The Instigator
polishgirlinar
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Pluto2493
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

PlayPump International's PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,513 times Debate No: 3514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

polishgirlinar

Pro

The PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The PlayPump system solves for water related disease. The system prevents women from having to walk great distances (womens' health) to get the water. Meaning that there is no reason for them to be traveling to the areas where the mosquitoes are, thus eliminating the risk of contracting Malaria. Another is that the water will be clean, meaning diarrhea from dirty water will be a thing of the past. Many other diseases are solved for in similar ways to those above.

Also, it allows for more food to be grown. Through the PlayPumps women will have more free time. This will allow them to become involved in the agricultural work. By having more people to work, more work will get done. The more work that gets done, the more food there is.

PlayPumps give clean water to victims of HIV/AIDS, allowing them to take their much needed medications with clean water. This helps their already weak immune systems and prevents them from getting diseases from the water.

PlayPumps bring water closer to villages, allowing women to become involved in other activities such as agriculture, and brings clean water to those in need of it for illness related purposes.
Pluto2493

Con

Thanks to polishgrilinar for making this debate and I ask that the voters to vote on who made the better arguements, not your personal opinion.

With that said, I negate, "PlayPump International's PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa."

1. Playpumps can CLEARLY not solve ALL major public health problems in SSA. My opponent mentions Malaria, but the fact is mosquitos exist almost everywhere. 1 in 4 cases of Malaria are contracted in the home at night. My opponent also mentions AIDS, but AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. He proposes that they 'can take water with their medication.' My opponent fails to recognize that the MEDICATION is what is easing the disease. Even if he were to say that water is medication, there is no cure for HIV/AIDS, so all arguments would not apply to this resolution.
2. Play Pumps can cost as much as $14,000.00 a piece in US Dollars for Sub-Saharan Africa. Either A: This will cost too much or B: He will not provide enough Playpumps needed for SSA.

3. Playpumps can not be placed everywhere. Where are these going to be built? How will people know about them? My opponent's plan does not solve the transportation issue- that is, no one will be able to get to the playpumps, or it will become inefficent to even go to the pump.
So far, the water initiative has only reached 10% of SSA with 700 playpumps over a three year period. (http://www.euwi.net...)

Moreover, Local groups get ignored in water scarcity solutions

C.S.I.S. 05 Center for Strategic Int'l Studies – Sandia National Laboratory
["Global Water Futures: Addressing Our Global Water Future," 9/30/05, White Paper, http://www.sandia.gov...]

"The mere existence of regulatory rules and policies, however, means little if these frameworks are undermined by power politics, entrenched interests, a lack of funding, or the absence of local communities from the decision making process (UNESCO-WWAP 2003). In countries where water management is largely centralized, many local water issues are trumped by the larger national
interest. As a result, the voices of many vital local stakeholders (indigenous people, the poor, women, etc.) are stifled. In other countries where power has devolved from the center, the responsibility for water management has been transferred to the local level but the actual power to make decisions, particularly on financial matters, has proven much harder to separate from the central government–a contradiction that leads to poor governance (GWP 2004). To avoid these pitfalls, many experts currently argue that water should be managed at the lowest appropriate level of governance, to ensure greater accountability and provide solutions specific to the needs of the community or region."

4. This does not solve- agriculture and industry will continue to be wasteful by using excess quantities of water

DEVI and HARVEY, 6(SHARMILA DEVI and FIONA HARVEY, Financial Times (London), March 21, "Liquid asset? Why drought overshadows world growth WATER: A race is on to broker international solutions before increasingly acute
water shortages bring economic disaster, writes Fiona Harvey"; Pg. 13)

"In addition, the demands of modern agriculture are remorseless. It takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce a tonne of grain. Industry is also thirsty: activities from food processing to semiconductor manufacturing and garment-making require vast quantities of water - a big factor in rapidly industrialising countries."

5. Procurement and Tendering make water the most prone to corruption.

Elshorst and O'Leary, 5 (Hansjoerg, Donal, World Water Week in Stockholm, "Corruption in the Water Sector: Opportunities for Addressing a Pervasive Problem," August 27, http://www.siwi.org...)

