The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US' best interest

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,631 times Debate No: 10977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (2)




I'm gonna go ahead and post my case in round 1. Thanks to anyone who accepts; this'll be practice for both of us. I'm running con because this is now my personal final version. Good luck. Please, no personal attacks, and try to be grammatically and structurally clear. Thanks :)

"[Since the] invasion by Genghis Khan and his two-million strong Mongol hordes to the superpower proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union, Afghanistan's trade routes and land-locked position have for centuries rendered it vulnerable to invasion. Although Afghanistan has endured successive waves of Persian, Greek, Arab, Turk, Mongol, British, and Soviet invaders, no occupying power has ever [been] successful. [I]t has been described as the "graveyard of empires," and unless America alters its approach, it risks meeting a similar fate. [END QUOTE] ^1
Because I agree that we face the risks outlined by the CATO institute, I negate
Firstly I would like to clarify Obama's plan; it contains 3 primary components
1.using the troop surge to stabilize the government
2.bolstering the fight against Al-Qaeda and Talibani insurgents
3.building infrastructure
A withdrawal is set to be carried out after 18 months

Contention 1: Winning in Afghanistan is impossible
1A.Terrain makes winning an impossibility
Dan Simpson writes, (Former U.S. Ambassador & Former Deputy Commandant for International Affairs of the U.S. ArmyWar College), PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Dec. 9, 2009, B7.

Mastering Afghanistan has been despair for Alexander the Great, the British and the Soviet Union. It is the size of Texas, with a difficult terrain, hard climate, an opium-dependent economy and people who generally unite around repelling any foreign power that tries to take over their country. [I]magine that we and our reluctant NATO allies, a crooked Afghan government and unreliable, sometimes dangerous Afghan security forces, can now with 30,000 more American troops bring order. [T]he assumption that it is possible after we have tried to do so unsuccessfully for eight years is so improbable that it is laughable. [END QUOTE]

1B.Training them won't work
The shortcomings of training the police force are twofold. First, you can't guarantee that they will be an effective combatant force after we leave. Second, since they are looking for the "sweeter deal", our withdrawal will be the return date of the Taliban in which they will win back the support of the locals.

1C.The war will be too costly
1C-1The cost to the US
Nov 25 2009, Derek Thompson writes

Consider the price of war. [T]he Congressional Research Service estimates the cost of sending one soldier to Afghanistan for one year is approximately $1 million. A 30,000-troop escalation, which sounds like Obama's ceiling, would require a $30 billion yearly tax. That would be about four-times the proposed tax on alcohol.[END QUOTE]

1C-2.The cost to Afghanistan
Fareed Zakaria for newsweek writes Sep 12, 2009
Building a strong security force, as proposed, will be arduous in this context, not to mention that its annual cost would be equivalent to 300 percent of the country's GDP.
The focus must shift [away] from nation building.. The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are Taliban or not.[END QUOTE]

1D. Military force NEVER works against terrorist organizations
Seth Jones writes (RAND corporation)

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended either because (1) they joined the political process in 43 percent of cases or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members 40 percent of the time. Military force has never been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al-Qaeda. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase "war on terrorism" since there is no battlefield solution to al-Qaeda.[END QUOTE]

1E. We already accomplished our primary objective; we can't win more than victory

When we launched the offensive after 9-11, our focus was to defeat al-Qaeda, who was the mastermind behind the plot. They are now insignificant, and only need to be dealt with preventatively such as through intelligence and policing; not with military. Moreover, we shouldn't be fighting the Taliban because they are a political party we need to be diplomatic with; not violent with. We must talk and make relations with them, which would be more in our best interest than fighting them wastefully and continually squandering money and lives.

