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

the united states should suspend all asistance to pakistan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/20/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,678 times Debate No: 22189
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




first round is acceptance.....
2 speeches
3 rebutles


I accept the given rules.
Debate Round No. 1


I just came back from a tournament on this issue....and there was some corruption....the team that we beat for fact ended up winning.....we won all our rounds but we didnt get recognized......we were extremely upset about i guess this is a way for me to get have a good debate......

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

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

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

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

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

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

for these reasons suspending all assistance to pakistan would impeed upon U.S policy objectives.




It appears this will, sadly, be a short debate. I never really got to go to a tournament with this topic, so I suppose I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage. :) Sorry for the bad judges, Con. It happens to everyone. :P

Oh, and as agreed, I will only post my own contentions and arguments. Some how I will summarize and refute in the last round.... xD


Contention 1: Aid fails when used in Pakistan.

The Telegraph recently stated in 2012 that aid workers, who are/were being sent to Pakistan are/were being kidnapped by local terrorists and gunmen [1]. Some of these workers are even being released in exchange for the release of terrorist soldiers, bolstering extremist groups.

Both the Congressional Research Service and the Los Angeles Times found that due to Pakistan’s mistrust of US aid, a large amount of aid isn’t even delivered to the people who need it [2]. Other ways that aid is wasted is attributed to lost resources, theft, and a general inability to manage large amounts of funding [2].

Congressional Research Service noted that corruption in Pakistan is high – it was rated in 2010 by the Berlin-based Transparency International (an organization that tracks global corruption trends) 143rd out of 178 countries [2]. Need I say more?
The aid that we are giving them is increasing dependency and corruption. Much of the aid doesn’t even reach the intended people, as it is taken by corrupt politicians[5]

Up to 80% of all aid goes to contractors, says one source [10].

Not to mention the fact that the average life of a Pakistani hasn’t changed at all, even with the steady flow of aid we are giving them [4]. Common people are still struggling to gain access to basic needs – such as education or health facilities [4]. Foreign aid has nearly had no positive effect on the development or growth of Pakistan’s economy.

Foreign aid doesn’t actually help to promote democracy within Pakistan, and in fact, aid can lead to negative effects on the development of more democracies.
Empirical data from Djankov (2006) discovered that aid doesn't promote, but worsens democracy [14]. Despite corruption, economic mismanagement, etc, aid allows governments to continue their practices.
Also, studies have shown that there cannot be a correlation between the increase of aid and the increase of democracy [15].

The study states that reliance on local resources can prove to be better than foreign aid [3]. On the other hand, outside aid can increase "rent-seeking" and cripple economic development.

Also, foreign aid can lead to increased dependency and possibly hinder the development of the economy [5].

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that Pakistan's condition will improve after we withdraw aid.

Contention 2: Pakistan is a doubtful ally.

There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that, at the best, they are not allies.

One example would be the IPI pipeline. The general plan to build the IPI pipeline would strengthen Iran's importance in gas/energy markets in Asia [6]. Pakistan has tried to perhaps even accelerate the building of the IPI pipeline, while the US have demonstrated their obvious opposition to the pipelines [6].

Pakistan is also becoming increasingly inhospitable to the US due to drone attacks. The general public has grown hostile towards US attacks, because of the many innocent lives lost [7].

Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable. The US public image in Pakistan is obviously bad.
Public support for the use of an army to combat extremists have also been steadily declining [8].

However, it is not only Pakistan that has been 'unfaithful'. Pakistani leaders have grown angry at America's support of the quickly growing India [6]. Other accounts include the "sale of U.S. military hardware and provision of civilian nuclear technology assistance to India" [6] and Obama's endorsement of a permanent seat in the UN for New Delhi. India is seen as the greatest threat to Pakistan - a majority of 57% [8]. In the eyes of Pakistanis, the USA is teaming up with their greatest enemy. No wonder why they support our enemies, extremists, lol.

Contention 3: Chances of Deatht

Little known fact - aid can increase the chances of a war.

"In some circumstances external aid can fill so great a proportion of civilian needs for food, shelter, safety, and health services that significant local resources are thereby freed up for the pursuit of warr. This economic substitution effect of aid has a further political impact. When external aid agencies assume responsibility for civilian survival, warlords tend to define their responsibility and accountability only in terms of military control. Even if they started with a commitment to peacetime political leadership, as the international aid community takes over the tasks of feeding and providing health services and shelter for civilians these military-oriented leaders increasingly relinquish responsibility for civilian welfare. They focus on military ends and, over time, define their roles solely in terms of physical control (and the violent attainment and maintenance of that control). As this occurs, warriors struggling for victory over space and people lose all interest and competence in civilian affairs and become increasingly ill prepared to assume broad, responsible leadership in a post war period" [11]. Self-explainable - aid shifts the responsibility of leaders and allow them to wage war.

