The Instigator
cailinalainn
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

The US Fed Gvt. should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-suharan 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: 1/9/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,081 times Debate No: 1606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

cailinalainn

Pro

The US Fed Govt should in fact increase public health assistance for many reasons. One of of which I believe is most important:
The water purity in sub-saharan africa is poor, as they cannot afford water sanitation devices such as filters or pumps. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from water-bourne diseases. We should help them install pumps in every country that filter and purify water, and store it in a storrage tank. This way, the water will be disease free and they'll have some place to store it. It's the perfect plan.
Yraelz

Con

I'm going to take it you mean all of sub-Saharan Africa by the way you worded this. So here are my reasons why we shouldn't do this.

1. Corrupt governments.
2. Moral Hazard.
3. BioPower.
4. Aid Dependency.
5. Aid Tradeoff.
6. Securitization.
7. Afrocentrism
8. Brain Drain.
9. Infrastructure.
10. You

1. So starting with corrupt governments, probably the most minimal reason I have on here. Seeing as the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Somalia. These countries have been known to seize aid that we send them, especially monetary aid. This poses a minor problem to implementing any aid program.

2. Moral Hazard. This is the idea that countries feel impowered and backed up by the U.S. Thus they are more likely to promote wars or attempt to overthrow powers that before this point they would have been worried about. These attempts are the results of their feeling that the U.S has their back.

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ENCOURAGES WORSE BEHAVIOR THROUGH A MORAL HAZARD – Bandow '07
[Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow and the CATO Institute, 2007.
FOREIGN FOLLIES BOOK REVIEW, Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention, Accessed 4-28-07, http://www.antiwar.com...]

However, there's another potential problem with humanitarian intervention that advocates of warmongering for good rarely acknowledge: threatening to intervene to settle bitter internal conflicts creates an incentive for weaker parties to foment such conflicts. For many rebellious groups, outside intervention is the only hope for success; thus, triggering involvement by a neighboring nation, regional power, or the globe's superpower becomes an overriding objective. In economic-speak this is the problem of "moral hazard."

3. BioPower. Biopower is literally having power over other bodies, "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations" (-Wiki) Basically it started with the colonialism of Africa and has been happening ever since. Africa has simply been exploited over and over by the U.S and has made no progress.

4. Aid Dependency. Us giving them aid stop their own will to do something about their problems and makes them dependent on us. This factors into biopower. An example would be seeing a poor civilian on the street and giving him 50k. This would stop his need to look for jobs or even find his own money. Which in turn would screw him about the time he ran out of that 50k.

5. Aid Tradeoff. Not within the U.S but rather within Africa. Many countries are known to stop their own aid programs win we begin to help them in order to focus on other part of their country.

6. Securitization. Many of the problems with Africa have been classified as a national or even universal security issue. Some view the threat of avian flu or Aids as a potential world wide epidemic. ~~securitization tends to encourage policy responses formulated along the axis of "threat-vulnerability-defence," where the imperative concern is to provide a distance--or even to eliminate--the perceived threat~~ Abrahamsen.

7. Afrocentrism. Or the lack their of. The U.S and other western donors of aid / European donors of aid. Do not view the African problems from an African standpoint. Instead they view the problems from a European/American framework. This has resulted in numerous failed policies over the years.

8. Brain Drain. When we train workers over there they end up leaving Africa for the higher paying jobs and better quality of living in the U.S.

9. Infrastructure. Virtually non-existent. I think its something like 80% of the roads are flooded for part of the year. How do you plan to deliver aid. Even if you want to fly it in it is only going to be to major cities.

10. You. You are classifying Africa into a region. Which you refer to as Sub-Saharan Africa. This comes with a very negative connotation that they are somehow sub-human. And through that spurs racism only hurting the problem.

We've been attempting to help Africa for 40-50 years and Africa has, as a whole, only become more impoverished.

