is suspended. However, I claim that the United States, after suspension of aid, will try its best to maintain a good relationship within Pakistan.

Contention one: Pakistan actively supports terrorist networks. Pakistan’s ISI supports numerous militant groups which it deems beneficial to its own interests. Such interests range from the destabilization of Afghanistan to terrorist attacks against India.

From the Center of Strategic and International Studies: (
“As senior US officials and officers have made all too clear... some elements of the Pakistani governance and forces are supporting groups that are actively at war with the United States and Afghanistan.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
The Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. With ISI support, Haqqani operatives plan and conducted that [September 13] truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy. We also have credible evidence they were behind the June 28th attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations....

From the NATO Report: State of the Taliban, on support for the Taliban: (

“ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah...”

On numerous occasions, the US has shared counterterrorism intelligence with Pakistani government, with disastrous results.

From the United Press International: (

“CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell gave overhead surveillance video and other information on the guerrilla locations in mid-May to Pakistani army chief and head of the Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, officials told The Washington Post... when Pakistani troops raided the sites in North and South Waziristan June 4, they found them abandoned.
A top Pakistani officer said Friday the Americans also had identified other sites, including weapons depots, that were found empty.”

From “The Ally from Hell”: (

Overall, “The past two U.S. National Intelligence Estimates on Pakistan—which represent the consensus views of America’s 16 spy agencies—concluded that Pakistani support for jihadist groups has increased over the past several years.”

A large portion of the aid to Pakistan is given with the intent of fighting terror. Consequently, continuing to fund a government that is working against our interests is both self-defeating and morally unacceptable.

Contention two: Aid to Pakistan breeds anti-U.S. sentiment.
Subpoint A: Drone Strikes:

From CNN: (

“Despite the massive U.S. aid program, a poll by the Pew Research Center last June found that 68% of Pakistanis saw the US as an enemy, while only 6% considered it a friend.”

This is largely due to civilian casualties from drone strikes. Numbers for such casualties vary, with some studies ( finding over 700 civilian casualties in the space a year, and New America Foundation ( finding between 293 and 471 in total. A study from the AIRRA (, surveying 550 professional people living in the areas hardest hit by drone strikes, found that roughly 4 in 10 said they increased Anti-Americanism. A similar poll done by Al Jazeera (, among 2,500 men and women, found that only 9% favor the drone strikes, while 67% oppose.

From Giles Dorronsoro, and expert on foreign relations: (

“The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban.”

While the quote may be describing Afghanistan, it also pertains to Pakistan. However, instead of simply being inside of Pakistan and launching drones, the US is also killing innocent civilians and refusing to acknowledge the casualties.

Such logic explains the finding from the Belfer Center ( that “far from having reduced, Islamist extremism in Pakistan has risen.”

Subpoint B: Economic aid: Rather than improve the image of the US, recent focus on economic and development aid has damaged it.

From the Belfer Center, on current conditions:

“In some parts, the US is unpopular. Some aid agencies have found it counterproductive to reveal that the development programs are funded by the US. In these cases, they are administered anonymously.”

As will be discussed more in-depth in my third contention, most aid to Pakistan is ineffective, and is never actually delivered. This leads to a general sense of distrust among the Pakistani civilians when they never receive their assistance.

From the New York Times: (

“Instead of polishing the tarnished image of America with a suspicious, even hostile, Pakistani public and government, the plan has resulted in bitterness and a sense of broken promises.

Even when small amounts of aid make it through, the result is the same.

"Pakistanis see the aid as a crude attempt to buy friendship and an effort to alleviate antipathy toward the US drone attacks"

Contention 3: Aid money is poorly managed.

Money routed through the Pakistani government is subject to much corruption.

From the Belfer Center:

“The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F-16s, aircraft-mounted armaments, anti-ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million."

“The great majority of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008."

Even money from recent reform bills has yet to be disbursed, due to the government being unable to find un-corrupt areas to spend it on.

From the New York Times: (

"In a scathing report, the Government Accountability Office said that only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion of the five-year program had been disbursed by last December."

"Another big goal for the $1.5 billion was to reconstruct schools in the Swat Valley... Of 115 schools that the aid agency promised to rebuild, none have been completed."