Contention 2- The focus of our troops should be in Pakistan exculsively, which is our best interest
William Darlymple in his award winning novel for historical accuracy; Pakistan in Peril
The Taliban have reorganized, advanced out of their borderland safe havens, and are now massing at the gates of Kabul, threatening to surround and throttle the capita. Members of the taliban already control over 70 percent of the country.
The blowback from the Afghan conflict in Pakistan is more serious still. In less than eight months, Asif Ali Zardari's new government has effectively lost control of much of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to the Taliban's Pakistani counterparts.
Across much of the NWFP—around a fifth of Pakistan—women have now been forced to wear burqa, music has been silenced, barbershops are forbidden to shave beards, and over 140 girls' schools have been blown up or burned down. [END QUOTE]

The best interest of the US is preventing destabilization in Pakistan because the results would be terrorists with nuclear weapons and an economic crater in our GDP that we can't afford. Taliban control in Pakistan would surely spark a war with India destroying yet another trade partner we need. The impact is the total desctruction of the United States through nuclear warfare and economic breakdown. Since survival is in our best interest, Obama's plan is not our best interest.

Thank you for accepting this debate, Grape; thank you for your time, audience. I urge a con ballot.

^1 Malou Innocent is a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute who focuses on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato, is the author of 8 and the editor of 10 books on international affairs

**all other cards/ sources are mentioned before quotes


As this is Round One I will simply post my own case and the refuting can begin in Round two and finish in three.

Since I am upholding the Pro stance I will define President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan. My definition of this plan will be based on the speeches he made March 27, 2009 and December 2, 2009.

I would also like to add that his plan is much more extensive and does not solely include the 30,000 new American troops being sent.

= The 30,000 new American troops being sent will focus on securing and protecting the country's top population centers, including Kabul, Khost, and Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual capital. Military officals said that two brigades would go south, with the third going to eastern Afghanistan.

Military officials said that they could maintain pressure on insurgents in remote regions by using surveillance drones and reports from people in the field to find pockets of Taliban fighters and to guide attacks, in particular by Special Operations forces.

The strategy also includes explanded economic development and reconciliation with less radical members of the Taliban.

"Pakistan's biggest threat right now comes internally," President Obama said. "We have huge national-security interets in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you dont end up have a nuclear-armed militant state." The United States, he said, could "make sure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure-primarily, because the Pakistan army, recognizes the hazards of those weapons' falling into the wrong hands."=

I will define best interest as being the most beneficial to the well-being of the United States as a whole. Which in my case, preventing a nuclear war and saving millions of lives.

I will also define Nuclear Threat-

The threat of Nuclear attacks against the United States by terrorist groups. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden have publicly proclaimed their goal is to kill "4 million American" because that is the number of deaths that America has caused by being in the middle east.

===Contention One===
The threat of a Nuclear War outweighs the rick of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

According to Seymour M. Hersh November 16, 2009 Pakistan has been a nuclear power for two decades, and has an estimated 80 to 100 warheads, scattered in facilities around the country.

Al-Qaeda's thrid-in-command has told Al Jazeera, a news-reporter, that the group would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons against the US if it gained access to them.

By going through with Obama's plan and sending these troops to the Middle East, slowing down the insurgent's progress, and attempting to harmonize with less radical Taliban members, the United States can prevent these nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

===Contention Two===
Without these troops being sent, the war in Afghanistan WILL BE LOST, thus giving Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces a safe haven and raising the chances of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being taken.

Imagine Al-Qaeda having its finger on the button of up to one hunred nuclear missles and you quickly get an idea of the mortal danger the world is facing should Pakistan fall. Amazingly, most Americans seem unaware or simply unconcerned.

As the United States and NATO have known for years that Pakistan has been internally unstable, due to Al-Qaeda members and Pakistani Talivan members, it has become obvious that something must be done.

This war in Afghanistan is a way for the United States to keep a check on the Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces.

Obama's strategy for these countries is in the United States best interet for the reason that without it, a nuclear threat is highly probable.

The stakes for the United States are enormous. Taliban forces attack U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan from their havens along the Pakistan border. That is where Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders behind 9/11 are thought to have refuge and be plotting new attacks. The ultimate nightmare is that extremists will gain access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The head general in Afghanistan, Stanley A. McChrystal, stated in his request for more troops "that unless significantly more troops were sent, the war in Afghanistan was likely to be lost."