"Procurement and tendering is particularly prone to corruption if the products offered cannot be standardised. It is for this reason that the construction sector leads the world's hit-list of corruption-prone activities 7. Standardisation is also difficult if natural conditions affect the technical specifications and quantities of a project. Both elements often are combined in waterrelated projects, which make these projects even more susceptible to corruption than projects in other sectors with easily controllable unit-prices and specifications."

6. Politicizing water has undermines its effectiveness

Elshorst and O'Leary, 5 PREVIOUSLY CITED

"The relevance of the political dimension of water is passionately contested. For NGOs water is life. Access to water is a human right, to provide it is a basic obligation of the public sector. For many officials in the field, making water a political issue, mobilising the political power embedded in it, is a big part of the problem. It blocks economic pricing and responsible use; in addition, the distribution of water-services has frequently been biased in favour of those with political influence. Also, political factors have discouraged investment and private sector involvement."

7. Resource shortages can never be sustained—they will be depleted—extinction will happen in our life time.

Godesky 1/12/06, employee at Vivismo—data-mining software company for high-profile enterprises
(Jason, "Thesis 26: Collapse is inevitable" http://anthropik.com...)

"Nothing can grow forever in a finite world. That basic truism is the ultimate doom for civilization. Its very nature will not permit it to exist in a steady state; it must grow. If it is not growing, it is dying. If the economy is not growing, and most investments will have negative returns, who is willing to invest? Without investment, how can we build the infrastructure to continue the civilized life--the roads, telephony, satellites or buildings we need now, much less the investments in future technology and complexity we will need to continue such a pace? That makes investment in complexity even less compelling, since there is no one else investing in it, either, and its total cost must be divided among fewer investors. Being the last one "holding the door," so to speak, is the worst possible strategy. The snowball may take some time to build up, but ultimately, if investment in complexity were a traded stock, collapse works in much the same way as a "run." Thus, the "point of no return" in the collapse of any society is when an increasing percentage of the population begins to believe that further complexity is no longer worth it. That fringe always exists, in small numbers; collapse comes when that fringe begins to grow. As such, we can see the first signs of collapse in the growth of primitivism itself. The spread of ideas like slow food, voluntary simplicity, Ethan Watters' Urban Tribes, or "The Hunter-Gatherers of the Knowledge Economy"--even less obvious attacks on complexty, like open source and blogging--show a general discontent with the current level of complexity, and a growing antipathy for further investment in it. Much of the world has already collapsed, but are propped up now only by the peer polity system they are enmeshed in. The following map shows those countries in red, showing how far along in the process of collapse we already are. In collapse, all the rules reverse themselves. Sustainabilty becomes not only feasible, but advantageous. Small, egalitarian groups out-compete large, hierarchical ones. Human nature becomes adaptive, rather than something we must suppress. That process is the inevitable end of any civilization, because nothing can grow forever and without limit in a finite universe. Moreover, that process will begin sooner, rather than later. It has already begun, and in all likelihood, most of us alive today will live to see its completion."

Thank you, I now await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
polishgirlinar

Pro

Not to sound too rude, but I would like to point out that I am a girl (polishGIRLinar).

1. Malaria can be solved for by playpumps. The fact that the women are not having to go to the rivers to collect the water will drastically reduce the number of cases of Malaria. The instances such as getting bit while in bed will come to an end in time thanks to the clean water.

2. Yes, they can cost as much as $14,000; however, that is only $35 for each of the 400 people that can benefit from it. (I am not saying that the citizens pay the $35 only that, that is the amount in which it would cost)
PlayPumps International has public-private partnerships and are currently raising awareness of their company. They are placing playpumps in major amusement parks across the world to show people how they work and to collect donations. Also, they currently are doing a campaign called "100 Pumps in 100 Days".

3. As for location, the pumps are placed in central locations in the communities and villages. For example, a town meeting place or school. This makes them in a practical place where the women and girls will not have to walk up to 8 hours a day to get the water. They will also be placed in the areas of greatest need first.
Also, playpumps have only been placed in 10% of SSA in the past 3 years because they have been on trial in many countries. As with any product it must first be tested. Now Playpumps International is scrambling to quadruple its production so that it can get more pumps to more areas.

