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

Policy round

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,531 times Debate No: 15263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




First round you start, I'll be neg and use random arguments. Use whatever Aff, but you go first and last


I thank my opponent for creating this debate. I will enjoy it to the fullest, seeing as I do home school policy debate.

It will be in the format of the speech I usually give during a debate round. "Judge" refers to any person who votes on this round.



USAID: USAID is an acronym for the United States Agency for International Development.


As the Affirmative team, we would like to propose the criterion for the round as “Net Benefits”. What’s a criterion? It’s basically the standard that we believe is best to judge by. So what’s Net Benefits? Essentially, the team who provides the most benefit should win the round.


1. Dehumanization

A) over 700,000 orphans

CLIFFORD J. LEVY, May 7th, 2010,

Russia has more orphans now, 700,000, than at the end of World War II, when an estimated 25 million Soviet citizens were killed.

B) Russia’s orphan system fails

Deborah Mumm (Debbie Mumm is a parent to 5 children, 2 of which were adopted from Russia. She is an Adoption Coach who gives talks on the plight of orphans. She runs a local Adoptive Parent Support group and one online at as well. For more information on the International Adoption process you can register for the Adoption Highway newsletter at, October 24th, 2007, "What Becomes of Orphans in Other Countries?,"

Russia has over 700,000 orphans with only about 25% of them housed. By age 15 or 16 a Russian orphan will age-out of the orphanage system. They are sent back into the streets with about $30 and nothing else. Of course, due to poor conditions in the orphanages many of these kids run away long before they age out. More than half of these kids end up in jail or prostitution. A Russian orphan will have his passport stamped 'Orphan'. People do not want to hire orphans and do not want them marrying their children. They are considered outcasts. Many boys will join the military but because of their orphan status will get the most dangerous jobs. Only one out of 10 orphans will make it to their 21st birthday. Most can't get jobs and the cycle of orphans continues.

2. HIV/AIDS is prevalent

César Chelala( is the foreign correspondent for the Middle East Times International (Australia). He is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award for an article on human rights)( Dr. César Chelala is an international public health consultant and the author of “AIDS: A Modern Epidemic,” a publication of the Pan American Health Organization.) July 23, 2010

Russia has one of the world’s most serious epidemics of injection drug-use, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS. It is estimated that Russia has two million injecting drug users (IDUs), 60-70% of whom have HIV-related illnesses. In the past decade, the number of HIV-infected people has increased from an estimated 100,000 to over one million.

It is clear that Russia has a beyond major problem with HIV/AIDS.


1. FA has a high chance of being eliminated

Samuel Worthington (is the President and CEO of InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organisations.), February 14th, 2011, "US foreign aid benefits recipients – and the donor,"

This new pressure point on the foreign aid budget comes as the administration is trying to reform the US development agency. To implement those reforms will need investment, not turning off the spigot. If a group of more conservative Republicans get their way, they will eliminate federal funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

2. Russia is not addressing the core issue about HIV.

Russia’s HIV is increasing

César Chelala July 23, 2010

The Russian authorities have come under strong, widespread criticism for their policies aimed at dealing with the IDU/HIV epidemic. Education to control drug abuse has focused primarily on the promotion of drug abstinence. That approach has created obstacles to effective addiction treatment and HIV prevention.

3. Russian government is not successful with orphans

CLIFFORD J. LEVY, May 7th, 2010,

In recent years, the Russian government has repeatedly pledged to bolster efforts to help families stay together, to increase the number of children who are adopted and to expand foster care. But it has not had notable success.

We propose the following plan to help solve the problems stated above.


Mandate 1: The US will supply $1billion per year to USAID to be used for aid to Russia.

Funding: The $1billion will be taken from ethanol subsidies

Enforcement: Enforcement will be carried out by the Government Accountability Office.

The Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify this plan as needed throughout the round.


1. Humanization

USAID's Assistance to Russian Orphans program has reached over 80,000 vulnerable children in Russia, reuniting more than 12,000 with families

80,000 children were helped by USAID just in 2008, with about 60 million dollars. By increasing foreign assistance by this amount, we can make a major impact on even more children.

2. HIV/AIDS combatted

USAID 2009, USAID, 2009, “Russia: Health,”

USAID's HIV/AIDS program focuses on reducing the rapid growth of the epidemic in Russia by increasing access to best practices in HIV prevention, care and treatment. USAID projects are raising awareness about and helping prevent transmission of the disease among at-risk populations, especially injecting drug users and vulnerable youth.

This plan helps work on the rampant HIV/AIDS epidemic. Granted, it won’t solve every single case of it, but it will take necessary steps forward.

The last two advantages have been about Russia. But what’s in it for you? That leads us to our third advantage.