We must prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a safe haven and nuclear weapons.

For these reasons and more I fully support that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan to prevent a notable terrorist threat in Afghanistan and a nuclear armed Al-Qaeda is in the United States best interest.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and hope this debate plays out interestingly
Given my opponent spent a lot of time for the framework, I see that he is trying to work some ground skew. I will begin by challenging his framework and giving you reasons why you should look to a negative framework as defined by the US' best interest, and then I will proceed to refute his contentions. I will try to cross apply some of my arguments in order to bring about more clash. Here we go
As this resolution looks to president Obama's plan, we realize that it looks to the only speech in which he defined his plan- the speech at West Point on Dec. 2, 2009. The March 27, 2009 speech cannot be looked to because it does not outline the plan that is currently being enacted. So, I propose that, because the resolution tells us to look at the troop surge, we only look at the objectives of the troops. What is listed in Obama's speech is bolstering the fight and training officials, with NOTHING about stabilizing Pakistan. He only talks about relations with them. Moving on, my opponent says these troops will be sent to secure and protect key population centers such as Kabul and Kandahar. I don't refute this; I will bring this up later in my substantive refutation. He proceeds to talk about using surveillance drones; President Obama does not have this outlined in his plan either. He doesn't refer to it in his case anyways, so don't look to impacts from there. "The strategy... includes expanded economic development and reconciliation..." Reconciliation in Obama's plan is the training of the troops to "reconcile" them to fight on our side. If a source for this is needed I can provide one, but it doesn't seem necessary. Economic development is not mentioned in my opponents actual case, so don't look to it. I don't refute the definition of best interest, but "preventing a nuclear war and saving millions of lives" is only part of what encompasses the broad scope of "best interest". Best interest includes ALL future implications, possible repurcussions in the short term, and risk prevention. Now then... the fun part.
Contention 1: The threat of a nuclear war outweighs the risk of sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan
consider the following responses
1) MAD or mutual assured destruction theory. explained
If the Taliban (which is a political party, NOT a terrorist group) seized control in Pakistan, they would put their entire existence at stake by launching a nuclear weapon. They would be inherently deterred out of their own self interest.
2) The Taliban has been significantly weakened over time by the US. Our occupation has rendered them vulnerable and insignificant, as a matter of fact, no one supports them anymore. The world public opinion poll finds that 88% of Aghan adults have an unfavorable view of the Taliban, and even more say so against al-Qaeda. This means that if they returned, the could not seize power because their ideals would not be upheld by the populus.
3) What is the likelihood that the Taliban, who has been weakened by years of warfare (since the Soviet Occupation even) will be able to not only conquer the nation of Pakistan, but also get infiltrate their military and access nuclear missiles with the minimal support they have? Very little...
But 4) Even if you don't buy those arguments, turn all the impacts negative. My C2 provides you with a better alternative: using the troops ONLY to secure Pakistan to prevent all of these threats. The AFF never gives you any reason in contention 1 why the troops need to be in Afghanistan, so this argument not only fails to uphold the resolution, but plays right into the negative world!

On a side note; at the bottom of the affirmative frame work, pro states that bin Laden proclaimed the goal is to kill 4 million americans because that is the number of deaths america has caused... 1) the entire population of Afghanistan is 2.5 million. We have not wiped out over 50% of their population obviously... 2) What public proclomation? Just wondering :)