If you want give me a specific plan and I will tell you specifics on why I feel it won't work. =)
Debate Round No. 1
cailinalainn

Pro

I have two possible plans that would make for a great change in Sub- Saharan Africa. But first of all, From playpumps.org,
"More than one billion people worldwide do not have access to clean water.
Water-related diseases are the leading cause of death in the world, taking the lives of 6,000 people a day, and are responsible for 80 percent of all sickness in the world.
40 billion hours are lost annually to hauling water, a chore primarily undertaken by women and girls."
This is why ne need to take action.

Plan:
1. The US Fed Government should get together with PlayPumps Int. and install enough pumps throughout the region to filter and store water for the people. In case you're wondering, a PlayPump is a water purification system that is installed into the ground about 40 meters, and pumps and filters the water into a silo. It's pumped by two available options. The PlayPump can be pumped by a marry-go-round (hence 'Play'Pump) or a hand pump. As children play on the marry go round, it pumps the water into a storage silo where a very vast amount of water can be stored. When it rains, the silo can also collect and filter the water. The plan would be to install one or more pumps int each country within the region, giving access to clean and healthy water to everyone. Not only does it help with water filtration, but a large billboard can be found on the silo, specifcally placed there for AIDS awareness a number to a 24-hour hotline to get information. There are already a few of these pumps in this region already (they work, they need more), and the bulletins on those pumps have been read by over 5000 people, and have helped educate teens about the dangers of AIDS and how to prevent getting it.

Funding:
2. One pump costs $6,000. "Only 58 percent of the 684 million people in sub-Saharan Africa have clean water, compared with 79 percent for the entire developing world." That leaves almost 400 million people without clean water. A playpump can reach 3 million people. When you calculate this, we only need around 140 pumps. With that, the cost would only come to roughly 840 million.

If we add an extra 5% tax on coffee products. "In 2006 there were 108,000,000 coffee consumers in the United States spending an approximated 9.2 billion dollars in the retail sector and 8.7 billion dollars in the foodservice sector every year." This shows that with a 5% tax added to coffee products, we'd have plenty of money to pay for all for all of the pumps...with the tax we should get our "goal" amouunt of 900 million, and have leftover money to pay for workers or help with other minor problems.

Solvency:
As I've said, we should install these pumps in sub-saharan africa, but who should do the job, you may ask. The people being sent over would be: PlayPumps workers, volunteers, and doctors. Only qualified workers would be sent over, and the problem would be eradicated. Because these pumps last a lifetime, Africa will gladly take our aid, but will not get dependent on it.

Also,
Can I see proof of Moral Hazard in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Thanks.
Tell me what you think of the plan,
because I'm using it in a debate tournament tomorrow morning.
Get back to be and debate on it ASAP.
=)
Yraelz

Con

Alright, sounds good. First and foremost notice that you dropped everything above but my moral hazard argument. So I will get back to that and add the others into my summary.

I'm going to hit stock issues then just ask you questions for your benefit.

INHERENCY:

1. Play pumps international already has plans to put 4000 play pumps into African countries. Impact: No point of doing your plan that says it will put 140 in. Already 4000 being put in.

2.
PLAY PUMP INITIATIVES ALREADY BEING CREATED BY U.S - HABERMAN '06
Haberman 06 (Maggie, writer for the New York Post, lexis nexis, "Laura Stars at Bill's Do Good Bash", September 21 2006)PM

The annual Clinton Global Initiative, aimed at finding cures for hardships like hunger and AIDS, kicked off yesterday with an appearance by First Lady Laura Bush.

Symbolizing the bipartisan atmosphere of the event, Mrs. Bush and former President Bill Clinton announced to the crowd of about 1,000 attendees at the Sheraton New York a public-private partnership to deliver clean water to sub-Saharan Africa.

Called the Play Pumps Alliance, the clean-water plan puts merry-go-rounds on water pumps.

Impact: Same as last, once again no need to do a plan that is already happening.

HARMS: I grant you your harms but offer an alternative causality.