3. National Security

Foreign Aid is important for National Security

Steve Rothman (Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ) is in his eighth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense; and State and Foreign Operations, which appropriate all spending for the United States military and foreign aid respectively.), February 18th, 2011, "Foreign Aid Cuts Jeopardize U.S. National Security,"

But we can never forget that in meeting Congress’ first priority – keeping America safe – there is no better value than the one percent of the U.S. budget that is spent on foreign aid and diplomacy. ...
a poll commissioned in 2010 by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition concluded, “nearly 90 percent of active duty and retired military officers agree the tools of diplomacy and development are critical to achieving U.S. national security objectives and a strong military alone is not enough to protect America.”

90 percent of military officers agree! That is definitely credible.

So, why vote for this case? Why would you, as the judge, want to enact the plan? For National Security, and to save thousands of lives. By voting Affirmative, you would save thousands of lives from HIV/AIDS, and thousands of orphans from life-eating poverty, while at the same time increasing our security, without creating any debt. Huh? Yes. In the status quo, this $ is being spent on Ethanol subsidies. With this plan, this money is diverted to be a better cause.

I am now ready for Cross-Examination (if needed). Sorry for any formatting errors.

Debate Round No. 1


ok i kinda wanted it to be about this year's resolution. And now, I have no blocks and no links sorry man, but If you want to, I can do my aff and then we'll do a short round from there


I am in a home school debate club so I don't have the same resolution as you do.

Please just find some arguments against the case and let's debate. It's really good practice to debate something you have no knowledge about.

Right now I just need to practice my Affirmative, so please make some arguments in the next round. This will probably be more of a recreational policy round.

Argumentation begins next round.
Debate Round No. 2


Ok, I'll try

First on on case,

A. they have no solvency, this interferes with their plan, because they can't even prove that what they do is effective
b orphans, fine l'll admit we need to help orphans, but only 1 billion? this is about 3$ per orphan evry day. This is going to food, health, education, and etc. 3$ a day gives you about 15 cents left over for nutrition, not to mention the HIV/AIDS program they plan to run
C. National security, they claim that foreign aid helps nat security, but his statement is very vague, he provides no source saying that russia aid helps so much
D. because his levy 2010 card outdates all other solvency, why trust him? he claims that russia can't solve even with foreign aid
E. USAID is enivitable to be cut extend his inherency
f. He has no warrant to say that it has helped children

I give it to AFF


Thank you for responding.

I'll be clearing up some misconceptions about my case.

A. I would ask that Con would show why we don't have solvency. Just because he says so doesn't mean it's true. But I will respond to what he will most likely say.

1. Fiat power. As the affirmative team, I have fiat power. Of course, this only works when you vote for me, which is why I request your vote. Because of fiat power, we ensure that USAID will not misspend the money.

2. GAO. Our enforcement is the Government Accountability office, or GAO. This enforcement ensures that our fiat power is properly applied, and that USAID will be accountable and will not misspend money.

B. Orphans.

1. My opponent conceded we should help the orphans. In other words, if I can prove that this case will help orphans, I win by default.

2. I'm not about to give each orphan three dollars. That's not how it works. As our USAID evidence stated, this assistance helps get them adopted by a family. That means they no longer need to get money because they are being cared for by a family.

3. I'm not trying to solve the complete problem. It would be insane to try and track every single orphan down to give them a home. Since our criterion is net benefits, though, if I help just one orphan, I win. (Unless of course there's a serious disadvantage to this case). My evidence shows that USAID helped 80,000 children in Russia with 60 million dollars. Do the math, USAID could help about a million. Of course, there aren't even 1 million orphans. This plan definitely will help.

C. National Security

1. How is my evidence vague? It clearly states that 90 percent of active duty and retired officers agree that Foreign Aid helps national security. My opponent has provided absolutely no reason to believe that this is not so.
2. Specifically about Russia: CTR is one form of aid. CTR means national security because that lessens the threat of loose nukes, or the kind of bombs that could really harm the US.
This point does not stand.
D. Solvency card.

1. My opponent must be confused on this. This card is referring to Russia alone. It is showing how Russia is failing with the orphan system. That in no way proves that USAID fails. USAID does not equal Russia.

2. Our evidence under Advantage 1 shows that it WILL help.

This point does not stand as it was a logical fallacy: applying evidence to something it doesn't say.

E. USAID inevitable to be cut.

1. This means my opponent concedes that yes, Foreign Aid will be cut.

2. This Foreign Aid will NOT be cut. Only the Foreign Aid that comes from normal means. You see, congress will be cutting regular Foreign Aid, not this modified one that comes from Ethanol Subsidies.

