The Instigator
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wolfhaines
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The War in Afghanistan is a bad thing.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
wolfhaines
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,192 times Debate No: 15572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

petersaysstuff

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for, hopefully, accepting.

I will first provide definitions and then my position. The first round will be acceptance and definitions.

War in Afghanistan: "The War in Afghanistan is an ongoing coalition conflict which
began on October 7, 2001, as the US military's Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) that was launched, along with the
British military, in response to both the September 11, 2001
attacks on the US."[1]

Bad: "having undesirable or negative qualities."[2]

During the course of this debate I will be arguing that the War in Afghanistan is overall a bad thing. I look forward to an enjoyable and educational debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
wolfhaines

Con

I graciously accept the debate.

I shall try and formulate points and arguments around examples from other predominantely muslim countries, so as to avoid an impossible comparison between the west, and its values, and the Islamic world, and its own values.

I hand over to my opponent for their opening statment.
Debate Round No. 1
petersaysstuff

Pro

I will debating this in (somewhat) a policy debate format.

Advantage 1, Afghan stability:
If we maintain military presence in Afghanistan, anti-americanism will only increase and there will likely be more Taliban recruits. Having troops in Afghanistan is showing the Afghan people what the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has said about America to be true.[1] This may be fine if it were isolated to just Afghanistan but that is not the case. If an Islamic extremist takeover of Afghanistan were to happen, Pakistan would ultimately destabilize and be taken over itself. Again that has no inherent danger if we blind ourselves to the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. But we cannot blind ourselves to that fact and must realize that if Pakistan is taken over by Islamic extremists, nuclear war will inevitably ensue,[2] and we all have heard the horror theories about what would happen if a nuclear war broke out. The terminal impact would be extinction.

Advantage 2, Hegemony:
With the US being in Afghanistan, two very real possibilities for hegemonic collapse arise. Firstly, stopping the war/reducing presence in Afghanistan is the only way to stabalize our declining influence.[3] Secondly, the fact that the US has two doctrines in place, the counterterrorist and counterinsurgency, stretches our military thin as well as lowering US legitimacy. So what would happen if we did not stop the war in Afghanistan? If we stay in Afghanistan we will ultimately get entangled in future conflicts, undermine our power as well as cause the War on Terror to fail.[4] The terminal impact of the loss of hegemony is that smaller wars will erupt until even large powers get involved which ultimately risks extinction.[5]

So far we have two possibilities for extinction! Depending on how the round goes I may add more advantages on but in the meantime I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com...
[2] http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org...
[3] http://www.hks.harvard.edu...
[4] http://www3.interscience.wiley.com...
[5] http://papers.ssrn.com...;
wolfhaines

Con

I find it interesting that my opponent chose to base his argument around the impact it has on only the USA, when there are other allies dying over there too. I find this direction of argument a bit selfish, and as such I shall look at the wider picture of Afghanistan itself.

I shall start my argument with a brief overview of my points, then at the end I shall summarise all the facts together, with relevant sources. This should make it easier for readers to refer back to my evidence. I shall also not make comparisons with western countries, and try and keep my arguments within Islam as much as possible, to show that Afghanistan is a better contributor to Islamic culture now than before, and how since 2001 it has narrowed the gap between itself and other Muslim nations.

Since the war started in late 2001 education among the young of Afghanistan has improved dramatically. They now experience a freedom of education unheard of during the Taliban years. This is not only restricted to an improvement in girls attending school, but boys have also seen the benefits of a less restrictive education system. This is in line with other Muslim countries, such as UAE, Bahrain and Qatar, who encourage higher education, even for females. It is an Islamic tradition to promote the sciences, mathematics, medicine and arts. Afghanistan before 2001 had strayed from this tradition, but is now embracing it again. Education leads to an improvement in communication, which helps promote understanding and in turn helps in relationships with neighbouring tribes. It also helps promote economic productivity, national logistics, and a stable and impartial legal system. This leads me on to my second point.

Regardless of what the law is (be it western law or Islamic law), an overriding legal system, enforced impartially, helps combat the rule of the mob and personal vendettas (as seen under the Taliban). Other Muslim countries have strong legal systems, such as the system in Turkey or Lebanon, so this is not just a western attribute of society. The removal of the Taliban has allowed the creation of a more impartial police and judiciary service, which in turns allows law to be enforced equally throughout the land. Peace is far more likely when the rule of law is in place, and not controlled by the ruler of the nation. My third point covers what can happen if peace is more likely.