Contention 2: Without these troops being sent, the war in Afghanistan WILL BE LOST, thus giving Taliban and al-Qaeda forces a safe haven and rasing the chances of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being taken.
Several responses...
1) Cross apply my contention 1E which shows that we already have won the war; this contention can be taken as internally flawed before looking to impacts
2) Cross apply my response to his first contention where I show you that they will not be able to regain control because nobody supports them anyways
3) Furthermore, Cross apply the response in which I turn the impact negative. He is STILL looking to Pakistan! Obama's plan is outlined to protect Pakistan, but NO WHERE in the pro world do we see any reason to be in Afghanistan. Now I am set up for a win-win; either you allow him to make his Pakistan arguments and therefore indefinitely extend my Contention 2, or drop my contention 2 and thereby drop his whole case.
4) None of the evidence provided in contention two warrants the claim. "Imagine..." "As the United States and NATO have known..." "This war in Afghanistan is a way..." "Obama's strategy... is in the... best interest... without it, a nuclear threat is highly probable." Direct quotes from the pro. No warrant. Drop contention 2.
5) As shown, the pro wants to eliminate their safe havens. BUT notice how my opponent clearly outlines in the framework of his case... "The 30,000 new American troops being sent will focus on securing and protecting the country's top population centers, including Kabul, Khost, and Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual capital" The major cities are NOT where their safe havens are; rather they are the places we have secure already. The terrorists hide in the mountains and in spider holes in the desert, so pro doesn't even argue consistently with his own framework, which I have proven illegitimate anyways.

As I still ahve 1600+ characters, I'll just reiterate a few important ideas.

1) Afghanistan is incapable of upholding the support we plan on sending them (see contention 1C-2)
2) The war would put a tremendous strain on americans that would decrease popular support for the war; if we don't have popular support we put up tremendous risks. Compare Vietnam to WWII. Vietnam lacked popular support by American citizens, and we failed with distinction, returning home to civil violence and economic insecurity. WWII not only was won, but it stimulated our economy because of war output and increased our economic output by encouraging economic stimulators by the citizens such as victory gardens. The difference was popular support.
3) Be SURE to look to which side Pakistan weighs with. Assuming pro does protect Pakistan through his plan, I provide more stability there so you can turn all AFF impacts to the NEG as well as extend NEG on contention 2.

Side note to the viewers... please don't judge on grammar or writing style, just leave it as a tie. It's really insignificant and if we were actually speaking this wouldn't happen. Leave the votes up to the substantial debating. Thanks :)

I hope for a good round. Good luck


=== I also hope for an interesting debate ===

I will begin by dropping ALL of my nuclear arguments and simply stating that preventing a safe haven to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in order to protect our national security is in the United States best interest.

I will agree with my opponent on the defintion of Obama's plan to not include Pakistan, for the sake of time and characters.

I am glad my opponent agrees that best interest is the well-being of America, in the present and future.

Due to my opponent's ample amount of sub-points for one contention, you may find that there is not paragraphs upon paragraphs refuting each one, that is because I must use characters sparingly.

I will only refute my opponents case this round and not build upon my own because I have scarce characters remaining (298 left) and I will build my case up in Round Three.

Contention One = Winning in Afghanistan is Impossible.

1A. My opponent gives one quote of how terrain makes victory in Afghanistan 'impossible'. Terrain is a minute problem for armies with helicopters, missles, landers, battleships, swat teams, counterinsurgency squads, etc. So terrain has little to do with our success in Afghanistan. And as we have all agreed to, Obama's plan is to rebuild Afghanistan from the inside, and by sending the troops into cities, so terrain is irrelevant here.

1B. My opponent states that training them won't work. He says this is twofold. First, that we can't be sure that the army will be able to sustain itself. However, this is the exact reason why we are in this country. Afghanistan, for the past eight years, has been in the fog of Iraq. People wonder why we are taking so long in Afghanistan and why nothing is being done. It's because up until this point we have been primarily focused on Iraq, and now that we have that war under control Obama is shifting his focus to Afghanistan. That is why his plan will work, because it is the buildings blocks for what is to come.

Second, he says that our withdrawal date will be the return of the Taliban. However, my opponent directly contradicts himself in his Round 2.

Word for word he writes
=== The Taliban has been significantly weakened over time by the US. Our occupation has rendered them vulnerable and insignificant, as a matter of fact, no one supports them anymore. The world public opinion poll finds that 88% of Aghan adults have an unfavorable view of the Taliban, and even more say so against al-Qaeda. This means that if they returned, the could not seize power because their ideals would not be upheld by the populus. ===

So my opponent must drop his refutations or drop this contention.