Even in areas where aid money can be disbursed, local government corruption quickly puts it to waste. Schools that are built remain unused, wasting every penny spent on them.

From Dawn: (

"Hundreds of schools in the rural areas remain disused and the teachers there do not appear for work or have outsourced their jobs in connivance with district officials against the payment of some part of their salaries."

With every penny of money given to Pakistan being thrown away, it is only logical to suspend aid and stop the waste.

Notes: I mostly use direct quotes, however, as this was a Public Forum case, I have removed words such as "for example." Simply use ctrl+F to find the quote.



I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I would negate the resolution: United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. Going by the arguments provided by my opponent, he is rooting for a permanent suspension of all the aid given to Pakistan. I would accept the framework provided by Pro.


1. The war on terror: A major chunk of US aid to Pakistan is meant to further the war against terror in the region. What we need to focus on in the debate is not on whether Pakistan is doing its ‘best’ to further that sentiment, but on the effect that a suspension of all the aid will have on that objective.

My opponent mentions that US should try its best to maintain a good relationship with Pakistan after the suspension of aid. I would contend that it is simply an impractical suggestion. Observing the Pakistani reaction when Mr. Barrack Obama suspended 800 million dollars aid, the circumstances suggest that Pakistan would not take a cut in aid lying down. It is unwise to expect the Pakistanis to buckle under what would be a publicly delivered snub. It will strengthen those elements in the armed forces that have always had grave misgivings of the relationship with the United States.

Also, one should note that even now, US is pretty open in criticizing the Pakistan Government on its efforts (or lack of) in the war against terror. After the suspension of aid, if the rebuke continues- and the experience suggests that it will- hoping to maintain ‘peaceful relations’ with Pakistan, with no aid to lure it to cooperate, is a farfetched proposal.

What would happen, most likely- as indicated by past experience, is that a suspension of aids would undermine all the efforts done till now on the war against terror

The fact that Osama Bin Laden hid in the military complex at Abbottabad points towards two prospects: Either the Pakistani military is corrupt or ineffective. Both of the prospects are deeply troubling. However, these are the two facts that we need to grapple with now. Suspending Pakistani aid would not magically lead to solution of either of these problems. It would only complicate them. An abrupt cut in US aid would chop down the only security cooperation that has been effective, if inefficient, in making America safer.

C1: Nuclear weapons: Keeping the nuclear weapons away from terrorists require continuous government cooperation. Pakistan’s civilian government is extremely fragile, while the military is strong, more powerful, with a larger public support. Coupling with it the fact that the allegiance of the military has been extremely ambiguous, considering it is suspected to have helped one of the most wanted global terrorist, and it has been one of the key players in orchestring the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. Leaving Pakistan under the influence of the military would only strengthen the extremism in the country- a country with quite a supply of nuclear weapons- something which can be devastating. Devastating for America, for India, for the world.

C2: Proximity to Afghanistan: Afghanistan is like a battleground for the war against terrorism. Considering that US has started withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the next few years are imperative in describing the path the country takes. A responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces depends on an Afghan political solution that Pakistan will influence. And a volatile Pakistan is not a good influence.

C3: Pakistani stability affects neighborhood: The stability of Pakistan effects India, Afghanistan, and Iran. Considering that India definitely has nuclear weapons, and the nuclear capability of Iran is debated- an instable Pakistan would have disastrous consequences on the region. A betrayal from America would lead to a stronger Pakistan- Chinese bond- and with their mutual hatred for America and India, this might offset the global politics for the worse.

2. Humanitarian, Economic assistance should not be dispelled: It would not be an exaggeration to say that Pakistan has been an aid dependent nation since its inception. Suspension of aid would severely affect the humanitarian and economic development of the terror- infused nation.