4. How are playpumps affected by agriculture's overuse of water? They are not. The water used from them will not be used for irrigation, they will still have the rivers for this. The pumps will help to take some of the strain from the river systems from the villagers no longer taking the water, for all uses, from them. Also, I fall to see the link in this argument to the topic.

5. How will corruption take over a playpump? These are large marry-go-rounds with a water pump! They are not susceptible to corruption. Those who put the pumps in place are with PlayPumps International, no corruption there. The pumps will be watched by villagers, how can they be corrupt about there only saving grace? Corruption is now a problem with playpumps international.

Marissa Valdez 3/27/08 (Project Manager at PlayPumps International, direct e-mail communications)

"PlayPumps International does not give money or materials to any government. In each country that we work in we sign a Memo of Understanding with the host country government that recognizes we will be working in that country. We must work with the governments to identify boreholes and communities in greatest need, as well as our partner the US government. Thus far we have not experienced any government corruption."

6. PlayPumps International is an NGO. The funding comes from public and private sectors. As the access to clean water and sanitation can reduce the risk of a child dying by as much as 50%, politicians would gladly jump on the bandwagon and give and support a company in which is promoting the increase of a child's chance at life by 50%!

7. By giving water to Africans a future scientist, doctor, politician can survive childhood. One of the people saved by a playpump could easily be the person who will save the human race from what you say will become extinct. By putting a simple playpump in a SSA community mankind can be saved!
Pluto2493

Con

Oh sorry, I hope I didn't offend you by referring to you as a male. I guess the James Dean picture just got me in the mindset of a man.

Anyway, I will move onto the seven main contentions:

1. My opponent asserts that Playpumps can solve for Malaria because women do not have to walk far distances. This is simply not the case. As I stated, 1 in 4 cases of Malaria occur at night in the home. My opponent says that "getting bit while in bed will come to an end in time thanks to the clean water," which is a completely unwarranted, ridiculous claim. Unless there is some new water bubble shield that keeps mosquitoes out, water can not solve for Malaria. Also, doesn't water ATTRACT mosquitoes?
Second, men will not be protected, as she states. She says the only reason this will reduce malaria cases is because WOMEN do not have to walk so far and get bitten.
Third, this does not solve for the people that already have the disease. Malaria could be passed down from mother to child, and the purpose of this would be defeated.

2. First my opponent states that it would cost but $35 a person. I must say that, in Malawi, more than half of its citizens live on less than a dollar a day. Therefore, a typical person would have to spend 1-2 month's payment to pay for this. They can simply not do this when they need to buy food.
Secondly my opponent states that they are doing fundraisers. But, she gives no evidence on how much they've collected or how many people have signed onto this. She must prove this will actually work before she asserts that that's where the money will come from.

3. First, my opponent dropped the argument about how local groups get ignored. She also never responds to my argument about people in rural areas not knowing about them.
My opponent argues that the Playpumps have not reached the areas because they were being tested. Although, I must argue that it does not take 3 YEARS to test a product. Moreover, the product was tested by the company itself, and requires little to no double checking, as I assume they make fine products.

4. "How are playpumps affected by agriculture's overuse of water? They are not."
Au contraire, farming is the biggest industry/business in sub-Saharan Africa. Farmers will use the playpump to get their water, and will overuse it. The fact is, as she says, the PlayPump is the easiest way to get water.

5. "How will corruption take over a playpump?"
I'll tell ya how. Obviously the government can not steal the PlayPump, but they can steal the water. They can use it for their own personal gain, just like money. And, as my card stated, standardization is hard in water-projects, making it more prone to corruption.

6. "politicians would gladly jump on the bandwagon and give and support a company in which is promoting the increase of a child's chance at life by 50%!"

This is a completly unwarranted claim. I gave you a card with reasonable evidence and a good author, while she makes a bias claim. Also, that was not even my argument. My argument, as you can see in the card from the first round, is that making water projects a political issue makes that project less efficent, because there are so many things to deal with. If you read the card, it says NGO's feel they have an obligation to help, but officials in those NGO's think it should not be a political issue.

7. My opponent makes an odd claim that has nothing to do with my argument. I claimed that rapid use of water will make it deplete and extinction will occur, backed up by a card. She says that a person saved by the pump could stop this.
First, how can we be certain this will happen?
Second, I said RAPID depletion; there will not be enough time to save the human race.
Third, what technology could we make that would make MORE water, a natural resource?
Fourth, there is no evidence on the side of my opponent.
Fifth, the card says, "Resource shortages can NEVER be sustained."