1C He says that the war will be to costly.

1C-1 The cost to the US

My opponent tells us that there will be an OUTSTANDING 30 billion a year tax. However, that is just sad. Our new health care bill alone will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.

WASHINGTON - The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week would cost $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget analysts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

30 billion a year is a small price to pay for national security.

1C-2 The cost to Afghanistan

He says that the Afghan's GDP cannot support this influx of troops. However, that is why the U.S. is there. To slowly build up the infastructure of Afghanistan to where they will be able to sustain themselves. So the cost to Afghanistan is irrelevant because it will be covered in Obama's plan, also agreed to by my opponent.

1D. Military force never works against terrorist organizations.

Just looking at this tagline I spot a fallacy. Military force. The United States will be implementing counter insurgency plans that have been proven effective countless times. Contention rendered useless.

1E. We have already won.

Yes we have driven out Taliban members and according to General James Jones there are only 200 Al-Qaeda fighters left. However, our goal, which is in the United States best interest, is to build up and restore Afghanistan to wear they can support themselves.
My opponent mentions that we should stop using military force and be more diplomatic. However that is what counter-insurgency is. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to help then rebuild their home, we are not being aggressive.

=== Contention Two ===
The focus of our troops should be in Pakistan exculsively, which is our best interest.

My opponent talks about nuclear weapons. I will now provide evidence to completely render this contention useless, I won't regard my opponent's evidence because, trust me, the following evidence will do the job.

According to Sunday, 08 November 2009

Indeed so well guarded are the nuclear weapons that in the event of war, no outside power could take them out.

London: Pakistan's nuclear installations are so well guarded that militants behind a wave of violence in the country's heartland would find it very hard to storm them and steal material for a nuclear bomb, analysts say.

According to analysts and research reports, the warheads are not mated with aircraft missle delivery systems. Nor are they moved except in times of crisis, as happened in 1999 and 2001/2002 during confrontations with India.

Other security measures cited by analysts, include the seperation of warheads from detonators.

They also say the army is believed to have developed a rudimentary system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons, modelled on the US Permissive Action Link (PAL).

Even if the Al-Qaeda could reach Pakistan's nuclear facilities this would not mean the attackers would obtain a functioning nuclear bomb. And even if they were able to penetrate a nuclear prodcution site, they would still have to manage the logistics under fire of reomving the 25 kg (55 lb) of fissle material needed to make a nuclear bomb.

With all of this being said, a nuclear argument should be deemed useless.

=== Why a Pro Ballot should be cast ===

My opponent states that focus of our troops should be in Pakistan exculsively. This tells us that my opponent is advocating that we need to withdraw troops from all of our other exploits and focus them on Pakistan. My opponent has affirmed this.

However, this cannot be in the United States best interest. Pulling out of countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq will no doubt make the United States look weak. Our efforts in these places will be lost. Just as we were starting to make improvements for Afghan we would have to pull out and the Taliban could easily take control as they had before.

My opponents case attempts to support this. This would not be in the United States best interest whatsoever, what would be in the United States best interest it to rebuild Afghanistan and prevent safe havens for terrorists. Now that they war in Iraq is being won America can shift its focus.

As I have shown, even if we did mass all our troops in Pakistan it would be pointless, the nuclear weapons that reside within Pakistan have already been shown to be in good hands.

We must do what is most reasonable, and what will produce the greatest results in the security of the lives of the people in the United States, and that is by sticking with Obama's plan and making a notable difference.