The conclusion by the 17 member working committee to examine the broad principles governing the KLB aid program ( a long term program providing non-security assistance to Pakistan) stated [3]:

The list of reasons why Pakistan cannot be ignored is multiplying alarmingly. A perfect storm of internal social, economic, and political crises is bearing down on Pakistan; the storm may dwarf U.S. concerns about terrorism and insurgencies in the “AfPak” area over the next decade. Pakistan’s most serious problems have more to do with a selfish elite wedded to a status quo

that consigns some 40 percent of the population to dire poverty with little or no education or health care, than with terrorism or religious fundamentalism. Some astute Pakistanis discern an emerging conflict between powerful haves and disenfranchised have-nots. Chaos in Pakistan would serve no U.S. interest

According to the experts, If delivered, the $7.5 billion of U.S. development aid to Pakistan over five years promised by the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 would return non-military U.S. assistance to Pakistan, for the first time, to the real levels of the early 1960s, at the height of U.S.-Pakistani engagement. Something that America ought to continue, if not for the altruistic reasons, just for the selfish interests a stable Pakistan would serve in strengthening the US influence in the Global politics.

Given the instability of Pakistani government, US should not, under any circumstances, discontinue its aid. It would lead to disastrous impact on the Pakistani civilians, and on the stability of the neighboring countries.

As the report concludes: Although both sides of the KLB debate are fraught with confusion and suspicion, we believe that the benefits of continued assistance far outweigh the costs. Conversely, if Washington were to end KLB civilian aid now, as some in Congress have proposed, the impacts could be considerable. Granted, the immediate economic impact of ending KLB civilian assistance would be small—an estimated 0.014 percent decrease in annual GDP.

Islamabad’s budget problems, however, mean that it is not funding development programs of its own, increasing the relative importance of KLB development aid. For example, the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP), which makes targeted cash transfers to the poorest Pakistanis for basic necessities, currently relies heavily on U.S. support.

The state of Pakistan’s economy at the time also would determine the impact of any KLB aid cut-off. As discussed earlier, economic growth in Pakistan depends on external flows—foreign aid and remittances from overseas Pakistanis. With neither multilateral loans nor aid flowing and with repayments to the IMF coming due in 2012, remittances would become a lifeline to the economy as well as to overseas workers’ families. Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that the safety valve of labor migration to the Middle East is starting to close as key receiving countries stop renewing contracts for Pakistani workers for a range of reasons. Many poor Pakistanis could face unbearable hardship.

Thank you.




Debate Round No. 2


I, too, thank my opponent for their arguments.

To begin, my opponent stated that my proposal to maintain a stable relationship after suspension is impractical. She did not object to the use of such an argument. This means that the argument is not over whether or not it can be used in the context of the resolution, but on whether or not it is likely to happen.

Such an approach is entirely practical. Note a the quote from my second contention: "Some aid agencies have found it counterproductive to reveal that the development programs are funded by the US.” Clearly, Pakistan wants benefits. What is even more clear, however, is that they do not want U.S. aid.

Pakistani officials have, on numerous occasions, told the U.S. government that their country would prefer the abolishment of unfair tariffs over aid. Pakistan's prime minister (, ambassador to the U.S. (, and finance minister ( have all voiced their government's desire for "trade not aid."

Thus, the United States can still remain on good terms with Pakistan while suspending all assistance. Given Pakistan's possibly volatile situation, and President Obama's support for ROZ zones, it is obvious that such a plan will follow suspension of aid.

Let's now look at my opponents first major argument, on the security of nuclear weapons.

My opponent appears to be claiming that terrorists will gain access to nukes when the government willingly gives them to militant groups.

Note, however, that Pakistan is not allies with militant groups in the common sense. Pakistan does not cooperate with terrorists, Pakistan controls the terrorists.

From the Nato Report: State of the Taliban:

"ISI has exerted particularly tight control over the Haqqani family, likely as a result of the Haqqani Network leaders’ reportedly deep resentment of the Government of Pakistan… Most acknowledge that there is currently no choice but to accept at least a certain degree of ISI control."

"Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban senior leadership continues unabatedly."

And, quoted from a senior Al-Qaeda detainee: "Pakistan knows everything. They control everything."

Clearly, Pakistan would not give terrorist groups a nuclear weapon unless they wanted to strike a target while remaining anonymous. Considering the fact that both the United States and India, the two prime targets, are aware of Pakistan's control over terrorist groups, and see through the anonymity as a result, it seems unlikely that Pakistan would wish to attack.