1.
WATER IN MANY REGIONS OF AFRICA IS LACKING - BBC '01
BBC 01 (British Broadcasting Corporation, Africa's shared water worries, http://news.bbc.co.uk..., November 30, 2001) MEKD

In Nigeria, Water Resources Minister Muktari Shagari gave a stark warning that no fewer than 17 nations faced the risk of severe water shortages by the year 2010, the Daily Trust reported.
He noted that although water was abundant in Africa on a regional scale, it was unevenly distributed by nature and that there was not enough available to sustain the growing population.
"Due to recurring droughts and chronic water shortages in many areas, the majority of African countries and people pay an increasingly high price for water," he said.

IMPACT: Your contraption promotes safe water. However with no water to sanitize it cannot function. Sticking a Play Pump in a sand dune is not going to do anything. It can't turn sand into water. They need water before they can get clean water.

PLAN: (Plan presses, topicality, vagueness)

1. How much are you going to install how much is it going to cost? By not telling me both you severely limit the neg ground by not allowing me to run any sort of financial DA. Plan vagueness.

2. How do you plan to get the pumps there? What will you be doing in the event that the pumps break?

3. You say a play pump can reach 3 million people? Prove it. If I stick a play pump in the middle of a random desert will people be able to access it? Also if there are 3 million people at a pump and each person takes perhaps 20 seconds to get a bucket of water that means it will take each person 694.444444 days before they can get a bucket of water. ((3 mil * 20 secs) / 60 secs / 60 mins / 24 hours) Even if it only takes 1 person 1 second to get water from the pump (which sounds like it might be a long process of hand pumping) that is still 34.72222 days between water buckets.

4. On your tax. Extra-topicality. This plank of plan falls no where under the resolution.
Standards: Infinitely regressive. It opens the door for planks of plan that are like "We should feed dieing children in India while doing this". This leads to garnered advantages that have nothing to do with the resolution and horrifying sucks up my ground (which is outside the resolution). Fairness, cuts my ground on DAs. I need to be voted on for this to promote fairness but at the very least this plank of plan needs to be severed from plan. This results in no solvency.

Also. Aff team is not allowed to fiat outside of the resolution. Infinitely regressive, opens up doors for Aff to fiat NGOs, private actors, people in general.

5. Can't fiat play pumps international. There is no guarantee play pumps int. will work with U.S gov and without this there is no solvency. Fiating NGO's is outside the resolution, which is the NEgs ground. This is cutting my ground, is unfair to me, and promotes infinte regression to single actors and people fiats.

SOLVENCY:

1. You say play pumps international workers, doctors, volunteers will be sent over. Does this mean we are simply giving play pumps int. money to do this?

In which case.

Topicality: USFG
Violation: Using play pumps international. USFG is giving them money, they are actually doing something.
Standards:
a. Education - I participated in this round to learn how the USFG could increase its aid to africa, not how the USFG could increase its aid to play pumps.
b. Education - I participated and the judges judged this round not to learn how Play pumps could increase its aid to Africa.
c. Ground - Play pumps is outside the resolution, you are definitely stealing my ground. You stop me from running the play pumps counter plan.
Voters:
a. A priori - This is a pre-fiat issue and needs to be voted on before anything else for the above standards.

2. I maintain you cannot solve because of lack of water.

3. I also maintain you cannot solve because of lack of infrastructure in place. I.E roads, construction materials, vehicles.

4. Can't solve because corrupt governments will steal your aid. Kill your workers etc...

5. Can't solve because once again this is viewing the problem from an American perspective and doesn't actually consult with Africans. We've been aiding them like this for the last 40-50 years with no results. Whats so special about your viewpoint that is going to fix things?

6. You definitely promote dependency. These things are going to require workers to fix when they break. They will be dependent on us for workers. If you are going to train workers in Africa then you will further brain drain. They will come to America for better jobs with their talents. Which leaves you back at square one with broken play pumps.