Culture is important to any society. It helps to bind people together. Afghanistan is a tribal country, yet under the Taliban all differences in cultures were eradicated and replaced with the culture of leaders from outside Afghanistan (Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia for example). They defiled and destroyed anything that didn't match their new cultural ideal, which led to the destruction of thousands of years worth of art. Creativity in art plummeted during the rule of the Taliban, and a once proud history was almost wiped from the records. This is not an Islamic, nor a tribal regularity, as many Islamic countries have produced outstanding architecture, paintings and tapestries. Lots of tribal nations around the world have also left their artistic mark on caves and in their clothing traditions. Since 2001 tribes and citizens in Afghanistan have been free to not only retain their individuality, but also to express it.

The Taliban, although being Muslim in origin, were hypocritical when it came to Islam. They preached a form of hatred and segregation to a level rarely seen by Muslim governments elsewhere. Many Muslim figureheads condemn this interpretation of Islam. Their productivity of Opium goes against Islamic values of respect for the body leant by Allah, and against the respect and love for their brothers elsewhere in the world. Since 2001, although a rise in productivity was seen in some turbulent areas for a while, a campaign against drugs has resulted in farmers turning to other crops for income. This brings Afghanistan closer to the standards expected by surrounding Muslim nations.

We all know about the threat the Islamic extremists within the Taliban (especially Al Qaedas influence) posed for the international community before 2001, so I won't labour this point again, as I assume the readers will take this into consideration naturally. My point will, therefore, be from the other end of the spectrum- that of Afghanistan itself. The recruitment, training and equipping of the Afghan National Army will allow Afghanistan to better defend itself should any external or internal threats arise. With Iran to the west, and an unstable north Pakistan to the east, Afghanistan has never been in a better position to protect itself than it will be once the war ends, nor has it had such a need to do so since the Soviets invaded. This wouldn't have been possible under a sporadic Taliban military, which is why Al Qaeda held so much influence. This leads me my final point of Round One- Pakistan.

As my opponent pointed out Pakistan is a nuclear power, with very little control over vast tribal areas within its borders. Many of those areas border Afghanistan. Without trying to remove the threat of extremists within Afghanistan, they would have had a base from which to train and indoctrinate recruits, and an unstable region on their doorstep (North Pakistan) in which to cause trouble.Any internal conflict in Pakistan could prove to be disastrous for the world. Removing part of that threat is a good thing, no matter how little a threat it was. I do not understand the logic of my opponent who fears a takeover of extremists, when in 2000 Afghanistan was run by extremists anyway. This simply points to the war being a good thing.

My argument in Round One is that since 2001 conditions for the Afghan people have improved, either in education, healthcare, sanitation, economics or technology. They now have an opportunity to be a proud Islamic Republic, catch up with other Muslim nations on many issues and regain their identity. This was not possible under the Taliban, but it is possible now.

Facts:
•54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001.
•Those without access to electricity form only 33% of the population, which is an improvement on the previous 42%.
•In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%.
•Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37%
•In Helmand there are now 93 schools, an improvement from a previous 34.
•52% of children are enrolled in schools, up from 37%. Around one million in 2001 (none of whom were girls) to over six million today, one third (or over two million) of whom are girls.
•A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people.
•The identification and management of over 39,000 community-based infrastructureprojects - such as wells, clinics and roads – in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan, through the Afghan-led National Solidarity Program.
•The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program.
•The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001
•10 million Afghans today have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001.
•The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://www.defence.gov.au...

http://www.rawa.org...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

http://www.afghan-web.com...
Debate Round No. 2
petersaysstuff

Pro

//I find it interesting that my opponent chose to base his argument around the impact it has on only the USA, when there are other allies dying over there too. I find this direction of argument a bit selfish, and as such I shall look at the wider picture of Afghanistan itself.//

This not the case, my terminal impact, extinction, effects everyone, not just the US. Also, on my 1: I talk about an Indo-Pak war which is effecting the people of India and Pakistan in the short term as well as leading to extinction in the long run which effects everyone. So the argument that I am not making light of the other impacts doesn't work. (I admit my second advantage is talking about US hegemony but the terminal impact still effects everyone)

On my opponent's 1: First off, the "fact" that we are helping the people there is just not true.
"The Afghan politician and activist Malalai Joya has warned that "Obama's military buildup will only bring more suffering and death to innocent civilians.""
"Another woman, who goes by the pseudonym Zoya, has appeared in various U.S. media calling for "withdrawal of the troops immediately." She is a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a Kabul-based political group that has fought for human rights and social justice since 1977."[1]

