We cannot do slow troop withdrawals without hurting the soldiers already fighting in Iraq and Afghan

First off I'm going to notice that you're debating the wrong side of the resolution, so I'm actually just going to entirely ignore the resolution and simply discuss the points which you offered in your contention.

First off you state that a slow removal will hurt the troops, however I must submit a counter proposal that the troops are already being hurt. In fact, the longer we stay in Iraq the more damage will be done to our force. Not just in a monetary sense that is slowly decreasing our economic prowess but also in a mortality sense. Mortality in our soldiers and in the Iraqi people.

Furthermore I must submit to you that there is no solution to this conflict from out end of the spectrum. Not only is mandating democracy on a people entirely hypocritical in the sense that you are advocating they choose how to run their government through popular vote by mandating that they must do this, but also this is an Iraqi problem that needs to be solved by the Iraqi people.

The longer we stay there, the longer we lend, the longer we help them, the more that they will become dependent on us for support. We are functioning as a prosthetic limb right which the Iraqi people are using to rebuild their life around. The fact is, we have to leave at some point, and when that happens we rip the prosthetic limb out from under them. At which point they are going to have to find their own solution, it is better we do this sooner than later.

Your turn.

My opponent seems to be under the vague impression that the word "first" can only occur once. This is rather untrue and is an example of the the common sense fallacy.

For instance if I were to outline a book each chapter would have many subpoints and each subpoint might have a couple sub-subpoints. Thereby there would be a FIRST subpoint for chapter 1, but at the same time there would also be a FIRST subpoint for chaper 2, and probably a FIRST sub-subpoint for chapter 2 subpoint B.

Thus having the term first used in multitudes is fine as long as each first is not intended to describe the same object.

Looking specifically to our current debate. I begin by rejecting the resolution so we may have an honest debate and then go on to state my reasoning behind my case.

Thus I have a FIRST reason to reject the resolution combined with a FIRST argument on my case.

Now let to examine to my opponent actual case in this debate. As I stated he is arguing the wrong side of the resolution but we will be ignoring that, because it doesn't matter in this round.

My opponent spends his last round arguing against completely pulling out of Iraq but inadvertently, and comically, actually advocates against his own case.

He offers 6 scenarios, the first four were:

1. Vietnam
2. Afghanistan
3. Haiti
4. Cuba

These scenarios are all very compelling reasons not to flat out pull out of Iraq. My opponent has without a doubt convinced me of this.

The first three were:

1. Germany
2. Korea
3. Japan

And these of course are compelling reasons to stay in Iraq. However it seems to me that we invaded Germany, Korea, and Japan with rather sizable forces. It also seems to me that we do not currently have as many troops in these three countries as we did at the end of WWII and the Korean war respectively. Thus it stands to reason that at some point we must have withdrawn some of the troops that were originally stationed in those countries. However we have not fully withdrawn. Thus all three of the above countries have experienced slow troop withdrawals, and probably will continue to do so until they are completely stabilized without a doubt.

Thus I can only advocate the counter advocacy of slowly stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized. The three examples above have convinced me.

Doo dee doo. I think I'm going to be covering each statement my opponent has offered. Enjoy. =)

We start of course with the "first" argument. I stated rather clearly in my last round that multiple firsts can be used providing each first describes a different object. Perhaps it would be best if I elaborated. By different objects I would be describing different categories. For instance, I may receive for my birthday a goldfish and then a cat. The goldfish would be my first pet, and my first fish. The cat would be my second pet but would be my first cat. Thus whilst in the same category (pets) I cannot have multiple firsts. However if we are talking about different categories or objects I can have as many firsts as categories allow. The same is true of our current debate. My first argument on this debate was a quick resolutional analysis. The second argument was a refutation of my opponents case. However if we look at this from another perspective my FIRST argument under resolutional analysis was my first paragraph in round 1. My FIRST argument directly refuting my opponents case was the second paragraph. Thus it is more than possible, for me to have two firsts in the same debate, they just have to be in two different categories, which they are.

==============================
Next we have the matter of the common sense fallacy. This fallacy actually doesn't exist at all, I interjected it for 2 reasons.

1. So that a select few debaters would be amused over a made up fallacy.
2. So that I could point out my opponents logical flaw without actually directly attacking him. It should still be noted that while I am dropping the title, "common sense fallacy", my opponents line of reasoning remains fallacious.

My opponent of course decides to turn this on me and begins a lengthy ad hominem attack against me. Thus I can only advocate 2 scenarios.

A. We drop the ad hominem attacks and consider the points moot. I will be supporting this with 1. The fact that my opponent did spell the word grammar wrong whilst pointing out that I need to use proper grammar and 2. The fact that my opponent forgot to capitalize the word English while telling me not to ruin the English language.

B. The ad hominem attacks should be turned against my opponent. This will be based on the idea that I intentionally did a multitude of incorrect math:

"He offers 6 scenarios, the first four were:"
"The first three were:"
3 + 4 =! 6

Math that I must point out a 2nd grader could understand. Which, of course, my opponent did not notice. Thereby my opponents ad hominem attacks on grammar should be turned against him on the merit of his lack of simple mathematics.

C. My opponent should be voted against for offering each of his ad hominem attacks. Let us review them:

1. "I can tell you are over-reaching your personal vocabulary by the way you use the english language; "
2. "you are the guy who tries to advocate his intelligence by using words outside his vocabulary."
3. "My opponent in this entire debate has put forth one ALMOST legible argument"
4. "he has incoherently rambled on against my ideas without putting forth any on his own... "
5. "Please don't do this to the english language."

Voting against my opponent helps to set a precedent in two ways. For starters it discourages my opponent from using ad hominem attacks against other debate users if he knows that he will be voted against for it. Secondly it discourages other debaters who see this debate from using ad hominem attacks due to the fact that they will quickly realize how little such attacks actually further their debate.

This community was made, as my opponent states, for intelligent debate. Intelligent debate coincidentally does not include ad hominem attacks to further ones point, if this is what my opponent enjoys doing I must kindly ask that he join an angry blog instead.

=====================
Finally we have my opponent's case. In his 2nd round he offered 7 empirical examples from past countries. In four of these examples he showed how flat out pulling out of a country that we invaded would be detrimental. In the other three examples he showed how slow troop withdrawals from the countries we invaded was very successful.

I agree with my opponent and must bring an argument back from my last round. I stated,

"Thus I can only advocate the counter advocacy of slowly stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized."

My opponent of course did not enjoy this statement as he found it rather redundant. However there was a rather definite reason for it's redundancy. Specifically if we examine the second part of this statement it states that we will be slowly withdrawing troops as Iraq becomes more stabilized. In other words, as stabilization increases troop withdrawal proportionally increases. As we are slowly stabilizing Iraq at this point in time it is possible for us to slowly begin withdrawing troops, even if this means only a few troops per day.

Which brings me to the end of my opponents point in which he states that slow troops withdrawals will only hurt the troops that will remain. Under my plan this is untrue. I advocate that we withdraw troops as stability increases. The more stable the country the less troops are needed. A similar situation would be a crime ridden town. The lower the crime that exists in the town the lower the need for a police force exists.

Alright, well I am just going to be asking for an extension of all of my point. Thanks for the debate, thanks for judging.