The Instigator
Faith_in_my_words
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
DrAcula
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Should we,the U.S. supply health disease survalience services to Africa for African Typanosomiasis?

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: 12/11/2007 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 234
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

Faith_in_my_words

Pro

African trypanisomiasis is killing 66,000 people annually in africa, without a strongg , government, eventually they will be swipped away by thise bug that can be eradicated
DrAcula

Con

I don't believe so. There are many more pressing problems in Africa that we should spend our time on. HIV/AIDs, Malaria, and Tuberculosis are the "Big Three" in Africa, they kill upwards of 750,000 people a year. Something so small, such as the disease you are trying to stop is trivial compared to these other diseases. Not to mention that Tropical Disease kills a lot also.

It's almost impossible for our government to strengthen an African government.

While said disease could be problem, it is NOT significant enough to warrant a mass intelligence research project from The USG.
Debate Round No. 1
Faith_in_my_words

Pro

Well, that is true but look at the Inherency in this situatuation. 'The big three' hhave tooken the focus away from try. and they are still uncureable. Try. survailence by the CDC will be quick and smooth, for the processing plan has alreaddy been impliented in the late 40's to the early 60's. This is sumthing that should be more of a priority since this desiease possess a 100% fatality rate in the late stages. And has put a weight on the proverty possessing Africa, since the tesee fly doesn't just affect people, but also livestock, meaning that cause in africa u have to go thhrouggh spending 35 million dollar emmitted from livestock owners to their cattle, stated by Smolocku in 2005. Whichh goes to the ffact that it has costed Africa's economy 4.1 billion dollors cause of it devistation. This disease puts 60 million people at risk this year, stated by the Ministry of Health andd that number will rise if not stopped
DrAcula

Con

I'm going to guess you're on a debate squad at your school? (Inherency tipped me off).

The thing is; and this is basically the bad part about all singular diseases in Africa, focusing on one disease isn't going to help anything.

Sure, there are figurative "scales" showing what's the most dangerous, but it's not wise to just focus on one disease. You can bring your numbers to the table for any disease, and someone may follow you, but it can go with any disease.

True-Coma leads to Blindness, which hampers production economically, which can cripple society. It's one of the most Communicable diseases in Africa. The problem though is, there's not really a uniform solution that could be used against this + any other "unknown" disease in Africa.

Not to mention there is very little infrastructure, almost all help tactics would be useless because of this. It would be hard to distribute medicine, and trying to help the farmers isn't really logical either, as most of the Africans food comes from our own surplus food, being shipped over there. Because it is such a barren area, it'd be difficult to have the numbers to travel all over Africa to find farms to help, and villages to help.

The African governments would be tough to work with also, they wouldn't want American agents cavorting around on there land, and those same agents would be in danger from, well, for lack of a better word, guerrillas.

Aiding Africa is a very tough decision in itself, because of all the intangibles. It's the impoverished that are the most dangerous, not just people, but countries, because they have nothing, and nothing to lose.
Debate Round No. 2
Faith_in_my_words

Pro

Well, that is understandable, but to say that helping is bad, going torwards Rawanda, will leave future alliance at a major low. Not to even think that not doing anything for them is dehhumanizing and without morals. We cant say that they are bad, for bad people lie everywhere across the world, even in the U.S. The fact really is though, numbers mean evrything. They smack u in the face with the future while most people with logic wil most likely look at the big picture. See, yeah looking at one disease is dumb at first, but to see the future devistation, is overwelming. Try. moves faster than other diseases at fatality rates, leaving u clueless to having the disease at the first stages, then not stoppable at the late, it sumthing that will devistate the world. For dehhumanization is the worsh thing in the world, going to black and white segrigation, Woman being less then man, and even the Holucuast, it swips the worlldd. We have to care for these people, as u see in Darfur ( i think that's the spelling) and Rawanda, they cant care for themselves, and like a domino effect they will fall, Trypanisomiasis standdng there knocking down the first domino, leading to complete ddehumanized eradication of Africans, cause we as the U.S. ( Unitedd nation of Steel)failedd to see the future but the big picture.
DrAcula

Con

Any intervention will lead to bad things for us. People will look at us bad for not minding our own business, and we may also end up getting in conflicts with governments and militias for intervening.