Our government is ignoring the fact that the people of Afghanistan want us out and that, with increased troop numbers, more death will ensue. There is no humanitarian effort at all: "And Sakena Yacoobi, who founded a network of underground schools for Afghan women and girls, says "most foreign troops are not primarily focused on protecting women and children. Their focus is on beating the enemy, which is very different, and ordinary citizens become collateral damage in the process.""[1] Even Obama agrees on this fact.
But here we can cross apply my first advantage which says that with continued troop presence, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are drawing more vallentuers and thus this will link to my opponent's claim that it will lower education for women as well as sparking an Indo-Pak war which will risk extinction. In that event, extinction out weighs everything else because it is irreversible. If we go extinct, it will not matter who has schooling and who doesn't, we will be dead.

On my opponent's 2: I cannot find any source here, if there is one I am open to correction. But that is irrelevant right now seeing as, so far, my evidence that troops being there is angering the people as well as helping the Taliban and Al-Qaeda draw more recruits still stands and thus, as my evidence states, the Taliban will return to power and the rule of the mob will return so this argument doesn't work.

On 3: Cross apply my evidence that says the Taliban will return if we continue the war there.

Before I go on let me also add this: during the course of the war in Afghanistan, violence has been increasing, NATO alliances are failing and the Taliban is becoming stronger [2] The other problem with the War is the the Taliban has not been defeated, they have just melted into modern Afghan culture. Previously my opponent claimed that the government put in place has been helping but this is not true at all. Conversely, "The Karzai government turned out to be incompetent and corrupt, and never had much influence outside Kabul. It was no match for the Taliban, which began to reestablish itself."[3]
"they would need large numbers of ground forces and would become an occupying power propping up an unpopular regime. Between October 2004 and October 2006, U.S. and NATO troops spread out into every region of the country. Not surprisingly, that bigger footprint helped fuel the insurgency, creating today's dire situation." [3]

On 4: It may be true that Opium production has decreased but in these "poppy-free" zones, other problems arise. As George Gavrilis says: "Though poppy growing may be eliminated, criminal networks in a number of provinces now focus on refining, stockpiling, and transporting opium."[4] Just because we have, tried, to stop the growing of Opium doesn't mean the illegal trade has ceased. So Afghanistan is still not meeting the standard set by other Muslim countries because the Opium trade is still alive and well.

On 5: This may be somewhat true but the problem is that the recruitment of fighters for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda stems from us being there as my evidence from advantage 1 says. They are outraged at us being there and thus we are the cause of the instability.

On 6: My opponent doesn't understand my logic and thus I will restate it for him. It is true that Afghanistan was run by extremists earlier but they did not have as a big a recruiting pool simply because there were minimal things to rally the people with yet since the war has been raging, the people are upset and that is the perfect tool to rally fighters thus increasing instability. I hope this has cleared it up more.

On 7: My opponent has provided no evidence regarding health care, sanitation, (minimal) economics and technology so we must not look to this.

//Overview\
My opponent hasn't tried to negate any of my advantages thus they and their impacts still stand.

//On the facts\
1: No evidence is provided as to the war being the cause.
2: Same as above.
3: Same as above.
ect...

My opponent provided no warrants for his facts and thus there could easily be an alternate cause so keeping this in mind we must not look to it.

I await my opponent's response.
[1] http://www.yaliberty.org...
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
[3] http://www.newsweek.com...
[4] http://www.cfr.org...
wolfhaines

Con

My opponents did not seem to even read my sources as he goes on to state (regarding my facts list at the end of Round One) "there is no evidence to suggest this was due to the war". If they looked closely they will see one of the sources was the government of Australia, who is helping fund and coordinate such products. Correct me if I am wrong, but Australia didn't have troops in Afghanistan before 2001. The projects are being funded by the international community that have troops in Afghanistan, so that is clear evidence the war has brought about those positive changes. And then "he does not provide evidence to say that healthcare, sanitation etc has improved". That long list of facts at the end, followed by their sources does exactly that. Please read my arguments.