Furthermore, aid can be exploited and be twisted to benefit corrupt local leaders, who may end up harming vulnerable and defenseless groups, even if the original intention of the aid is good [12].
The best example of developmental aid going bad would be Rwanda.

"...development aid can exacerbate social tensions, encourage bad policy making, make governments less accountable to voters, intensify competition for resources, and feed processes of structural violence in a country, ultimately empowering the very elites who benefit from exploiting marginalized segments of the country..." [12/13].
In Rwanda's situation, the aid that was sent directly resulted in a corrupt and genocidal government slaughtering an ethnicity.

I'm running out of space, so I'll stop here.

In the end, aid is just a means to allow Pakistan, already corrupt, to futher cast themselves into a failed, problematic state. Certainly, aid is not the way to solve this issue. If anything, aid should be withdrawn - it would help both Pakistan and the US.


[11] Mary Anderson, President of the Collaborative for Development Action, Inc, DO NO HARM: HOW AID CAN SUPPORT PEACE OR WAR, 1999, p. 49-50

Debate Round No. 2


well first im going to attack all my opponents contentions....and then as some questions,lastly I will resummarize the stronger case here being the con.

...First let me point out why his first source is invalid.....he says "The Telegraph recently stated in 2012 that aid workers, who are/were being sent to Pakistan are/were being kidnapped by local terrorists and gunmen [1]." if you read the article it doesn't say terrorists kidnapped the man it says some rebel gunmen. so the terrorists didn't kidnap anyone....

his second source about the CRS I don't see these statistics hes talking about.....and ive read the entire thing...

His case;
my opponent states:
"Contention 1: Aid fails when used in Pakistan."........"Both the Congressional Research Service and the Los Angeles Times found that due to Pakistan€™s mistrust of US aid, a large amount of aid isn’t even delivered to the people who need it [2]. Other ways that aid is wasted is attributed to lost resources, theft, and a general inability to manage large amounts of funding [2]."

This claim is absolutely false baluchistan, Pakistan, USAID is delivering to the agricultural sector to prevent damage caused by wheat stem rust----- of pakistans public schools had no electricity, pakistansis will tell you about soaring food prices, and destroyed livelihoods in wake of last years floods. USAID is addressing pakistans needs in these critical sectors by using congressionaly-authorized funding under the enhanced partnership with pakistan act of 2009 to rehabilitate infrastructure and improve the public sectors ability to perform. An example can be seen at power plants, and hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses that will be powered thanks to infrastructure upgrades. USAIDS current energy assistance programmed added 540 MW to pakistans power grid from now. USAID is also funding 3 plus dams in south waziristan. these USAID efforts witch are reaching the people will generate electricity for 25,000 and irrigate 191,000 acres providing a livelihood for 30,000 homes. there is also flood control systems being worked on.

My opponent claims...."Empirical data from Djankov (2006) discovered that aid doesn't promote, but worsens democracy [14]. Despite corruption, economic mismanagement, etc, aid allows governments to continue their practices.
Also, studies have shown that there cannot be a correlation between the increase of aid and the increase of democracy [15]."

1. Number 14 and the claim should be rejected because the study was conducted from 1960-1999
besides it being outdated, this program isn't showing anything going on in Pakistan specifically.
2.number 15 contradicts my opponent and supports my says......"We estimate the impact of foreign aid on corruption using geographical and cultural distance to the donor
countries as instrumental variables to assess causality. Aid decreases corruption. this contradicts his case and supports my claim of aid having a positive impact in pakistan.

my opponent also claims......"The study states that reliance on local resources can prove to be better than foreign aid [3]. On the other hand, outside aid can increase "rent-seeking" and cripple economic development."

1. this would be true only if the country had local resources.....but it doesn't..........Pakistan is extremely poor so there's absolutely no ethical or logical reason to suspend humanitarian or economic aid....etc.......

Now lets go to my opponents second contention
Contention 2: Pakistan is a doubtful ally.

"There are many cases where Pakistan's actions have proved that, at the best, they are not allies.

your contention says pakistan is a ally.......your next sentence says at best they are not allies........this is a contradiction.( the truth is pakistan is a valuable ally in the fight with terrorism.)
2. just because pakistan works on a project that america disagrees with, that doesnt make them our enemy.

my opponent also claims.........Pew Surveys found that 69% of the citizens of Pakistan view the USA as an enemy, and 73% see America as unfavorable.