Also note that both the United States and India have both first and second strike capabilities. Pakistan is well aware of this, and most definitely does not want to get destroyed in a global nuclear war.

Overall, Pakistan is extremely unlikely to give nuclear weapons to a militant group. While Pakistan does exert a certain amount of control over these groups, some have, on occassion, attacked the government of Pakistan. For their own safety, Pakistan will not give nuclear weapons to a possible enemy, nor will they wish to start a global nuclear war.

Let's then look at my opponents second major argument, that Pakistani stability affects Afghanistan.

The simple issue with this is that Pakistan is already trying to destabalize Afghanistan. Nothing that the United States can do will change that. Therefore, suspending assistance will not make this any worse.

Pakistan also has, besides supply routes, absolutely no importance to our efforts in Afghanistan. A volatile Pakistan would be no worse than a volatile Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Iran. However, these three countries are already unstable, yet have very little influence on Afghanistan.

Lastly, as I will discuss in my rebuttal against economic assistance, suspension of aid will not harm the stability of Pakistan.

Onto my opponents third major argument, that Pakistani stability affects the region. Again, note that Pakistan is unlikely to attack India, especially with the threat of U.S. intervention.

My opponent then mentions the possibility of Pakistan allying closer with China and/or Iran.

There are two possible ways that this could happen.

1) Seeing the U.S. as a "mutual enemy." However, this does not require the United States to suspend assistance. Current assistance is not stopping Pakistan from allying with Iran or China. In fact, they have already began to do so with China. Iran, however, has shown no inclination to ally with Pakistan. (My opponent may have meant Iran and Pakistan would start a nuclear war, but the two countries have also shown no inclination to fight)

Furthermore, Pakistan allying with China wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The U.S.-China relationship is far better than the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. With China as the more powerful country, the possibility of Pakistan influencing their opinion on the United States is very small.

2) China or Iran steps in to give Pakistan assistance. This, too, is unlikely. "China doesn't make a practice of providing the scale or type of assistance that the United States has provided; China isn't in a position to provide some of the higher technology that the United States has provided. It therefore is only a partial means to fill that gap that the United States would leave behind.

Iran is even more inadequate, incapable of helping Pakistan in some very important ways." (

Furthermore, China has little reason to ally with Pakistan after the United States has suspended aid. China's current interest in Pakistan rests mostly on the possibility of gaining an advantage against the U.S. They stepped in after the Osama Bin Laden raid to investigate the wreckage from our downed stealth helicopter. ( Since then, they have shown no further inclination to assist Pakistan. With U.S. aid suspended, China's interest in Pakistan quickly wanes.

On then, to my opponents fourth and final major argument: Humanitarian and Economic Assistance.

First, note the entirety of my third contention, on corruption. With the KLB bill which my opponent mentions, only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion has been dispursed, although it has been delivered. That's an 88% waste. The 12% of money that was disbursed was either immediately spent on advanced weapons systems, or used to build schools or other facilities that were never even used.

Then, take note of a quote from the Center for Strategic and International Studies:(

"The process of building schools and opening health clinics is unlikely to produce development in any broad sense…Although a few residents may benefit from the assistance, the money may not alleviate poverty in the tribal areas in any meaningful way."

Then, a quote from the Belfer Center (same source): "Pakistan’s economy has not benefited from the budget support; only an IMF loan in late 2008 prevented it from collapsing."

Furthermore, why give humanitarian aid to Pakistan? The civilians have constantly shown that they don't want it, nor is it really benefitting them.

Finally, note that an abolishment on tariffs against Pakistan would benefit the economy far more than aid currently is. The plan is also nearly immune to corruption, meaning money won't feed into the corrupt military complex, as it is now.

Overall, humanitarian and economic assistance subject to far too much corruption, and effectively being thrown down the drain. The assistance that we give never even makes it to the civilians, nor does it actually benefit the economy. Add this to the fact that it is currently increasing anti-American sentiment, and you've got plenty of reasons affirm the resolution.



Thank you for the fast response.

To start off, in the first round, my opponent claimed that Pakistan actively supports terrorist networks. And they already lead to destabilization of Afghanistan and terrorist attacks in India. I have three problems with the argument. 1. The premise 2. The reason that can be overturned 3. The sentiment behind the statement.