With regard to my opponents quotes from Afghan citizens, they seem to be from a website that cannot be verified. So how true these quotes are disputable. One of the quotes is from Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, who I used to support one of my points. If my opponent actually took time to learn about this group they would realise they are an entirely peaceful organisation, neither supporting the presence of allied troops, the Taliban, nor Afghanistan government troops. So it doesn't support his point at all. The minority voice of Afghans who preferred the Taliban to the new government is drowned out by those who don't, as my figures showed. Which I assume my opponent actually read.

Then my opponent goes on to talk of extinction, regarding the instability in Pakistan, as if scaremongering is going to promote his case. Again, he should know that Al-Qaeda is an international group, and will have a presence everywhere, regardless of the war. However, the Taliban, who allowed Al-Qaeda to run terrorist camps, are not international and were removed from power. The removal of which brought about the positives I stated in the last round, which my opponent cannot dispute.

The reason why troop activity has increased, and why deaths are increasing, is because the allies are stepping up efforts to recruit and equip ANA and ANP members. Which, when the allies leave, (which they have started to do this year) will be the ones who protect Afghanistan. Which is what my entire argument was based around- Afghanistan itself.

My opponents view that the Taliban will return is again based on ignorance. The Taliban never left. They have, however been removed from power, and the Afghanistan government is growing stronger each year, to a point where they can keep power away from the Taliban. Again, my argument said all of that.

My opponent did, however, rightly point out that removing the Taliban did not remove the production of Opium. But, Afghanistan has gone from the Taliban (who supported Opium production) to the new government (who does not support Opium production). So they are least fighting the drugs trade, which does bring them in line with other Muslim countries. So my point still stands.

Another ignorant point my opponent made was that the presence of foreign troops is increasing Taliban recruitment. There is no evidence to support the notion that new Taliban recruits are loyal to the cause, as many are just locals who are paid to fight, and then go back to work alongside allied troops in building schools etc. When our troops recognise these locals we work with them to provide alternatives to being a mercenary, which, again, becomes a positive. If my opponent can prove that recruits are fighting for the Taliban because of political beliefs, then I will concede this point, but he won't be able to.

So I urge you, go read my Round One again and read the sources (which support the facts I stated. As it stands my positives are standing strong. Perhaps a study of Afghanistan itself might help. Seeing as my opponent cannot dispute my positives, nor my facts, and they far outweigh and outnumber his own, it is plausible to say the war is more of a good thing than a bad thing. His argument seems to be based around taking a negative view of the situation, rather than finding hard facts and statistics to prove things are worse now than before 2001. My argument clearly states statistics and facts, and their sources, that support the view that the war in Afghanistan is a not a bad thing.
Debate Round No. 3
petersaysstuff

Pro

You are correct. I stand corrected but I will touch on that later. I was confused because it is the DDO custom to do the [_] and then the source. I am sorry for that misunderstanding. Again, I will respond to this at the end.

//With regard to my opponents quotes from Afghan citizens, they seem to be from a website that cannot be verified.//
Here is where my opponent is dead wrong. The website I posted as [1] was Young Americans for Liberty.org and on that site, in the exact article I linked to, there is another link to more info regarding the same topic on The American Prospect.org. Claiming that the site is not verified is not true, if he took the time to read it he would see that the quotes are legitimate. My opponent also claims that the quotes don't support my case at all but this is not true in the least. The quotes are showing that the citizens want forces out of Afghanistan. My opponent has ignored my other quotes which talk about military buildup leads to more death of civilians as well.

// The minority voice of Afghans who preferred the Taliban to the new government is drowned out by those who don't, as my figures showed. Which I assume my opponent actually read.//
What? Where does this fit in at all? My evidence is talking about the fact that the Afghan people want troops out yet we are ignoring them.

//Then my opponent goes on to talk of extinction, regarding the instability in Pakistan, as if scaremongering is going to promote his case. Again, he should know that Al-Qaeda is an international group, and will have a presence everywhere, regardless of the war. However, the Taliban, who allowed Al-Qaeda to run terrorist camps, are not international and were removed from power. The removal of which brought about the positives I stated in the last round, which my opponent cannot dispute.//
Okay, I'm totally scaremongering to promote my case. (sarcasm) It seems that my opponent has ignored my evidence that a nuclear war will ensue and ultimately extinction will result. If you choose to ignore the evidence then it is not my fault. But please don't accuse me of doing something I'm not solely because I provide evidence that you ignore. I never said that Al-Qaeda won't have a presence everywhere but the war has increased theirs, and the Taliban's, recruiting pool. This is the basis of my advantage 1 and has gone undisputed this entire debate. About the positives, I have already shown that having troops there is causing the citizens to be upset and thus increases the Taliban's recruiting pool thus leading to the problems my opponent claims the war has stopped.