This is what is in our best interest, and this is why you should vote AFF.
Debate Round No. 2


I think this will be the best debate I EVER have online ;) good luck to the both of us.
Let's all first take note of the elephant in the room/webpage. My opponent has COMPLETELY DROPPED EVERY ASPECT OF HIS CASE. quote: "I will begin by dropping ALL of my nuclear arguments and simply stating that preventing a safe haven to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in order to protect our national security is in the United States best interest". Thus, his contention 1: "The threat of a Nuclear War outweighs the rick of sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan" is dropped, and his contention 2: "Without these troops being sent, the war in Afghanistan WILL BE LOST, thus giving Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces a safe haven and raising the chances of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being taken" is dropped. He tries to draw impacts solely off of round 2, which is now all i have to refute, giving me the opportunity to extend significantly as he has not defended at all. So,

Contention 1
1A. Terrain.
My opponent responds by showing you that armies "with helicopters, missiles, landers, battleships..." means terrain has little to do with the outcome of the war. This is a legitimate response inasmuch as you don't consider the terrain. 1. Helicopters can't land in mountains where militants are hiding. 2. If we bomb them with missles, we will hit civilians more than terrorists, thus worsening our image and decreasing the support we receive. 3. Landers (assuming he means off shore), Afghanistan is land-locked. i.e. they have no access to water. This renders landers AND 4. battleships useless. 5. SWAT team- a squad of policemen who have been trained to deal with violent and dangerous situations SWAT teams are not only meant for domestic issues, but also primarily for hostage issues. I would be enlightened to find out that our SWAT team is in Afghanistan. 6. Counterinsurgency squads. WHAT? we don't have a counterinsurgency squad, its just a brigade LABELED as a counterinsurgency squad. They are still armed with weapons, so its a mobile, militarized regiment. Because my opponent only provides this response, consider the logic behind the negative just shown and extend 1A. This is already sufficient reason to vote con because i show you "it's impossible". Also, just compare Vietnam. Same situation, humiliating defeat.

1B. Training them won't work
we can't be sure that the army will be a strong combatant force after we leave. Response? "this is the exact reason why we are in this country." That means, once we leave, my opponent still agrees that we can't be sure. If my opponent disagrees with this interpretation, then he MUST be saying that we have to remain in afghanistan INDEFINITELY to assure that they will be effective.
The second part says the Taliban will return when we leave, and my opponent points out a contradiction. This is an excellent observation, BUT. I will drop the refutation I made. You know why? BECAUSE MY OPPONENT DROPPED HIS CASE! I DON'T NEED THE REFUTATION! Not only that, polls are inaccurate and people are put under pressure to vote for the occupying power, so you can't necessarily use the poll against me as it is an unreliable source of argumentation. I extend ALL of 1B, and he still gains nothing from my dropping refutations. Remember this moment in voters.

1C-1 He provides Healthcare as an example that 30billion is not much money compared to 1.2 trillion. Well GREAT! Turn the impact negative, because this shows that we should be focusing on the more costly domestic issues, not Obama's plan. I can, as the negative, show why Obama's plan is not in our best interest in as many ways as possible. This refutation plays right into the negative world. 1) Healthcare is more important/costly and should be looked to. 2) Even if the argument isn't saying that we should look to healthcare, consider this. Citizens benefit from taxes they pay for healthcare. But buy increasing taxes for the war, the citizens receive nothing in return. This plays back into popular support, so extend my 1C-1 and re-extend my 1A on this ground.

1C-2 My opponent misinterprets the argument. I'm not saying they can't support the influx of troops, per se, but rather they can't support the military force that we are trying to train and have them uphold AFTER we withdraw. Meanwhile, you extend 1C-2

1D He points out a fallacy and says that we are not sending military force.
1) Yes we are, they are militarized and have guns. Tell me if I'm wrong
2) CROSS APPLY HIS REFUTATION/ note the contradiction. He attacks my 1A by saying terrain isn't a problem for a country with helicopters, swat teams, battleships and whatnots. Win-win for me; choose whether to extend con impacts or drop pro impacts, or both :)
2) Extend my argument beecause I push for policing and intelligence which isn't responded to, thus I give you a better way out of the situation which you can extend. For the above two reasons, extend 1D

1E "However, our goal, which is in the United States best interest, is to build up and restore Afghanistan to wear they can support themselves.
My opponent mentions that we should stop using military force and be more diplomatic. However that is what counter-insurgency is. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to help then rebuild their home, we are not being aggressive"
1) cross apply my extension of 1D that shows that we are militarily operating
2) cross apply my opponents response to 1A again
3) my opponent doesn't refute my point, so he concedes that we have already won the war. THAT is truly our primary objective, and inasmuch as I show you that this is true, extend.