  • 1. No evidence: First, we need to differentiate between the state and the non- state actors of Pakistan. Experts have suspected parts of Pakistani government to have had ties to militants for years now, but have never provided the Pakistani government with any concrete evidence whenever they have requested the same. That America would start expressing its frustrations with Pakistan now is rather telling, and ironic.

  • 2. No clear objectives: US claims that Pakistan is conducting a proxy war through the haqqanis in Afghanistan, a point brought up by Pro. This, they say, supports terrorism. At the same time, US supported Afghan militias, military that the US supports, funds, trains- were accused by the Human Rights watch of serious abuses, such as killings, rape, arbitrary detention, abductions, forcible land grabs, and illegal raids.”

When Pakistan does it, it’s terrorism; when US does it- it supposedly becomes counter-terrorism.

What America needs to do is set clear objectives, clear actions it wants Pakistan to enact using the aid given to it. Till 2009, America has given Pakistan the funds without attempting to set particular outcomes against terrorism which it expects. It cannot dish out a bad plan, and withdraw it when it doesn’t work. It won’t work if implemented without accountability, without the major retooling it needs. The assistance was extended keeping a few objectives in mind, withdrawing the assistance would serve anty purpose. In fact, it would serve a negative impact, a disastrous impact on the region. As the February 2011 GAO report suggests, what America needs to do now is improve accountability, planning, monitoring, documentation, basically a better oversight of implementation. I will discuss it in length a little later.

  • 3. Abandoning Pakistan would let anti-American-anti-Indian sentiments rum wild: Assistance is influence. America would lose this influence as soon as it discontinues aid. There is a common conception in Pakistan that capturing terrorists, clamping down militant attacks is America’s objectives. It’s America’s interest, and Pakistan is working against its own interests to ‘help’ America. Nearly 6 in 10 Pakistanis consider America as an enemy. Much of the Pakistani media toes the pro- military anti- India line. There were 189 deaths from terrorism-related violence in Pakistan in 2003; this number rose to 3,599 in 2007, and has grown even higher since. Pakistan’s prime minister recently stated that as many as 35,000 Pakistanis had been killed since 2001, and other officials have argued that more Pakistani soldiers have died fighting militants than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan. Pakistani government estimates suggest that Pakistan’s economy has suffered a loss of $68 billion since 2002 on account of the war.

Given the exorbitantly anti- American sentiment in Pakistan, the only reason Pakistan cooperates with America is because of the aid it provides. Suspension of aid would not solve the problem.

Secondly, my opponent claims that the aid given breeds anti American policies. That is inaccurate, because it is not the aid, but as he states afterwards- the civilians killed in drone strikes. That is entirely understandable. What is not understandable, however, is US receding the aid because of the civilians it has killed in drone strikes. US cannot legitimately kill the citizens of a country, and then reclaim the aid it gives because of the ánti-american sentiments’ that rise due to it.

Whjat it should do is improve the targeting of drones, systemize the information system, eliminate the civilian deaths. Eliminating the aid because it kills civilians is not a logically coherent reaction.

Lastly, the third contention and the subpoint B of the second contention focuses on poor management of the aid. I discussed the point briefly in the C2 of the first point. The problem here is not solved by discontinuing aid. The problem is solved by managing it, by streamlining the aid.

  • 1. Pakistan needs the aid. And as the KLB concluded in its report, If delivered, the $7.5 billion of U.S. development aid to Pakistan over five years promised by the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 would return non-military U.S. assistance to Pakistan, for the first time, to the real levels of the early 1960s, at the height of U.S.-Pakistani engagement.
    Subpoint B: Economic aid: Rather than improve the image of the US, recent focus on economic and development aid has damaged it.

  • 2. An unstable Pakistan is detrimental to the global world. And to the US. US cannot pretend it has not exaggerated the instability in Pakistan, suspending the aid would be even morally reprehensible- if we take morals into consideration. But focusing only on global politics, it would be a bad step.

I would have defended the contentions put forward by me in the previous round, however, the character limit restricts my ability to do so. I would defend them in the next round.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3


I will begin by defending my first contention, on Pakistani support for terrorist networks.