//The reason why troop activity has increased, and why deaths are increasing, is because the allies are stepping up efforts to recruit and equip ANA and ANP members. Which, when the allies leave, (which they have started to do this year) will be the ones who protect Afghanistan. Which is what my entire argument was based around- Afghanistan itself.//
So here my opponent concedes that deaths have increased and, if you look to my previous evidence from last round, the surge in troops (even if we are attempting to withdraw them) is causing more civilian loss of life.

//My opponents view that the Taliban will return is again based on ignorance. The Taliban never left. They have, however been removed from power, and the Afghanistan government is growing stronger each year, to a point where they can keep power away from the Taliban. Again, my argument said all of that.//
My view is based on ignorance? What? My opponent again fails to read any of my evidence which is talking about how the Taliban will gain a greater recruiting pool and return to power. Looking through my opponent's links I find no evidence that says that the new government can keep the Taliban from taking over. But let's also extend my advantage 1 evidence which is specifically talking about how they WILL take over again if we keep troops there and that the war has increased their recruiting pool. My opponent has not even tried to negate this until now.

//My opponent did, however, rightly point out that removing the Taliban did not remove the production of Opium. But, Afghanistan has gone from the Taliban (who supported Opium production) to the new government (who does not support Opium production). So they are least fighting the drugs trade, which does bring them in line with other Muslim countries. So my point still stands.//
My opponent says his point stands but this is just not true. The fact is that the illegal opium trade has stayed the same if not increased since the war, which is what my evidence says. Again my opponent has failed to read my evidence and thus my claim still stands. It doesn't matter whether the government does or does not support opium, if the trade is the same/increasing, they are still not in line with other Muslim countries.

//Another ignorant point my opponent made was that the presence of foreign troops is increasing Taliban recruitment. There is no evidence to support the notion that new Taliban recruits are loyal to the cause, as many are just locals who are paid to fight, and then go back to work alongside allied troops in building schools etc. When our troops recognise these locals we work with them to provide alternatives to being a mercenary, which, again, becomes a positive. If my opponent can prove that recruits are fighting for the Taliban because of political beliefs, then I will concede this point, but he won't be able to.//
What?! It seems that my opponent has entirely ignored all of my evidence from my first advantage. It is specifically talking about how out presence is rallying the people against us and to the Taliban! My opponent provides no evidence that the fighters are mercenaries who also fight along allied soldiers whilst I provided evidence that says that they are rallying to the Taliban because of their dislike of us! I'm afraid my opponent's argument does not work here at all.

//So I urge you, go read my Round One again and read the sources (which support the facts I stated. As it stands my positives are standing strong. Perhaps a study of Afghanistan itself might help. Seeing as my opponent cannot dispute my positives, nor my facts, and they far outweigh and outnumber his own, it is plausible to say the war is more of a good thing than a bad thing. His argument seems to be based around taking a negative view of the situation, rather than finding hard facts and statistics to prove things are worse now than before 2001. My argument clearly states statistics and facts, and their sources, that support the view that the war in Afghanistan is a not a bad thing.//
My opponent thinks his positives are standing strong but this is just not the case. Most if not all rest on the fact that the Taliban will not come back to power/is not gaining a greater recruiting pool which my evidence shows they are. His positives are simply not true. I will tackle some more of this in the overview.

//On the facts\After looking at the links my opponent provides we can see that most of the benefits are from charities and sending money. A quote from his BBC link: "The UK has donated �32m towards local projects..."
The other benefits are because the Taliban is less powerful but my Ad 1 evidence says they will return.
Extend my Karzai bad

//Overview\First off my opponent has made little to no attempt to refute my first advantage as well as ignoring my second one entirely. In both those advantages I have two terminal impacts of nuclear war and extinction which he claims is scaremongering but that is just him being ignorant to the evidence. If he would take the time to read the evidence he would see that the threats are very real but if you still ignore the evidence and believe I am "scaremongering" here is some more evidence: http://www.nuclearfreenz.org.nz...
So here we must see that you must vote Pro because both of my advantages still stand whilst my opponent's have been negated
wolfhaines

Con

I shall repeat those facts as they are still being ignored (sources in Round One):

•54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001.
•Those without access to electricity form only 33% of the population, which is an improvement on the previous 42%.
•In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%.
•Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37%
•In Helmand there are now 93 schools, an improvement from a previous 34.
•52% of children are enrolled in schools, up from 37%. Around one million in 2001 (none of whom were girls) to over six million today, one third (or over two million) of whom are girls.
•A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people.
•The identification and management of over 39,000 community-based infrastructureprojects - such as wells, clinics and roads – in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan, through the Afghan-led National Solidarity Program.
•The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program.
•The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001
•10 million Afghans today have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001.
•The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights.