Contention 2: Again, drop mine and his or extend mine and his. But you can't extend his because he dropped his case, and you can't drop mine because he only shows that nuclear weapons are hard to access. But consider this: If the Taliban seize control of Pakistan, it doesn't matter how much casing there is around the missiles, they can still eventually get to them. Moreover, I show you in the Dalrymple evidence that they have already taken a fifth of Pakistan, proving that terrorism is still rampant ONLY in pakistan. Thus extend C2

1600+ characters still...
Let's look to voting issues.

1) My opponent dropped his entire case, and is essentially trying to gain ground off of refuting my case. This would be acceptable as the con, but the pro must uphold the resolution. Therefore, there is no reason to vote pro.
2) I was able to successfully extend at least a considerable portion of my case, giving me at least considerable ground to counter my opponents zero.
3) Assuming that you still can look to my opponents case, my contention 2 can be extending in clash. So at best, if you even think to consider my opponents case after voter issue #1, he is questionable because of this issue.
4) My opponent never really shows you why Obama's Plan SPECIFICALLY is in our best interest, so he never truly upholds the resolution. I sufficiently disprove, so negative outweighs easily.
5) My opponent never made any defense (as a result of dropping his case) so he has nothing to extend. You can't let him extend in his next round because I have no chance to respond; this is the last round and should be left to purely refutation. If he sees a dropped argument he can extend, but he can't extend through my ink if I can't refute. Therefore my opponent has no extensions off of which to vote negative.
6) My opponents last voter about saving american lives is first, not warranted, and second, not upheld in his lack of a case in round 2. You can only look to my voters because his previous voters are continued refutations of my C2.
*probably a repeat*
There is no pro ground, plenty of con; no pro case, lots of con. Thanks for the GREAT debate, no sarcasm.
Thanks/good luck, vote con. G'night


So lets explain what has happened it simpler terms.

Counter-insurgency is a means of winning the hearts and minds of people to build up Afghanistan, as said by Obama.

I have dropped my nuclear arguments. My opponent claims he should win because of this. However, my argument that being in Afghanistan still stands. He provides arguments against this, and I have refuted those arguments.

Additionally, my opponent has provided one alternative to this debate, focus our troops solely on Pakistan. He goes on to say that these terrorists will have an easy time getting these nuclear weapons unless we intervene.

However, my evidence, and parts of my opponent's case, proves this contention to be irrelevant for the fact that these nuclear weapons will never be taken. I will outline a few pieces of evidence to support this.

My opponent mentions in his case that
"They [Al-Qaeda] are now insignificant"

On a side note, the Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group with international objectives, whereas the Taliban are known for their national objectives.

Now, my opponent says we should solely focus on Pakistan, this implies that we withdraw all of our troops out of other occupied countries, including Afghanistan.

Now, bear with me, if the AL-QAEDA, are insignificant, and that

"They [Pakistan] also say the army is believed to have developed a rudimentary system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons, modelled on the US Permissive Action Link (PAL)."

((So with that out of the way, our presence in Pakistan would only be to drive out terrorists, since there is no nuclear threat. This is what my opponent clings to.))

Why would going to Pakistan be in the United States best interest?

The answer actually is, that would be most likely in the United States WORST interest. We would seem weak, and then you can cross apply my opponent's contentions to help refute his own case :)

First of all, if we put all of our eggs in one basket, as my opponent is advocating, we will be having a negative effect. All of the Afghanistan Taliban, and the Al-Qaeda would simply reclaim Afghanistan as they once previously had.

