The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.
Debate Rounds (5)
First round is to accept. Who wants to debate?
I accept. As Con, I am only accepting the debate in this round. I await my opponent's argument and wish him good luck!
TIME TO GO HOME!!
OBSERVATION ONE: WELCOME TO THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
Rising DEATH TOLLS, CRIMINAL PRACTICES of occupation that has SHATTERED the lives of TENS of THOUSANDS with REPEATED TOURS all to support the interests of a TINY few financial elites are IGNORED by the administration that rode the wave of anti-war sentiment and promised CHANGE
A GENIUNE struggle to end WAR DEMANDS immediate WITHDRAWL of U.S. Troops
Such numbers, however, do have an immense significance and demand serious reflection tens of thousands US troops who have seen their lives shattered by horrendous physical wounds as well as the immense psychological toll of repeated tours of duty fighting a hostile population as part of an army of occupation.
when soldiers are sent to kill and die in a war based upon lies, a war whose human costs are covered up by the government and a servile media and a war that is waged to suppress popular resistance to foreign occupation, this psychological toll is sharply intensified.
The Obama administration’s claims—echoing the lies of Bush and Cheney—that US is fighting in Afghanistan to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil have been discredited by the military commanders themselves, i. It involves criminal practices US soldiers are dying to prop up the venal puppet regimewhich represents a group of brutal warlords and heroin traffickers on the CIA payroll, Far from securing the country, the increased US military presence has only led to a steady escalation of violence and death.
unarmed civilians, the majority of them women and children, killed by US-led occupation forces in night raids, bombings, checkpoint shootings and drive-by killings by US convoys also doubledThe level of bloodletting is set to escalate sharply,
The broad popular hostility in the US to this war, continued under Obama, has not disappeared. But it can find no expression whatsoever within the two big business parties or in the mass media, which largely echoes the official line that the US is fighting a “good war” in Afghanistan.
must demand the immediate withdrawal of all US troops
OBSERVATION TWO: THE HARMS
U.S. Military Presence in Afghanistan has caused severe damage. We will isolate a few independent scenarios.
SCENARIO ONE: THE ECONOMY
U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE WILL COLLAPSE THE U.S. ECONOMY
the immense magnitude of the present-day military complex certainly complicates all efforts to effect a recovery, by draining more than $1 trillion a year from the economy’s potential to produce private consumer and producer goods. The current long-running wars and military occupations in Afghanistan, which will probably never end, , only add to the economic drain on U.S. resources
THE MONEY SPENT ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS WASTEFUL
SWANSON former coordinator for ACORN 2k10
more troops will mean ongoing higher costs to maintain the Afghan occupation, construct new bases there, fuel the machines of war, and provide the weaponry. Looking just at the militarythis is $33 billion to be added to a pile of waste. According to the CBO, Congress has already approved $345 billion for war in Afghanistan,
that same money
The fact is that military spending is destroying the U.S. economy*Investing public dollars in the military produces fewer jobs
*Investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair has a larger direct and indirect economic impact than investing in the military
NEW TROOP DEPLOYMENT TRADES OFF WITH DOMESTIC PRIORITIES DEVOURING OUR ABILITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY
KANE member of the International Security Program 2k9
the new troop deployment would crowd out funding for domestic priorities
the troop buildup and cost of the military efforts "could devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild our own economy. We simply cannot afford to shortchange the crucial investments we need in education, job training, healthcare, and energy independence. The biggest threat to our long-term national security is a stunted economy
SCENARIO TWO: AFGHANISTAN INSTABILITY
U.S. PRESENCES HAS FUELED THE ETHNIC DIVIDE WITHIN THE REGION
The Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s LARGEST and HISTORICALLY dominant ethnic group DESPISE foreign occupation and have INTENSIFIED opposition to U.S. Troop Presence. The Tajik ethnic minority has taken advantage of that presence to fight back their historic Pashtun rivals.
THE U.S. HAS BACKED ITSELF INTO A CORNER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO GRACEFUL ESCAPE.
Selig -; THE NATION,10/21; http://www.thenation.com......
t the Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest and historically dominant ethnic group, will unite to fight a foreign occupation force simply because it is foreign. As Howard Hart, a, "The very presence of our forces in the Pashtun areas is the problem. The more troops we put in, the greater the opposition." The tenacity of the Taliban insurgency is rooted in opposition to an occupation that is, in this case, a particularly distasteful one to the Pashtuns. The US infidel is hated for Persian Gulf and Middle East policies--especially unconditional US support for Israel--that are perceived as anti-Muslim.
There have been too many innocent civilian causalities in Afghanistan due to unreliable US troops and airstrikes
Smith, Sep. ’09 http://www.hrc.org......)
civilian casualties rose 40% in 2008 according to a UN report. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, the US military has admitted errors, but drone attacks continue. Thousands of non-combatant Afghanis have been killed, ]“As the conflict has intensified, it is taking an increasingly heavy toll on civilians.”
An increase of US troops in Afghanistan has contributed to the unstable conditions of violence against women, in addition to an increase in sex trafficking, prostitution, and rape
Smith, Sep. ’09 (http://www.hrc.org......)
“Self-immolation, rape and abduction of women and children has no parallel in the history of Afghani
Afghanistan”¦the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan
The US Army has reported the highest level of suicides and mental health issues of US troops as a result of the countless troops fighting an endless war in Afghanistan
Smith, Sep. ’09 (”,http://www.hrc.org......)