F. No warrant

How is there no warrant? There's a clear statistic: 80,000 children. My opponent needs to provide evidence that this plan will not help children. Of course, that's impossible.

In summary, I've addressed each of my opponent's arguments. Many of them were based on misconceptions about the case.

Now, let's clear some things up about the case as well.

1. You're probably sitting there reading this and thinking "Why do I care about Russian orphans"?

I have several reasons. A. It increases our National Security. So that is helping you, not just Russia. B. There's no reason not to. I will explain this in my next point, Ethanol.

2. Ethanol.

Ethanol causes inflation on any corn product. Most food items contain corn. That means ethanol is what makes a lot of the things you buy every day expensive. (

Ethanol also increases our dependancy on foreign oil suppliers. It is estimated that the cost outweighs the benefits by 3 billion each year. In other words, it would be beneficial to throw this money off a cliff rather than spend it on ethanol.

Of course, because of this, if the plan helped just one child with this plan, or increased our national security by a tiny bit, or helped one HIV/AIDS victim, then you should vote for me. But as our evidence has shown, we will save thousands of lives, not just a few.

3. Debt

The other thought probably circulating your mind right now is "But we're in debt!" You're right, we are. We're sunk deep in debt. But this plan doesn't increase our debt or our spending. The reason is that with Con's position, or the Status Quo, this billion is being spent on Ethanol subsidies. But with this plan, the money is diverted to a better cause. No extra debt, but extra national security, and saved lives.
For all these reasons, I would urge you to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


boredinclass forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited. That means he concedes and I automatically win the round. Thank you, please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4


Since this is just a trial for his aff, I'll just do a new cp

Text: Obama should issue an executive order to increase foreign aid to Russia by 1 billion dollars

Obs. 1 �€" Solvency

Executive orders control policy and set agendas �€" key to presidential power
Mayer 1

executive orders are an instrument of executive power that presidents have used to control policy. I view presidential leadership as both strategic and dynamic, a perspective that brings into sharper relief the utility of executive power to the presidency

President holds power in foreign affairs
Brownell 1

The President is granted greater leeway in national security affairs by the Constitution because as Chief Executive he is the nation's agent in the unique legal realm which comprises the Law of Nations. grants of power to the President are much more substantive in the area of national security affairs than in domestic affair

Obs. 2 �€" Net Benefit
Executive orders increase presidential power
Risen 4

executive orders have gone to a powerful weapon in defining, and expanding, executive power used that power to construct and promote social policies.

XOs are quick and avoid bureaucratic rulemaking �€" only the plan would get delayed by procedural requirements

Cooper 02


Well, this is the last round and the last speech. Sadly, it was wasted. Con spent it writing a counter plan. The thing is, you can't write a counterplan so late in a policy round. It must be in the first speech. This is, of course, a policy round. (Hence the title). Thus my opponent has failed to follow his own rules by posting a counter plan so late.

I did agree to allow him to post new arguments in this speech since his last arguments were conceded by him because of the forfeit, but a counter plan is in no way acceptable.

I regret to have to brush aside the last argument, but that is sadly what I must do. Please vote Pro because Con has provided no reason as to why you should vote Con.

When you vote, please cast aside personal bias on the matter. Some find it a touchy subject. Vote on who won based on argumentation, not who you agree with. Since Con conceded (forfeit) his round 3 points, it's as if he never brought them up. The round 5 counterplan must be discarded simply because it is too late in the round. If Con had brought up new points in Round 5, I would have accepted them and rebutted them. But a counterplan must be the first thing he does, not the last.

Because of this, Con has in essence said nothing against my case. Thank you, please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
oh aff, you need to find much better evidence for Ad.3 National Security. The fact that a lot of people think it helps doesnt give enough substance or credibility to say that it actually does. You should provide a more massive impact to HIV/AIDS limited to russia. A DA could easily outweigh this. Or you can just make a better framework. Provide evidence that a billion dollars is the key amount for gaining solvency. Good luck! : )
Posted by Johnicle 5 years ago
Anyone want to do some practice debates on the space topic? (btw I'm sure I'll forget to check this page again so just message me if interested)
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
NFL is not home-school...
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
Actually NFL?
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
It's in the NCFCA debate league. Home school kids get together in clubs every week and practice debate. During the week they research. Then there are tournaments hosted around the USA, usually about 4 qualifiers each year for each region.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
Ok I'll try, but how do you do home-school policy
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
"This is dumb"

Then why did you click on it? Policy = win.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
then don't do it
Posted by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
This is dumb
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Via forfeit.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won on all categories and it shouldnt take long to figure out why.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: damn, i was looking forward to a good policy round (since the site the lacks that.) But oh well. Voted aff because of forfeit.