Yes, this disease can lead to bad things, but ultimately, the end result will always be the same. If we try to solve this, 2 more diseases will take it's place. You brought up Darfur, that's another bad area, that we can't really help.

First degree aid will never work. If our own people are there, no matter what they are doing, they will be in grave danger. The countries in Africa are barely even countries, they're more like war tribes, and because of this, it is a lot harder to help them. Just like their lack of infrastructure, we can't truly do much without their own government recognizing the issue and cooperating with us, and they're more focused on HIV/AIDs, because it is pretty much it's own problem. There are so many diseases that aren't the big three, but they're not recognized, because they're pretty much one and the same.

Intervening has NEVER helped us in the past, and typically ends up hurting the people even more.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SMEBATE 9 years ago
SMEBATE
Also, there is a much higher prevalence of trypanosomiasis in rural areas while HIV/AIDS is much more common in areas with higher population densities. This means that it is much more effective to implement disease surveying methods in order to monitor outbreaks. For every reported case of Trypanosomiasis there are three unreported cases because people in rural areas do not always seek medical attention due to a lack of personnel. Disease surveillance for Trypanosomiasis makes the most sense especially because there are areas where it affects more people than any other communicable disease, including HIV/AIDS

As for the solution for this problem, it is not necessary to individually treat all those infected with trypanosomiasis (which i will now call SS). As mentioned in my previous post, the tsetse fly is the carrier of the parasites that cause SS. Eradicating the tsetse fly is most effective way to eliminate SS. This can be done in a few ways
1. Sterile insect technique is a way of breeding infertile male tsetse flies. When they are re-released back into the wild they mate with female tsetse flies but no offspring is produced. This has been empirically proven to dramatically accelerate the extinction of a species. (Used in Zanzibar, parts of Ethiopia on the tsetse fly, used in the US on the new world screw worm and Mediterranean fruit fly)
2. There are some conventional methods being used not but they do not have near the same impact. These include insecticides but species develop an immunity to pesticides over time. Vaccinations are also being used but they come with a 10% chance of mortality.
3. Fly traps and fake cows are also being used to attract and kill the pest. Although this can help to somewhat contain populations and prevent them from spreading, it is not a long term solution. Only a combination of SIT and conventional methods can eradicate the tsetse fly.