1. pakistan doesnt like us because we keep killing there people!!!.....besides obama suspending 800 million dollars in aid .....that plus the u.s killing 24 pakistani soilders is the reason that NATO bases were shut down....and is the reason that pakistan is threatening to shut down CIA bases in pakistan...........This clearly shows that suspension worsens relations with the united states also America has to spend 6x more money to coalition troops now due to suspension. Is this helping further us policy objectives?.NO-----

my opponent further claims...."No wonder why they support our enemies, extremists, lol."

1. he talks about India earlier......who cares if were in an alliance with India it doesn't negatively effect u.s foreign policy objectives in pakistan.

2.Pakistan doesnt support terrorists....there are claims all over the internet that suspects pakistan of helping terrorists. one my opponent cant prove this or provide any concrete evidence to prove it. pakistan helping terrorists is a theory, a claim. in a debate suspicion shouldnt be considered because suspicion has no roots to fall back on therefore only facts should be considered in this debate . Therefore pakistan is not supporting terrorists.

To further attack this second contention........Pakistan isn't a doubtful ally......since we've been giving aid, counter terrorism has increased 86% since we started giving aid. 17,742 terrorists has been arrested and/or killed since 9-11. So obviously pakistan is a valuable ally in achieving the us policy goal of fighting terrorism. If we suspend assistance then the terrorists could use that moment of weakness and possibly take over Pakistan witch will jeopardize all the strategy and effort we've put in to fight terrorism.

My opponents 3rd contention
"Contention 3: Chances of Deatht

Little known fact - aid can increase the chances of a war."

1. his entire case is based on the assumption that aid increases chances of war. This claim is crazy
His argument is that since the government will be dependent on aid then that will make them wage war more. We give aid to other countries but they haven't waged war so obviously this theory isn't true.
2. these claims are not Pakistan specific and makes no points about what's going on in Pakistan and only talk about possibilities that wont happen in pakistan. thus this entire third contention is resolution irrelevent.furthermore shouldnt even be considered in this debate.
3. Now im going to flip his argument. Aid only increases the chances of war against terrorists in pakistan. witch is good and supports my case, obviously with the eradication of terrorists thanks to pakistan and our aid......and the 86 % activity increase since we started investing.


my case

1. suspending assistance will jeopardize years of strategy.
2. suspension is insane(we've done it 3 times already what will change if we suspend the fourth time?...nothing)
3.we need to reform without suspending all assistance to Pakistan. we also need to invest more into its economy to promote democracy(help the people, provide them with the materials to actively participate to promote democracy)

1.aid is going to the people and is creating a positive impact in Pakistan. opponent has proved for my case in his sources that aid decreases corruption
3.pakistan doesn't like us because we keep killing there people. if we stop killing there innocent than relations will improve.

5.Pakistan doesn't support terrorist groups( why would they have killed 17,000 plus terrorists?....wouldn't these groups be attacking Pakistan more if its attacking there group?)
6.Pakistan is a active partner in the war against terrorism.



==My Opponent's Case==

Contention 1: Jeporadize Startegy

My opponents argument makes the faulty assumption that aid either
a) Benefits the Pakistani Government
b) Will destroy the Pakistani Government
Both of which fundamentally mean the same thing.

However, I've already provided evidence on why aid is harmful to the situation of a country. If anything, the Pakistani government will improve and actually develop a more efficient way of eleminating terrorists.

And the second situation, whereas Pakistan is completely destroyed. This simply makes it easier for the US government to carry out operations in that region of the world, due to the fact that they do not need to worry about relationships with Paksitan.

Contention 2: Investing in Pakistan

Well this is stupid... My opponent basically just spent an entire paragraph explaining how Pakistan's state is still horrible even after 60 years of aid and billions of dollars [1]. Isn't obvious that aid simply will *not* solve the problem?

The only thing significant that occured in this paragraph was that my opponent claimed aid will incentivise Pakistan to turn to us instead of terrorists.
However, aid only destroys the economy by reducing costs and competition. After all - local people have the choice of accepting "free" stuff from America or buying local goods. Soon, companies might even go bankrupt as America feeds Pakisistan money. Taking away aid will promote buisnesses and help Pakistan regrow.
Furthermore, it's hopeless trying to sway the public opinion of America in Pakistan. Refer to my Contention 2, which explains that the general public hates America.

Contention 3: Past Examples

This contention doesn't make much sense to me. My opponent doesn't explain why suspending aid didn't work but only gives us a timeline of the periods where we gave aid and where we didn't. For all we know, during the periods that we suspended all aid, Pakistan witness tremendous growth and great success. I see no reason to argue against this contention.