My opponent begins by stating that there is no concrete evidence of the Pakistani state supporting terrorism.

First, let's look again at the NATO Report: State of the Taliban, which I cited in my first contention. The full quote was not included, as I felt it was unneccesary.

“ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah. The ISI office in Thal is located on a bluff overlooking the headquarters of another Taliban organization, the Mansur Group. Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad.”

This is most definitely conrete evidence that Pakistan is unwilling to take action against the Taliban.

Then, remember the quote from the UPI on sharing intelligence with Pakistan. We give the ISI intelligence pertaining to the location of numerous militant sites within Pakistan. In two weeks, every single site is found abandoned.

Once again, concrete evidence that Pakistan's ISI tipped off the extremists.

Next, take a look at some more quotes from The Ally from Hell article, cited in contention one.

"The ISI also helps foment anti-Americanism inside Pakistan. American and Pakistani sources allege that
the ISI pays journalists in the Pakistani press, most of which is moderately to virulently anti-American,
to write articles hostile to the United States."

It's fairly clear that the ISI does not have American interests in mind.

"In a series of interviews, several Pakistani officials told The Atlantic that
investigators believe the militants had help inside the base." (After militants raided a base to destroy U.S. given surveillance planes)

Again, concrete evidence that part of the Pakistani government is supporting terrorism.

Finally, a quote from a past ISI chief, adressed to Prime Minister Sharif: “We have been covering our tracks so far and will cover them even better in the future.”

All of this evidence proves Pakistan's involvement with terrorist networks. Even if Con claims that it's not 100% certain, it is certainly damning enough to warrant a suspension of aid.

Next, on my opponents rebuttal of "No clear objectives":

Two reasons why the Afghan military and the Haqqani network are not remotely comparable:

1) We recognize the failures when they occure, and are currently trying to fix them. That's why we're in Afghanistan in the first place: to institute a government that does not do what my opponent claims. We're still trying to reach that goal.

2) None of the occurences my opponent cited (illegal raids, land grabs, abductions) amount to what the Haqqani network has done by murdering, in cold blood, thousands of innocent civilians for the purpose of spreading terror.

My opponent then claims that abandoning Pakistan would increase anti-American and anti-Indian sentiment.

First, on anti-U.S. sentiment:

Note the entirety of my case for "Trade not aid." I have shown that the United States can suspend assistance to Pakistan without becoming an enemy. I will also show, near the end of this speech, another possibility for maintaining a good relationship with Pakistan.

My opponent then mentions, within this point, the current conditions of anti-American sentiment. This does not show that anti-U.S. sentiment will increase if we suspend aid. Note that anti-American sentiment has not gone down since we reintroduced aid. Pakistan hates us as much now as they did when we suspended all aid and placed massive sanctions on them. The situation can't get much worse than it already is.

Then, on anti-Indian sentiment:

Pakistani-Indian tensions are currently at an all time low. The two countries have already agreed to normalize trade relations ( and Pakistan has recently moved 100,000 troops away from the Indian border. ( (Before con mentions that this contradicts my terrorism point, note that the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban are not the same. Pakistan has never supported the Tehrik-I-Taliban within the FATA)

I also fail to see how suspending aid would cause anti-Indian sentiment to increase, and ask for my opponent to clarify this within the next round.

My opponent also briefly mentions that the U.S. needs to set a clear set of objectives and use better oversight of implementation, rather than suspend aid. I will be adressing this at the end of this posting.

In response to my second contention, my opponent mentions that the current failings of the system are a cause for reform, not suspension. I will be adressing this later.

In response to my third contention, my opponent concedes thats corruption exists. However, she claims that this should be solved by reforming the aid, rather than suspending it. Once again, this will be adressed later.

My opponent also mentions that Pakistan needs the aid. Look to a quote from my rebuttals, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"The process of building schools and opening health clinics is unlikely to produce development in any broad sense…Although a few residents may benefit from the assistance, the money may not alleviate poverty in the tribal areas in any meaningful way."

Even if we can reform the aid, it still won't be effective. The amount of aid we're giving to Pakistan is unable to fix the problems.