I have reasonably proved these arguments in my favor, and I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
polishgirlinar

Pro

1. For starters when I continuously mentioned women, men were not to be excluded. Women were mentioned the most because they are the ones who go to the rivers to get the water, therefore they are the most susceptible to contracting Malaria.

2. When I stated that it only costs about $35 per person for a playpump, that it is an amount that communities leaders pay. That is simply the overall cost broken down to show how much it can help for so little.
Below is a list of a few companies playpumps has partnerships with: (The complete list can be found at http://www.playpumps.org...)
AMREF
Anheuser-Busch
Clearwater Project USA
Coca-Cola Company
Colgate-Palmolive
Crealy Adventure Parks
DaimlerChrysler
HP
International Finance Corporation
JPMorgan
HCI Foundation
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Land Bank
One Water
Rotary International
Save the Children USA
South African Airways
UNICEF
Unilever
USAID
World Bank
World Food Programme

3. My argument about the playpumps being tested was in response to my opponents argument about rural communities not knowing about them. I apologize for my lack of properly explaining it. The playpumps are first tested in countries, they are not still being tested overall... it is a sort of field test for the entire country. Rural communities do not have to know about the playpumps because if the company feels that they are a community in need, they will go to the community.

4. Playpumps will not be practical to use for agriculture. The storage tank does not hold enough water and the rate at which it comes out (in a simple hand pump) would be to slow of a process for the agricultural community.

"While children have fun spinning on the PlayPump merry-go-round (1), clean water is pumped (2) from underground (3) into a 2,500-liter tank (4), standing seven meters above the ground.
A simple tap (5) makes it easy for adults and children to draw water. Excess water is diverted from the storage tank back down into the borehole (6).
The water storage tank (7) provides a rare opportunity to advertise in outlaying communities. All four sides of the tank are leased as billboards, with two sides for consumer advertising and the other two sides for health and educational messages. The revenue generated by this unique model pays for pump maintenance.
The design of the PlayPump water system makes it highly effective, easy to operate and very economical, keeping costs and maintenance to an absolute minimum.
Capable of producing up to 1,400 liters of water per hour at 16 rpm from a depth of 40 meters, it is effective up to a depth of 100 meters." (http://www.playpumps.org...)

5. As I have stated in my previous argument, playpumps are not placed in areas of corruption and this is known because playpumps interacts with the governments prior to the placement of the playpumps. Also as I have stated, the people of the village will protect their saving grace.

6. Water will be a political issue no matter what. Whatever can be made into a political issue, will be. That is simply the way that politics works. The world moves on though, even though politicians do not... people do.

7. The youth of today is the future of tomorrow and they will save us. The future scientists and doctors that are saved by the Playpumps will be able to find solutions to problems in the world that we today can not solve. Problems such as rapid depletion of water and extinction. Already today companies are coming up with new ways to get fresh water. The GE commercials have let the world know that they have a way to get freshwater from ocean water. Anything is possible, as long as it is not given up upon.

As I have shown in my arguments playpumps are beneficial in multiple ways. They promote good health and sanitation.
Please vote PRO!!

Thank You
Pluto2493

Con

I can prove to you I won this debate and you must vote CON right now.

Look at the first argument. My opponent DROPS the argument about AIDS, and only states this, "when I continuously mentioned women, men were not to be excluded. Women were mentioned the most because they are the ones who go to the rivers to get the water, therefore they are the most susceptible to contracting Malaria."

Yet, my opponent does not extend or even RESPOND IN THIS WHOLE DEBATE the argument about 1/4 of cases are at night in the home. So, as where it is now, she can not solve for either of these two problems, she does not prove her resolution, I win this debate.

Moving on:

Argument: Cost.

My opponent states "When I stated that it only costs about $35 per person for a playpump, that it is an amount that communities leaders pay."

Why I win: Still, that is $35 that they can not afford. My opponent drops the argument that the cost will go down, thus we can determine this the final price. PRO never states that they can afford this, as I have. Please extend my argument about the dollar-a-day salary. You are faced with no choice but to give me the win on this argument.