"54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001". This is an interesting one, as 54% is a majority. No matter how hard my opponent tries to take the views of one or two individuals and apply them to everybody, he can't do it.
"In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%". My opponent obviously not feel being immunised against disease is a positive.
"Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37%". Again, learning to read and write is not a good thing in my opponents mind. The United Nations, however, thinks education is a basic right of man.
"A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people". Health care availability has increased. Another UN basic right of man. Which my opponent obviously doesn't agree with.
"The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program." and "The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001". Jobs. Americans go on and on about a recovery without jobs, but when it comes to Afghanistan my opponent is happy to let the creation of jobs go unnoticed.
"The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights". Free speech. The Taliban didn't allow free speech, but according to my opponent that doesn't matter, as the country was better before 2001, even though my evidence says otherwise.
Yes lots of money being spent on these projects is from charity, but the vast majority is from governments. And the charity money cannot reach where it needs to be without our troops or ANA troops to protect it. The Taliban never built schools, in fact they demolish schools. They also kill any teachers in these new schools. So without foreign troops these benefits wouldn't have occurred.
So, while my opponent is happy to use his right to education, healthcare, free speech, and right to work, he is not happy that that now extends to Afghanistan too.

Opium- my claim wasn't against his figures. My claim was that having a government prepared to fight the drug trade is better than one who is not. Seeing as that is what Afghanistan now has, it is an improvement from 2001. Drug production in South America is still rife, but their governments at least try and fight it, regardless of whether production increases or decreases. Fighting the drug trade is not important to my opponent.

In 2001 the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they had members in every town. Now they do not. My opponent has no hard evidence to say Taliban numbers have increased. Thus his assumption that the Taliban will return to power once we leave is not based on fact, it is his opinion. The numbers of the ANA and ANP, as well as their equipment means the Taliban can't just walk back into power. I do not know which Afghanistan my opponent is looking at, perhaps that of the Soviet era, but it is not the Afghanistan that the world knows today.

My opponent claims that having foreign troops in Afghanistan increases the likelihood of Pakistan being over run by extremists. Yet foreign troops in Afghanistan have taken away the training camps that were used to train such extremists. Not to mention the USA is using Afghanistan to bomb Pakistan to kill Al-Qaeda leaders there. So where is my opponents evidence that Pakistan is more unstable now it has a quarter of a million non extremist troops on its border, than when it didn't? He doesn't have any. In fact, there haven't been any international attacks based from Afghanistan since 2001. I have evidence that not having troops in Afghanistan before 2001 caused attacks against the world though, it is called 9/11.

Finally, he talks of civilian deaths as if we are shooting civilians for fun. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan is one of the lowest of any war undertaken in the last 100 years. He obviously forgets the Taliban stoning civilians to death without trial, or beheading teachers for doing their job. Or perhaps hanging people who spoke out against them. I can guarantee you that the Taliban treated civilians with far less respect than we do.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com... (even the rumour of this one is enough to make you cringe)

http://www.independent.co.uk...

http://articles.cnn.com...

I also have a RAWA link (same website that he tried to use to support his point, my link says otherwise) that contains disturbing images, and I'm not sure if posting it on an uncensored site is acceptable or not. So I can send it to anybody who asks for it instead.

http://gulfnews.com...

My opponents overlooking of the evil of the Taliban is quite astonishing. My evidence shows an increase in healthcare provision, literacy rates, infrastructure, technology, and free speech. My opponents view that having the Taliban as a government is better than not having the Taliban is quite disturbing. The people of Afghanistan are better off in 2011 than they were in 2001. Therefore the war in Afghanistan is a good thing.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
Sorry if I missed anything, I literally used all 8,000 characters xD
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
petersaysstuffwolfhainesTied
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 has the burden to show that the net effect of the war is bad, Con need only establish it is too soon to tell for sure. Pro made many overstatements that did not stand up, and overall did not meet the burden of proof. Con should have linked sources initially, but fixed that problem.