As it is well known, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are taking refuge on the Afghan-Pakistan border. So, if my opponent is wanting to enter Pakistan and drive them out, the will have the same problem with terrain as mentioned in my opponents

1A Terrain makes winning an impossibility

Here is a map that shows the almost symmetrical terrain around the border (where the terrorists are taking refuge).

So one must decide, which is in the best interest, putting all of your eggs in one basket which will have no effect as I have shown and send troops to rugged terrain only to shove the terrorists back into their stronghold, or send 30,000 troops to rebuild Afghanistan as I advocate.

So Con 1A has been used against my opponents case.

1C.The war will be too costly
1C-1The cost to the US

The cost of war will be much greater if we send and focus all of our troops in Pakistan because this will have the same drawback.

1C-2.The cost to Afghanistan

Suddenly dropping in hundreds of thousands of troops in Pakistan will not be the smartest way to go. We have already set up ourselves in Afghanistan and are building up our economy while we add troops. The cost we also hit Pakistan just as hard.

1D. Military force NEVER works against terrorist organizations

This actually confuses me as to why my opponent uses this contention when it directly contradicts his own. If we will be going into Pakistan with all of our troops to purge the terrorist threat, wont we be doing this through military action?

Judges must decide, what is in the United States best interest, Military force that we both agree to wont work? Or a plan to build up a country through counter-insurgency to the point where it can sustain itself?

1E. We already accomplished our primary objective; we can't win more than victory

Cross apply this to my case and my opponents and you can see that our plans in Afghanistan are clearly in the best interest of the United States over focusing on Pakistan.

We have accomplished are primary objective, but now we need to make sure it stays this way.

So the judges must decide here also, send all of our troops to Pakistan and do virtually nothing that would be in the best interest of the United States, or help Afghanistan to deny Taliban and Al-Qadeda members a safe haven?


Cross apply this to everything I have said this round to and you can clearly see that Pakistan is not in the United States best interest.


With everything aside. The question remains, as now developed by my opponent and myself

What is in the United States best interest, Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Because I have shown that much of my opponents case contradicts his stance we can see that the only sensible option of for the United States to go through with President Obama's plan to increase troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan hold know notable threat to the United States, as my opponent and I have shown, whereas Afghanistan can easily be turned BACK into the breeding ground for terrorism it once was.

For these reasons,

I stand in firm Affirmation

Of the Resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
so mrwonderful, which arguments were won by EHS? out of curiosity...
Posted by mr3wonderful 8 years ago
As a Public forum debator myself, I have to say, GREAT JOB TO BOTH SIDES! this was fun to read. i did like the fact that the affimative side defined "Obama's Plan" as his on going surges (aka all troop additions since his presidency began) and that is very nice. good job.
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
thanks a lot. are you gonna vote? we need votes soon :)
Posted by 4tunatecookie 8 years ago
You guys did a phenomenal job. Easily one of my favorite online debates.
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
OMG someone vote already...
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
whats really funny is this...

prelims: 4 rounds
round 1- win with 30 speaker points
round 2- opponents don't show up; speaks become average of all other prelim rounds
round 3- win with 30 speaks
round 4- same as round 2
prelims overall: 4-0 record with 120/120 speaks

out rounds:
quarters- team from my school concedes
semis- we win a 2-1 decision, and the squirrel was making arguments for the other team
finals- team from my school concedes
out rounds overall: 3-0 record

overall tourney: 7-0, max speaks, but only debated three times. THE FUNNIEST PART: i posted my neg case online for practice and everyone got mad because they were worried someone from this tournament might see it, and then at the tournament we only had to debate three rounds and we affirmed EVERY TIME! I'm just now realizing how funny that is lmao
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
me either, mine is in march
Posted by EHS_Debate 8 years ago
cool. we havent had our state tournament yet.
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
Guess who not only won first, but also qualified for state, got first sweepstakes as a school, closed out PF in half semis, and got 3 other teams to qualify for state with us? I'm feeling amazing, I'm proud to be at my school
Posted by m93samman 8 years ago
No I just have to prove obamas plan is not in our best interest. Alternatives are not required
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mr3wonderful 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zycerox 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70