There have been governments that actually support a US lead SIT campaign stating that
Posted by waqas190 9 years ago
waqas190
Why the hell are we debating about inherency lets look to solvency which went dropped on the last three posts, the question comes down to if we provide disease surveillance to SSA will it solve and the answer is no, cross apply my solvency attacks from my first and second post
Posted by SMEBATE 9 years ago
SMEBATE
I have several comments:
1. Neither one of you know a damn thing about this issue
2. Get you facts straight: African Trypanosomiasis infects 400,000 people in Sub Sahara Afrika and has a fatality rate of 80%
3. It does not make a bit of sense to say that focusing on individual diseases "isn't going to help anything." Every disease has a different cause and cure- the only way to effectively eliminate disease is to find specific cures. The cure for for HIV/AIDS is not the same as the cure for malaria.
4. It is possible to at least have an impact of the governance of these countries. One of the main reasons for poor governance is a poverty due to lack of economic development and production. The tsetse fly, carrier of trypanosomiasis, is actually one of the root cause of poverty in affected countries for a few reasons
a) Citizens in rural areas are driven off their farmlands in attempts to avoid tsetse fly populations which means that there is a plethora of arable farmland that is not in use
b) Trypanosomiasis also affects livestock- when livestock are infected they are no longer available for use in agricultural activities, thus farmers are forced to plow their fields by hand
c) Afrikan Sleeping sickness (Trypanosomiasis) has a similar effect as HIV/AIDS- a slow degradation of the body which leads to a less productive workforce
i have more to say, but no time- make sure you check later
Posted by waqas190 9 years ago
waqas190
The first point you make is Public Health Assistance shouldn't affect everyone. This is not only abusive but it exploits the definition of Public, as far as i'm concerned the universal definition of Public is everyone pertaining to the general population. Your point is that public can pertain to sub-groups, this is abusive because it opens up a new world of affirmatives that can target anything ie affs that deal with racism, or sexism etc. Furthermore people can start running affs that contain diseases only prevalent to some tribes in Africa this is extremely abusive and decreases the educational value of debate. Next you try to point out that the terminal impact is global nuclear war, i don't know how updated you are with your current events but who has nukes in africa and if people are dying of diseases why would they want to nuke the rest of the world. Next you dropped the CDC argument so even if you think you win on topicality you loose on solvency because there is no cure for the disease your 1ac highlights which means the essential goal of the CDC is to warn the rest of the world that there is a disease that is very contagious and we should close our borders, and also what you need to know is the CDC can't implement its program in Africa right now because they are stretched so thin and are having health worker shortages this would ultimately link you to a reps k stating that you portray africa as this hell hole filled with savages that need to bring their diseases to a control. By the way i don't know what you were talking about when you went on a rant talking about aids in india etc etc.
Posted by dmapes219 9 years ago
dmapes219
DrAcula -- I would find your post much more credible if it wasn't replete with misspellings. Anyways, your "topicality violation" is violently off the mark. Public health assistance doesn't have to help everyone who is affected by a particular disease. It includes targeting specific sub-groups. Plus your interpretation of the topic is atrocious for a few reasons. First, it massively mixes burdens because it makes the affirmative solvency a topicality question as well. For example, if the affirmative solvency was mitigated so that they only won they solved 50% of the problem, then they are untopical. Mixing burdens makes good judging near impossible. This also creates an unmeetable burden for the affirmative, which is a perfect segway to the second argument your interpretation is egregious. It guts CORE affirmative ground. Your interpretation makes HIV/AIDS affirmatives not topical because there are individuals in India, the United, etc etc who are affected by HIV/AIDS. It also makes the Mexico City Policy affirmative not topical because that is a global policy. That doesn't even touch on how arbitrary your interpretation is. How do we determine who is an is not "affected" by a problem? If I have a cousin who lives in Ethiopia who dies from Malaria, then aren't I affected? If the terminal impact to the Affirmative is global nuclear war, wouldn't that affect everyone? Even outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Which means, any affirmative which a terminal impact that is GLOBAL in scope is extra-topical because the affirmative prevents something from AFFECTING someone outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Plus, think about your interpretation in a real-world policymaking sense. Your interpretation would bracket off pragmatic solutions. Imagine if policymakers refused to take small actions to tackle parts of a big problem? Your interpretation justifies saying, "We shouldn't prohibit people from throwing Bricks through Chinese restaurant windows because it doesn't affect EVERYONE."
Posted by waqas190 9 years ago
waqas190
First of all your AFF is not Topical because the resoultion says PUBLIC HEATLH ASSISTANCE and i'm pretty sure the disease your talking about doesn't affect everyone in Africa, next you say the CDC has been in Africa since the 40's this is not true the CDC just established their Global Disease Detection program last year, meaning its a new thing right now, further more even if you put a CDC in Africa, it will do noting, they will go look there's a disease lets warn the rest of the world so we don't get that disease, and for them to even find out if there's a disease doctors have to report it to the CDC, and FYI there are 300,000 pateints for every one doctor in SSA, which means your disease will never get reported and you have no solvency nor are you topical, furthermore all the CDC does is Qurantine people which is another debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 RebeccaDAdabater 9 years ago
RebeccaDAdabater
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 whstaytay 9 years ago
whstaytay
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 Faith_in_my_words 9 years ago
Faith_in_my_words
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 kpcook10 9 years ago
kpcook10
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 Rob 9 years ago
Rob
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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 repete21 9 years ago
repete21
Faith_in_my_wordsDrAculaTied
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