==My Case==
Contention 1: Aid Fails

Once again, some aid might be helpful, but the majority is useless and wasted. Not to mention that my opponent only gave examples of future or in-progress projects and descriptions of how Pakistan's current situation is still bad, even after years and billions of aid. Obviously, blindly pumping aid into Pakistan is not the answer.

My opponent also critizes my sources, but barely has any of his own.
He tried to discredit my evidence from Djankov(2006) in my 14th source by saying it is too outdated, but this is all of the information that we have so far. Too bad my opponent didn't provide an alternative.

He also criticized my number 15 source, quoting something that states that aid decreases corruption. This leads me to believe that this source has split views or describes split views as I find the following quote..."On the broader issue of aid and the political system, Knack (2000) uses several indices of political rights and finds noevidence that aid promotes democracy"My opponent then goes on to make the exagerrated, unsupported claim that Pakistan does not have any local resources.
Pakistan has the ability to mine/refine uranium, copper, and gold with some local mines [2].

"Natural resources: Arable land, natural gas, limited oil, substantial hydropower potential, coal, iron ore, copper, salt, limestone.
Agriculture: Products--wheat, cotton, rice, sugarcane, eggs, fruits, vegetables, milk, beef, mutton.
Industry: Types--textiles & apparel, food processing, pharmaceuticals, construction materials, shrimp, fertilizer, and paper products." [3]

Obviously, Pakistan has local resources it can use instead of foreign aid.

Contention 2: Pakistan is a Doubtful Ally

My opponent notices my usage of my contention title and my first statement. I believe my opponent is having trouble with his computer screen, hopefully.
Doubtful means "unsure". I use doubtful, because some people (like my opponent) foolishly believe that Pakistan is still an ally..
I also gave examples of how Pakistan directly opposed and did the opposite of what the America stated. For some reason, my opponent doesn't believe that this shows Pakistan is not our ally.
Obviously, an ally would actually listen. Pakistan did no such thing.

My opponent also claims the cause of all of the hatred is the war. This is irrelevent, because whether or not we keep or get rid of aid, military operations will likely go through and unintentionally harm Pakistan. Let's not compound it by giving them aid and hurting them even more.

Also, India matters, because the majority of Pakistan hates India, and I've given examples of how the US supported India. To Pakistan, we're helping out their enemies.

It also doesn't matter whether or not they are supporting terrorists. In fact, if Pakistan is actually supporting them, stopping aid will destroy the corrupted government. The majority of Pakistan (over 50%) have negative views regarding extremists groups [4]. The main problem is the corrupted government, which is still surviving due to aid that is keeping them alive.

Stopping aid = stopping bad government, which leads to stopping extremist groups.

We (actually Pakistan) would be able to stop/kill even more terrorists with a more efficient government and system.

Contention 3: Chances of Death

Regarding his point "1."
Correct. You somewhat summarized my argument. In normal circumstances, the corrupt government would destroy itself - perhaps through revolution or just instability. However, aid that is being sent to them reduces their resposibility and allows them to look into other interests than the people's.
Also, in Rwanda, the militias that had committed genociede received food, shelter and support, due to international aid, while their surviving victims were left poor[5].
Most of the time, the aid goes to the most powerful, not the most needy [5].

His 2nd point...
Wow. He provided no evidence to counter this theory, and disregarded it as "irrelevent". Nice going....
I don't see how this is irrelevent. It could happen to Pakistan.

His 3rd point...
He contradicted his 2nd point. Now he says this would work? o.0!
Anyways, they have extreme hatred towards India, and the government is corrupt (works with terrorists). Likely, the war will be directed towards India, instead of the terrorists.


1. Aid harms countries by crippling the economy and increasing corruption.
2. Removing aid will improve Pakistan's situation and allow them to counter-terrorism more efficiently.
3. Military operations will continue regardless of aid. Aid only makes it worse by killing more.

Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kyro90 6 years ago
Pro had more sources obviously. I gave S&G to Pro because of the awkwardness of Cons first round. Idk how to explain it but my vote stands here.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
i hate the word count thing........i had to earse alot.....i hate when that
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
well this is mostly summary round......idc
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
Do I defend my arguments?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
heres the source for pakistan killing terrorists forgot to site in my case but here it is.............
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
It's okay. I procrastinate a lot too. :)
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
well i was hoping you didnt because all mines are printed out i have to show sorces for posting so late i have like 3 debates going on at one time.....i will be posting tommarow
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
Nvm. I can provide some links
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago
Well, I have the name of the source. I just won't be providing links.
Posted by vmpire321 6 years ago

Will this be a no sources debate? For my debate class I usually just write the web name down and not link it. I'm too lazy to go and find all of my online sources..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kyro90 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote reason in comments.