7. I maintain that you are increasing biopower. Exploiting Africans through increasing their lives. Dependency etc....

8. Finally onto moral hazard. You ask for proof of it happening in Africa.

A. ASSISTANCE ENCOURAGES CORRUPTION AND HOLDS UP HIERARCHIES - Lerrick '05
Adam Lerrick, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, December 2005.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS REPORT, Gailliot Center for Public Policy, Aid to Africa at Risk: Covering Up Corruption, pg. 1
But corruption prevents aid from benefiting or even reaching the poor and has instead enriched and entrenched a series of destructive governing elites. How to give wisely, cost-effectively and directly for the benefit of the poor remains the elusive goal. Rich nations are now poised to fund an exponential increase in development funding for the world's poorest countries. But after 40 years and US$ 500 billion of failed aid to Africa, giving in the same old ways will simply pour more money into what corruption renders "a leaky begging bowl".

B. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ENCOURAGES WORSE BEHAVIOR THROUGH A MORAL HAZARD – Bandow '07
[Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow and the CATO Institute, 2007.
FOREIGN FOLLIES BOOK REVIEW, Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention, Accessed 4-28-07, http://www.antiwar.com...]

However, there's another potential problem with humanitarian intervention that advocates of warmongering for good rarely acknowledge: threatening to intervene to settle bitter internal conflicts creates an incentive for weaker parties to foment such conflicts. For many rebellious groups, outside intervention is the only hope for success; thus, triggering involvement by a neighboring nation, regional power, or the globe's superpower becomes an overriding objective. In economic-speak this is the problem of "moral hazard."
Debate Round No. 2
cailinalainn

Pro

cailinalainn forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Con

K, pull all my arguments through. Vote on any of them you'd like. I would personally vote on Inherency and the:

"You say a play pump can reach 3 million people? Prove it. If I stick a play pump in the middle of a random desert will people be able to access it? Also if there are 3 million people at a pump and each person takes perhaps 20 seconds to get a bucket of water that means it will take each person 694.444444 days before they can get a bucket of water. ((3 mil * 20 secs) / 60 secs / 60 mins / 24 hours) Even if it only takes 1 person 1 second to get water from the pump (which sounds like it might be a long process of hand pumping) that is still 34.72222 days between water buckets."

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hey hey, sounds good. I would rather debate con but if you would really like to debate CON go for it.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Yraelz, ill post that soon, i just have a lot going on right now.

Ill more that likely post it Monday night.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
eww...policy

i don't like it...
good topic though
Posted by miroslava 9 years ago
miroslava
CX anyone?
lol
every topic of NFL becomes overrated... sucks
Posted by Clynne22 9 years ago
Clynne22
I know that it's easy to feel bad for those people over there. I feel bad too. However, there is so much going on in the US right now that needs attention. Our country is heading for a recession, and I think we'd better keep our money right here for now. Just think about all the homeless and jobless people here. We need to create more jobs. We need to come up with alternative heating sources. Oil has become such an issue. Many people in these New England states are freezing. They are putting oil before their medicines and food. Just so they can stay warm. It's very sad. And that's not to mention the working class people who can't get health insurance. It's so expensive that many people can't receive it. And I'm talking people with great paying jobs. There is still no reasonable plan of healthcare in the US. They say it's affordable, but for whom really? Those are just a few of the issues that are occuring right now. I'm sure there's many more. Here in the US.
Posted by THE_Overman 9 years ago
THE_Overman
you guys are such bad debaters, i have 3 bids, and you put tags to list reason why we shouldnt send PHA to SSA, this is terrible, lol you dont win debates on inhernecy, that doesnt cut it in good open policy, and you sure as hell dont say pull everything i said across, this was terrible, if you want to have a real debate with some who is good challenge me to this SSA topic ill show how to debate
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Go for it, I will debate you on it if you send me a challenge. Just not tonight.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Nice, high school policy topic, i thought about posting this one too.
Posted by robizzle 9 years ago
robizzle
oh someone is actually debating a real resolution
for the aff pretty good arguments, but i still personally think DDT is a better AFF, and neg run a DA( disadvantage) or CP(counterplan) you're not gonna win with those arguments
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
There's my take, hope it helps you. Hope you got it before you left.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 Nekoninja 9 years ago
Nekoninja
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 GeoffG 9 years ago
GeoffG
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 jerkfacemcgee 9 years ago
jerkfacemcgee
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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 qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
cailinalainnYraelzTied
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