In 2009, the US Army reported the highest level of suicides among,. When soldiers are finally released from the military, care is often woefully inadequate to address both physical and mental health needs. The troops who refuse to fight the war in Afghanistan are at the forefront of ranks swelled with discontented men and women who see no real justification for endless war and occupations.
“There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect.”� “US Army Spc Victor Agosto who refused to deploy to Afghanistan in May 2009
Having troops in Afghanistan reinforces the war, approving torturing methods US soldiers implement on innocent civilians of Afghanistan
Smith, Sep. ’09”,http://www.hrc.org......)
The use of torture methods by US forces in Afghanistan “all clearly outlawed” has been well documented.
the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs
Though I've asked the judges to have a good understanding of CX, I'll further elaborate on the point of the "Harms" stock issue. The Pro's job is to present a case that contains "harms", or things that are bad. The "solvency" of the case is what solves these harms. If the harms are not solved because of the broadness of the harm, then that is a harms attack falling, and an entire stock issue with it.
1) US Military presence will collapse US economy.
My opponent, in his written text, stated that the magnitude of military spending causes many problems and insinuates that this is solely because of Afghanistan. However, if you follow his link, you'll see that it's too a site that shows how it's not just US military in Afghanistan, but in the whole world as well that will cause US economic collapse. Because my opponent sourced the entire site and not a specific review regarding Afghanistan, he has the responsibility of solving ALL MILITARY SPENDING RELATED ECONOMIC ISSUES, something that is quite impossible simply with a removal of troops from Afghanistan alone. Please note that in CX the case is presented, and cannot be changed later. My opponent cannot say that he "meant to have a more narrow source". He had an opportunity to source correctly and he is negligible for the attacks that happen because of his failure to do so.
2) Money spent on the war in Afghanistan is wasteful.
Here we see the same problem as the previous attack. The source leads to a whole entire website, filled with all sorts of information. We see that his text does reference Afghanistan, but it references military spending as a whole as well. Using the same logic as before (harms that are too broad for his solvency to solve) we see that this pillar of his Harms also falls.
3) Troop deployment is bad.
This is similar to the previous two attacks. The opponent references an entire news publishing company and absolutely nothing specific to Afghanistan. Also, notice that the resolution calls to remove all troops. Assuming that no troops are being added, we see that this attack is completely irrelevant. To solve for this harm we needn't remove all troops, but simply not add anymore. So on the front of the fact that this covers a much broader area than that of Afghanistan and also on the front of the fact that this Harm doesn't stem from the status quo the opponent's Harm falls.
4) Ethnically stemmed violence.
This is quite irrelevant. While it is important to recognize the conflicts that are inherently existing in regions by opposing ethnic groups, it does not justify the removal of US troops. As my opponent stated, these ethnic groups oppose ANY foreign influence within the country, which is the very definition of an inherent problem. My opponent seeks to simply remove troops, which will do nothing at all to actually stop the ethnic divide within this country. If he cannot stop this ethnic divide (which he can't because it's inherently existent) then he fails to solve this harm.
5) Civilian deaths.
I will present the D/A / Advantage spread attacks in round three, leaving 4 and 5 for rebuttals, since no other format was presented in round 1.
6) Increase in rape.
Also in D/A / Advantage spread.
7) Mental health.
This argument is much the same as the first two. The opponent provides no specific source, but a link to an entire site. Either we can reject all of the information in which case the opponent's arguments are baseless, or we can look to the sites entire database of information, including problems that aren't Afghanistan exclusive. I'll let the opponent choose which of these fates he'd like to be part of, and then I'll elaborate on the attacks in the next round once that point has (or hasn't) been met.
The point of Inherency is to provide evidence that shows some sort of barrier (eg A law or political figure blocking action) that is stopping the case from being put into effect. Fiat is then used to remove this barrier. This barrier necessarily must be shown in order to provide legitimacy for the case. Otherwise, the opponent is saying there is no barrier stopping the plan from being put into effect, and the fact that the plan isn't enacted goes to show that it wouldn't pass. This is a key stock issue that is completely non existent.
Put quite simply, there is none. My opponent clearly says in his own resolution that all troops should be removed, and yet he fails to provide a plan that outlines any being removed at all. In fact, he fails to mention anything about the removal of troops. This fact alone loses him the round. He shows no evidence as to how he intends to solve any portion of his massive amounts of harms, he shows no agent of action that will be carrying out the plan, and as mentioned before doesn't even have a plan. Seeing as the affirmative has the responsibility to present the whole case round 1, adding additional information in the second round will only create abuse for the Con. The Con's ability to refute this new evidence is quite irrelevant, as these are simply the rules of Cross Examination debate. (We should try to follow them as closely as possible. Clearly the CX itself would be nearly impossible in this text v. text context, however we can still follow the others)
1. Opponent presents harms not related to Afghanistan.
2. Opponent presents a massive amount of harms that he can't solve.
3. Opponent has no plan of action.
4. Opponent has no agent of action.
5. Inherency and Solvency nowhere to be seen.
6. Sources not clear, either including entire sites' databases of information or not information at all, dependent upon point of view.
It seems fairly clear that Con has already won this round, as the round was practically decided when my opponent posted an incomplete, badly sourced case. Should I find it necessary, I'll present an Advantage / Disadvantage spread and an Impact Calculus, and weigh the round.
boredinclass forfeited this round.
No arguments were refuted.
All points stand.
Also, my opponent invited me as a fan in the mean time. This signifies that he was actually on the site and simply failed to respond to this debate.
I hope he will next round. Thank you.
boredinclass forfeited this round.
boredinclass forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.