Argument: Location.

My opponent states, "The playpumps are first tested in countries, they are not still being tested overall... it is a sort of field test for the entire country. Rural communities do not have to know about the playpumps because if the company feels that they are a community in need, they will go to the community."

Why I win: First, my opponent has no evidence as to when these will start getting integrated. Although she claims they are being tested, there is no timeframe in which she states that these will be effective. I have proven that PlayPump works to slow, and history repeats itself.
Second, neglecting that the second argument is new in R3, the argument is ridicolous. So, the companies are playing favorites? Whose to say one community needs it over the other? Plus, what about the hypothetical three person family who lives alone in the middle of no where? They could be in need, but it's only three people.
Third, again pull my argument THAT IS NEVER RESPONDED TO that local groups get ignored.

Argument: Agriculture use.

My opponent states, "Playpumps will not be practical to use for agriculture. The storage tank does not hold enough water and the rate at which it comes out (in a simple hand pump) would be to slow of a process for the agricultural community. "

Why I win: This argument is new in R3, and should be ignored. The fact is, people will now have a way to take ground water, and they are going to use it if they can hold onto it. It's human nature.

Argument: Corruption.

My opponent states, "playpumps are not placed in areas of corruption and this is known because playpumps interacts with the governments prior to the placement of the playpumps. Also as I have stated, the people of the village will protect their saving grace."

Why I win: First, this argument is new in R3. She says it isn't, but scroll up to R2. She argues that water isn't corruptable. That's not the same. Please disregared this argument.
Second, even if PlayPump works with the government, that does not mean it won't get stolen later. In fact, it may be MORE prone to corruption, since aff is informing the government ABOUT it.
Third, the government has WAY too much military power to be stopped by villagers.
Fourth, please pull my card and argument about corruption into this round, as it was conceded.

Argument: Politicalization.

My opponent states, "Water will be a political issue no matter what. Whatever can be made into a political issue, will be. That is simply the way that politics works. The world moves on though, even though politicians do not... people do."

Why I win: First, AGAIN THIS IS A NEW ARGUMENT IN R3. It and all other new arguments are abusive, because I only get 8,000 characters to type, and I can not respond to more and more arguments.
Second, water doesn't have to be political. If playpump wasn't involved with the government, it wouldn't be. But they are, as she states. Furthermore, this doesn't even argue my case. I said that politicalization was a bad thing, and this wasn't argued. Since we can clearly see that PlayPump is politicalizing water, and they can stop it, my arguement trumps.

Argument: Extinction by plan.

My opponent states, "The youth of today is the future of tomorrow and they will save us. The future scientists and doctors that are saved by the Playpumps will be able to find solutions to problems in the world that we today can not solve..."

Why I win: Again, this argument is completly ridicolous. As I mentioned, politicalization makes the PlayPump less effective. Hence, there will be little to no lives saved. Second, I argued that this will happen RAPIDLY, faster than a child can grow up. Third, it is ridicolous to assume that one of the maybe 100 lives aff can save will be smart enough to save humanity. There is no conclusive evidence that states this.

All in all, I have disproven all of my opponents arguements and created a lot of offense. I proved that aff does not solve for Malaria and AIDS, the two most major pubic diseases. I proved abusiveness, and you must put your vote in CON's favor in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
lol, my old school ran WFTPA and won every tournament we went to except for...two? I think? Out of approximately ten tournaments. We closed out in semis multiple times, too.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
LMAO WFTPA. I debated that probabaly 20 times this year. I lost maybe 2. GHS and PMI are where its at.
Posted by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
Here's a question: How do you guaruntee that people will use the Playpumps? What's your enforcement?

Next, you never mentioned (that I read) any funding. How many pumps are you sending over? One? Five billion? How do we know that your plan is effective or efficient?

Also, Pro seems to have conceded lots.

Finally, Playpumps is a terrible idea. Use Water For the Poor Act instead. :D
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by UUAA 9 years ago
UUAA
polishgirlinarPluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by uiop 9 years ago
uiop
polishgirlinarPluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by polishgirlinar 9 years ago
polishgirlinar
polishgirlinarPluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
polishgirlinarPluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Crust89 9 years ago
Crust89
polishgirlinarPluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03