"Money alone is no guarantee of success, particularly when entrenched corruptions and inefficiencies in the
bureaucratic system provide diminishing returns to investments... Simply
building schools in the tribal regions for example, has no bearing on the number of educated graduates if the
schools lack capable teachers, better curriculums and more relevance to the labor market...

Only Pakistan can save Pakistan..."

I then ask that my opponent clarify her second rebuttal in the next round, on suspending aid would be detrimental to global politics.

On the moral front of her rebuttal: I agree that suspending aid would be morally reprehensible, but only if it was currently working. Since the vast majority of aid is propping up a corrupt military complex, I claim it is morally reprehensible to continue aid.

Now, onto the most important argument: Why reforms are not a point for the con.

Note that, because the resolution states "suspend," pro must only argue for a temporary stopping of aid. During this temporary suspension, we can then reform aid. This is an entirely superior option than to reform aid without suspension, because we won't be wasting billions of dollars and increasing anti-American sentiment during the reform process.

My opponent has conceded numerous problems with our aid, including corruption and the creation of anti-American sentiment. She even argued for a change in the way we give aid in response to my first contention, on terrorism.

I have just proven, however, that reform is a superior option after we suspend aid. Once reformed, we can reintroduce aid while still affirming the resolution.

Therefore, my opponents major argument is, in fact, an argument for the pro.

This now negates the majority of my opponents case. We now have two possible options to keep Pakistan stable after aid is suspended.

1) Use the "trade not aid" plan. Nearly immune to corruption, benefits the Pakistani civilians more than the government officials, and is far more desired by both the Pakistani government and the lower-class.

2) Reform aid, then reintroduce it. This solves the problems I pointed out in my second and third contentions, and greatly diminishes the problems from my first, while preventing Pakistan from becoming a volatile state.

Overall, con's major argument only plays into the pro side.



Cermank forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


In this speech, I'll be going over why my case still stands, why my opponent's does not, and what will happen after aid is suspended.

Before I begin however, I'd like to go over the most important argument in this debate: Corruption.

My opponent has conceded that corruption exists. I have shown that 88% of our aid goes to waste. This means that all the so called benefits my opponent attempts to bring up, such as humanitarian aid and stabilizing Pakistan, don't actually exist. Our aid is not stabilizing Pakistan. It is not going to humanitarian efforts. It is not decreasing anti-Ameircan sentiment. It is not helping to keep nuclear weapons safe. It is not furthering the interests of the U.S. It is going straight into the pockets of the Pakistani military.

Therefore, suspending aid will not destabilize Pakistan, it will not harm the humanitarian efforts, it will not increase anti-American sentiment, it will not risk nuclear proliferation, and it will not harm the interests of the United States. Why? Because our aid is doing anything in the first place. Since con has conceded that corruption exists, and it's just as bad as I said, she has effectively destroyed her entire case.

Now, onto my arguments:

My first contention is about Pakistan supporting terrorism. My opponent asked for more concrete evidence, which I supplied to her. The most powerful quote comes directly from a past ISI chief, Javed Nasir, adressed to the Prime Minister: "We have been covering our tracks so far and will cover them even better in the future.”

I have also given proof that Pakistan is not willing to act against terrorism, both through the Nato Report: State of the Taliban, and the quote given from the UPI. The ISI not only overlooks numerous terrorist headquarters, but also shared intelligence with terrorists.

My opponent then brought up a rebuttal implying hypocrisy on the part of the United States. I quickly showed that the military of Afghanistan, which is supported by the U.S., is in no way comparable to the Haqqani network or other militant groups. The goal of the U.S. is to fix the problems that my opponent brought up (land grabs, abductions, etc.), while the goal of Pakistan is to use them to spread fear into Afghanistan.

Finally, my opponent brought up a claim that suspending aid would increase Anti-U.S. and Anti-Indian sentiment. I showed that my opponent did not give a reason for why anti-Indian sentiment would increase. I also showed that Pakistani-Indian tensions are extremely low at this time, and suspending aid will do nothing to strain the relationship.

For Anti-U.S. sentiment, I pointed out how my opponent failed to show why anti-Americanism will increase (she only cited the current conditions of anti-Americanism). I then showed that our aid does not decrease anti-Americanism, mostly due to corruption on the part of the government. U.S. approval ratings are the same now as they were in the 90's, when we suspended aid and placed massive sanctions on Pakistan.

