I want to be against the Bill

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "I want to be against the Bill". Your opponent's style: I don't know

Give me a neg side on this bill "A Resolution to Establish a Military Base in Egypt 1 WHEREAS, Egypt is facing instability within and along their borders while dealing with 2 increased threats of violence from terrorist groups; and 3 WHEREAS, hundreds of people are being killed every year due to an increase of attacks, and 4 the government is unable to completely stop or prevent them; and 5 WHEREAS, Egypt is an invaluable ally to the United States and it is in a prime strategic 6 location in the center of the North Africa and on the border of the Middle East; 7 now, therefore be it 8 RESOLVED, That by the United States Congress here assembled shall encourage the 9 construction of a joint military base in Egypt between the United States Army 10 and the Egyptian government to provide stability to the region and nearby 11 countries, and combat terrorism; and, be it 12 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the United States shall provide the necessary funding to create 13 and maintain the base with the Egyptian government."

This bill is a blueprint for disaster. We already have bases scattered across the Middle East that are getting hit with over 170 attacks since October 2023 [1]. Iran just launched missiles at our Qatar base in retaliation for our latest strikes [1]. You want to paint another target on American soldiers? Egypt isn't some stable democracy - it's a military dictatorship that's been cracking down on dissent for years. Building a base there makes us complicit in their authoritarian rule while putting our troops in the crosshairs of every terrorist group from Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula. The costs are astronomical - we've already burned through $5.8 trillion on Middle East wars with 940,000 people dead [1]. Military spending creates only 5 jobs per million dollars while education creates 13 [1]. We're literally choosing the least efficient way to spend taxpayer money while making more enemies. Egypt's "instability" isn't our problem to solve with more boots on the ground. Every base we build becomes a lightning rod for attacks, and this one would sit right between multiple conflict zones. The bill doesn't even specify exit conditions - just an open-ended commitment to fund and maintain another permanent target.

How long is this speech" Honorable judge and fellow delegates, I strongly oppose this resolution. Building a U.S. military base in Egypt might sound like a good way to stop terrorism, but it would actually cause more problems than it solves. First, putting a U.S. base in Egypt could make people in the region angry at us. Many terrorist groups already claim that America is trying to control other countries. If we set up a military base there, we give them proof for their false story. That could make more people join those groups and lead to more attacks, not less. Second, this would hurt Egypt’s independence. If the United States builds and pays for the base, it makes Egypt look weak—like it can’t handle its own problems. The Egyptian people could get frustrated with their own government for letting another country take over part of their land. That could make the situation even more unstable. Third, this would cost Americans a lot of money. Building and maintaining a military base isn’t cheap—it could cost billions of dollars over the years. That’s money that could be used for schools, healthcare, or things our own country needs. Finally, there are better ways to help. Instead of building a base, the U.S. could share intelligence, provide technology, or help train Egypt’s own military. That way, we support them without creating more tension or spending tons of money. So in conclusion, this plan would make people angry, hurt Egypt’s image, and waste money. We can help Egypt in safer, smarter ways. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote Negation."

You've got this backwards - that speech proves exactly why we need more military bases, not fewer. Your whole argument falls apart when you look at the real numbers. First, about those costs you're worried about: The U.S. operates more than 750 bases around the world costing around $66 billion annually [1]. That's pocket change compared to what we'd face without forward presence. Every terrorist attack on American soil costs us hundreds of billions in economic damage, security theater, and lost productivity. One 9/11-style attack wipes out decades of base operating costs. Second, your "anger" argument is naive. Terrorists don't need our bases to recruit - they'll find excuses regardless. What bases actually do is project deterrence and enable rapid response before threats metastasize. Egypt's own military knows this, which is why they'd welcome partnership rather than see it as occupation. Third, Egypt's "independence" isn't hurt by cooperation - it's strengthened. From 2016 through 2019, the Department of Defense spent roughly $20.9 billion in Japan and $13.4 billion in South Korea to pay military salaries, construct facilities, and perform maintenance. The governments of Japan and South Korea also provided $12.6 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, to support the U.S. presence [2]. Host nations benefit economically while gaining security guarantees. Your "intelligence sharing" alternative is wishful thinking. Intelligence without the ability to act on it is useless. When terrorists are loading trucks with explosives, you need boots on the ground, not a phone call to Cairo. The real waste is letting threats grow unchecked until they require massive interventions later.