I then gave two ways that the United State's can remain on good terms with Pakistan after aid is suspended. One of which, reforming and reintroducing aid, was actually advocated for by my opponent. I will be discussing these options more in depth at the end of this round.

My second contention was on anti-Americanism. My opponent claimed that the current failings in the system were a cause for reform, not suspension. I quickly showed, however, that reforming aid while it is suspended is not only a possible option, but an entirely superior one. This leaves the entirety of my second contention standing, while her rebuttal only reinforces my arguments.

My third contention was on corruption. Again, my opponent claimed that this was a cause for reform, despite reform being a superior option after suspension. This leaves my third contention standing as well.

My opponent's arguments
First, note that all of my rebuttals against my opponent's arguments still stand, as round 4 was to be used for defending our own cases. I will just strengthen my rebuttals during this round, as my opponent is unable to respond to them in round 5 due to the rules I set forth.

For my opponent's argument on the security of nuclear weapons, I showed that Pakistan is not willing to give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, especially when the terrorist group harbors deep resentment towards the government of Pakistan. Such terrorists groups have, on a few occasions, attacked Pakistan's government. Giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists threatens the safety of their own country. I also brought up how the United States and India, the two prime targets, both have first and second strike capabilities. Pakistan would definitely not want to get annihilated in a global nuclear war.

My opponent's second argument was about Pakistan's stability affecting Afghanistan. I showed that, because our aid is subject to so much corruption, we aren't actually helping the stability of Pakistan. Our aid does not reinforce their economy, it just goes to line the pockets of the elite. Then, I showed that Pakistan being unstable wouldn't harm our efforts in Afghanistan. Afghanistan already borders Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran, three incredibly anti-American and unstable countries. Yet, these countries do not hurt our efforts in Afghanistan.

My opponent's third argument was about Pakistan allying with Iran or China, or starting a war with India. I showed that neither China nor Iran want to ally with Pakistan, and that recent evidence shows Pakistan has no intent for fight against India. With the burden of proof for this claim (not debate, just this claim) resting on the con's side, this entire argument does not stand until con can show why Pakistan will ally with China or Iran, which she did not do.

My opponent's final argument was about humanitarian aid. I quickly showed that humanitarian aid is innefective. When attempting to refute my third contention, con even conceded this point, arguing for reform. Also note that I showed, at the end of my round 3 speech, that humanitarian aid will not actually make a large impact in Pakistan, even if corruption can be overcome.

As you can see, the entirety of my case still stands, as numerous points were conceded by Con. All of my rebuttals against con's major arguments remain untouched, and flow through this debate. On this alone, I strongly urge a pro ballot. Now, however, I will be showing what will happen once we suspend aid.

What happens after?
Let's say we suspend aid. The United States immediately gains three major benefits:

1) We are no longer supporting a government which kills our own soldiers and innocent civilians.
2) We are no longer creating anti-American sentiment through our drone strikes which kill thousands of civilians, and through the broken promises created by humanitarian aid.
3) We are no longer wasting 90% of the billions of dollars we give to Pakistan. As con conceded this point, con also effectively concedes the fact that no harms will be caused by suspending aid, because our aid isn't helping anything in the first place.

Con argued for reforming aid, and I agree that this is only logical. This argument, however, negates the majority of her case. Here's how:

1) The temporary suspension of aid will not destabilize Pakistan, because they'll get the aid back, and they'll get effective aid that actually helps their economy.
2) It shows that, by suspending aid, we can fix almost every single problem brought up in my case. Therefore, affirming the resolution will decrease anti-Americanism, will prevent Pakistan from supporting terrorist networks (or at least work towards that goal), and will stop the aid from being subject to corruption.

Also note that the entirety of my "trade not aid" argument still stands. It has not been touched at all. This is another, although less desired, alternative that will prevent Anti-Americanism from being increased after aid is suspended, and will actually help the Pakistani economy.



Cermank forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 6 years ago
Just a note, everything following Mike Mullen is a quote from him. The quotation marks and the bolded font disappeared when I pasted the case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF