The Instigator
Pluto2493
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
qwerty15ster
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

The United States Federal Govt. should subs. increase PublicHealthAssistance 2 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,913 times Debate No: 2413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (9)

 

Pluto2493

Con

First come, first serve.

If you want to go aff in a debate, present the plan text and some cards if you want in round 1 and it will proceed from there. I already went aff, so I want to try neg.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Since this is a policy topic, and I'm going against a policy debater, this will be in a policy debate format. I would ask that you vote on who does the better debating, and read the entire debate before voting. I also cannot fit my entire case on this as it is too long... So I will provide a couple harms, a plan text, and some solvency. But keep in mind this is not the case in its entirety. That being said, lets do this....

I hate debating inherency, if you really feel that it needs to be here, I will provide it. Until then it will not appear.

HARMS-

A. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA HAS CRITICAL BLOOD SHORTAGES-- Bagozzi '07
[Daniela; "Blood safety and donation;" WHO Fact Sheet Number 279; June 2007;
http://www.who.int...; downloaded 15 July 2007]

While the need for blood is universal, there is a major imbalance between developing and industrialized countries in access to safe blood. Only 45% of the global blood supply is collected in developing countries, which are home to more than 80% of the world's population In sub-Saharan Africa, fewer than 3 million units of blood are collected each year for a population of more than 700 million people Out of 80 countries that have donation rates of less than 1% of the population (fewer than 10 donations per thousand people), 79 are in developing regions; it is generally recommended that 1-3% of the population give blood to meet a country's needs The average number of blood donations per 1,000 population is 11 times higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries.

B. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA NEEDS AN ESTIMATED 14 MILLION BLOOD UNITS PER YEAR- Report on Blood Safety and HIV/AIDS '04
["Report on Blood Safety and HIV/AIDS"; June 2006; House Report 109-152, accompanying H.R. 3057, called upon the Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator to report; Submitted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator U.S. Department of State ; retrieved Oct. 11 2007; http://www.pepfar.gov...]

Thirty-nine percent of blood is donated in developing countries where 82% of the world's population lives. An estimated 14 million blood units are needed in sub-Saharan Africa. Information provided to the GDBS by Ministries of Health in 39 countries indicates that only 3.6 million units were collected in 2004. The 15 focus countries of the Emergency Plan have a total population of nearly 40 million people. The annual whole blood collection in these countries in 2004 was approximately 2.8 million units as compared to an estimated requirement of 8.3 million units. Therefore, populations of these countries generally have limited access to blood and blood products.

C. UNSAFE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS ARE THE #1 CAUSE OF HIV IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA – Dhingra '06
[Neelam Dhingra Coordinator Blood Transfusion Safety Essential Health Technologies at the World Health Organization, June 27, 2006. "Making Safe Blood Available In Africa," Statement before the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, lexis, p. np.]

Unsafe blood transfusions have contributed to the enormous burden of HIV infections in sub- Saharan Africa and still continue to add to this burden. The risk of HIV infection through unsafe blood and blood products is exceptionally high (95-100%) compared to other common routes of HIV exposure: for example, 11-32% for mother-to-child transmission and 0.1%-10% for sexual contact.

PLAN-

The United States federal government will substantially increase it health care to sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks:

1.) The USFG will expand funding for blood bank developing in the existing PEPFAR target
nations in sub-Saharan Africa along with expanding the program to include unserved countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Total funding will amount to an increase of $712 million a year. This accounts for the fact that the African population is close to 800 million at this point and will be increasing 2.6% every year for the next 10 years. Also the fact that the 14 million packets needed in the status quo will increase proportionally with the population. $712 million dollars is the average amount of money needed to provide packets over the course of 10 years.

2.) The USFG will guarantee funding to blood safety programs in Sub-Saharan Africa for 10
years.

3.) The Affirmative team claims the rights to Fiat, Legislative Intent and Clarification.

SOLVENCY-

A. WITH FACTORS IN MIND THE COST OF A SAFE BLOOD UNIT IS $45 U.S DOLLARS - Report on Blood Safety and HIV/AIDS '04
["Report on Blood Safety and HIV/AIDS"; June 2006; House Report 109-152, accompanying H.R. 3057, called upon the Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator to report; Submitted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator U.S. Department of State ; retrieved Oct. 11 2007; http://www.pepfar.gov...]

There are recurrent and capital costs associated with each of the following blood transfusion activities. The sum of the cost of each of these activities provides a cost per unit of safe blood. Recruitment: education, motivation, recruitment and retention of voluntary, non-remunerated blood donors Collection: selection and screening of blood donors as well as all activities associated with the actual collection of blood. Processing: screening collected blood for infectious agents, blood grouping, preparation of blood components and all other activities necessary to ensure the safety of blood and blood products before they leave the processing unit for storage. Storage and Distribution: all activities related to the storage and transportation of blood and blood products through to their final transfusion, including the maintenance of an efficient blood cold chain. With these four factors in mind, WHO has concluded that the average cost of a unit of safe blood is $40~45 US dollars. For the purposes of the following calculations, $45 US dollars per unit of blood is used in the model:

B. SOLVING BLOOD SYSTEM PROBLEMS WOULD SAVE 300,000 A YEAR FROM HIV-- Fattah '06
[Representative Chakah; "Making Safe Blood Available in Africa;" Hearing before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, US House of Reps; 27 June 2006; http://commdocs.house.gov...; downloaded 15 July 2007]

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately 120 countries lack proper blood supplies and offer inadequate screening. Out of the total population of HIV/AIDS infected persons, the WHO estimates that up to 10 percent of infections are from corrupted blood supplies and tainted blood transfusions. As I previously noted, these infections are 100 percent preventable. Understand, over 300,000 people in Sub-Saharan Africa alone would be saved from enduring unbearable hardship and pain due to HIV/AIDS each year.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Con

Topicality: To
You must give to the governments to sub-saharan africa.
Mark A. Hall, Fred D. Professor of Law, Wake Forest University, 2003, "The Scope and Limits of Public Health Law", Johns Hopkins University, 2003.

In the legal arena, public does not simply mean "widespread." It invokes a special set of justifications for government intervention and coercion.

There are an infinite number of groups you could give to, it would be impossible to get something on every group in the world. We assume the USFG and the governments are doing it.

Voter for Fairness

Topicality: Resolved
"Resolved" means the legislative will to enact. The plan must be passed by Congress.

Words and Phrases Second Series, 1914, Volume 4, 1905, pg. 356

The word "resolved" is as potent to declare the legislative will as the word "enacted."

We assume aff is passing a plan; they are not. It is unpredictable and creates an unfair reseach burden.
Voter for fairness + education.

T Substaintial- Substaintial means an 11% increase in the context of international aid

Paul and Weber in '02

Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects the presidents conviction that robust diplomacy and a commitment to solving global problems is the right thing to do.

Aff does not give 11%. They only give 2%. This allows them to send $1 to Africa and somehow save a life and call that public health assisstance. We need to make sure it is substaintial so we can run certain CPs and DAs.

Voter

SPENDING: Bush Has Made It Clear, Spending Will Be Limited
Grier, Jun 22 07 (Peter Grier. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jun 22, 2007.

Bush will uncap his veto pen, says the White House. And officials insist the vetoes will be upheld. Some 147 House Republicans have pledged to support the White House efforts to curb spending, according to the administration. That is one more lawmaker vote than needed to sustain a veto in the House.

Link: Plan Ruins Fiscal Discipline By Spending Unnecessary Money
1. Foreign aid is a waste of resources, the only outcome for the US is losing money
Cooper, 96 [Cooper, Mary. "Reassessing Foreign Aid" CQ Researcher, 9/27/96.]

In a study of 77 countries that have received U.S. development assistance for at least 35 years, Johnson concluded that 39 were no better off, in terms of economic growth, than they were before they began receiving the aid. "Of those 39 countries, fully half actually are worse off." Johnson says.

Severe economic stress leads to an unleashing of missiles, nukes, and biological weapons by countries that have them in order to save the country
Bearden, Thomas April 25, 2000. (http://www.cheniere.org...)

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then—as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies.

TEXT: THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND will substantially increase it health care to sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.

OBSERVATION 1: SOLVENCY:
Ireland's public health assistance to Africa can do the affirmative plan and they have excellent experience
Lane and Sachs, 03
(Philip and Jeffrey July 10, 2003, Lexis Nexis, accessed June 30, 2007, TW//JDI)
Public health experts will stress our phenomenal capacity to save millions of lives each year in the poorest countries by stepping up the fight against AIDS, TB, malaria, and other killer diseases, using existing technologies and developing new ones... information technology experts will show how Ireland's own success with IT can be extended to support economic development in the poorest countries. Ireland's hosting of the UN report and the TCD conference are fitting reminders of this State's important role in helping achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Ireland is itself a model of rapid economic development based on successful globalisation.

Observation 2 is the net benefits-
First cross apply the spending dis-ad which is US-specific.
Add this:
IRELAND CAN HANDLE THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF AID
AHERN, 2/9/2007
[Bertie, (Taioseach for the Irish Aid Organization) http://www.irishaid.gov.ie..., White Paper of Irish
Aid]

Ireland has seen much progress over the last ten years. By any measure, Ireland today is a wealthy and developed nation. Now more than ever, we are in a position to help those in greatest need in some of the world's poorest countries.

NET BENEFIT 2 IS CORRUPTION-
WESTERN AID FAILS- IT ONLY FUELS CORRUPTION
Ayodele, et. al. 2005 (Thompson Ayodele, Franklin Cudjoe, Temba A. Nolutshungu, and Charles K. Sunwabe September 15, 2005. http://www.cato.org....)

The donors themselves contributed much to the failure of Western aid to Africa. Foreign loans and aid programs in Africa were badly monitored and often stolen by corrupt bureaucrats. "We failed to keep a real hands-on posture with aid," said Edward P. Brynn, former U.S. ambassador to Ghana. "We allowed a small, clever class that inherited power from the colonial masters to take us to the cleaners. It will take a whole lot of time and money to turn Africa around. 11
More maddening, the donor agencies knew or should have known all along about the motivations and activities of corrupt African leaders. They knew or should have known that billions of aid dollars were being spirited into Swiss banks by greedy African kleptocrats.
EXTENSIVE CORRUPTION CAUSES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, GOVERNMENTAL COLLAPSE, OTHERIZATION, LOSS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Peter Eigen SAIS Review: Corruption in a Globalized World, 2002
http://muse.jhu.edu... en.htm1

Numerous studies have shown how corruption also distorts public expenditures and investments away from sectors for which the government has traditionally been responsible, such as education and primary health services. Instead, corruption diverts public funds to rent-seekine opportunities that only benefit certain well-connected individuals... Corruption not only impinges on macroeconomic aspects of economic management... we should care about corruption because it affects human rights-not just in terms of the repression of dissenters and the denial of the rule of law, but also in denying the people the fundamental economic and social rights guaranteed to them bythe Universal Declaration of Human Rights... as corruption leads to a violation of human rights in at least three respects: corruption perpetuates discrimination. prevents the full realization of economic, social,and cultural rights, and contributes to the infrinnement of numerous civil and political rights.

IRELANDS NEW CORUPTION PROGRAM ENSURES THAT ALL MONEY IS SPENT CORRECTLY
CLAIRE O'BOYLE June 22, 2007
Pg. 22 HEADLINE: OUT OF IRELAND ..INTO AFRICA; Africa News JZ/JDI 2007

it's not just a case of throwing cash at the problem of abject poverty. The brains behind our overseas aid drive want to ensure the money gets to the people it's meant for - and makes a lasting difference. In the past, one of the greatest problems facing foreign aid has been the issue of corruption... in the past six months, the Government has employed anticorruption staff to make sure the money gets to where they want it to go. The 20 new officers were hired to make sure funds go to the rigt places and is spent efficiently... He said: "Ireland is set to extend its aid spending from EUR800million this year to EUR1.5billion in 2012."This is a massive increase and we need to ensure the money is spent correctly." Mr Lenihan said... "Thankfully, there has never been any major misappropriation or wastage of Irish ai
qwerty15ster

Pro

OK, so there are SEVERAL things wrong with these topicalities...... I am going to start with the biggest reason not to vote on ANY OF THEM! This is a standard of LAZINESS! I realize that we are policy debating, however we are policy debating ONLINE! HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A RESEARCH BURDEN WHEN YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO USE?! IT ISNT LIKE YOU CAN BE UNPREPARED. NO MATTER WHAT I THROW AT YOU, YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO RESEARCH, WITH THREE DAYS TO POST YOUR NEXT ARGUMENT! So don't vote on these because my opponent was too lazy to use the entire internet to look stuff up. T is an abuse issue, not a so called "rules of the game" (which dont exist).... There is no abuse in this round. So dont vote on it.

With that, lets go into each T specific.....

Starting off with to.... What we need to see about his definition is that it is NOT a definition of the word "To." I am going to have to assume that "You must give to the governments to sub-saharan africa." is his definition for "to." This is absolutely ludicrous that someone would define the word "to" as that. My opponent is clearly misrepresenting his evidence. With that, I shall provide a counter definition of the word "to"

From dictionary.com
TO:"used for expressing motion or direction toward a point, person, place, or thing approached and reached, as opposed to from"

reasons to prefer:
1. is an actual definition of the word "to"
2. limits- does not unfairly limit the res as the neg does
3. common definition- common definitions are the best because everyone knows what they mean.
4. Framers intent- The framers did not intend for the innocent word "to", to be twisted in such horrible fashion. This is a common everyday word, and that is how it is meant to be.

I meet my definition because my aid goes to the place, sub saharan africa.

Reverse voters
1. Laziness(explained above)
2. Time suck. My opponent is wasting the time of the judges having to read this, and my time of having to respond. He is hoping that I will over cover these T's and miss the rest of what he said, dont let him get away with this. If you agree that I am indeed topical, vote against him for this abuse.

On to "resolved".... Several problems with this....

1. You cant run a T, on something that isnt IN the resolution. The resolution is RESOLVED. That means that this is what we are debating about. Again from dictionary.com....
Resolved:"firm in purpose or intent; determined."
We are firm in purpose that this is what we are debating about. You cant run a T on something not in resolution.

2. Not only that, but the legislature is passing this. The judges are "Congress" and "The president".... So when they vote aff, they are voting to pass a plan. The plan I provided in plan text. I'm sorry that my opponent doesnt understand that. Even if this was a T, I meet his definition. Also extend my laziness and abuse arguements from the earlier T.

Onto "substantial"..... Again, several problems with this...
1. The biggest problem is when we look to his definition...
"Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects the presidents conviction that robust diplomacy and a commitment to solving global problems is the right thing to do."

It says that substantial is 11%. However, it does not say that it has be at least 11%. It could be 10, it could to 2, it could be .000000000000000001%. We dont know, all we know is that 11% is included. Until this definition says that it cannot be lower than 11%, it cannot stand. Thus, again I will provide a counter definition. Again from dictionary.com

Substantial-"of real worth, value, or effect"

I meet that definition by the value of the millions of lives the plan saves from unsafe blood.

reverse voters
1. Pull laziness
2. pull time suck and no abuse

With that, let us move on to the fiscal discipline DA....

For those of you that dont know, a DA needs 3 things, Uniqueness- this DA can only happen with the passage of the aff plan, it cannot happen status quo. Link- how the aff team links to this DA. and Impacts- the bad things that happen as a result of the passage of plan. Now note that if any of these 3 things fall, the entire DA falls. I will go on to disprove the Uniqueness and Link.

Now his piece of evidence states that fiscal discipline has been happening since June 22, 2007. If I can find 1 piece of evidence that states that we have not been maintaining fd post that date, the DA falls. This has to stand for him to win the DA. The reason it will fall is that he is arguing that any spending beyond June 22 that is fiscally responsible will cause this DA. If i can prove that once, we spent irresponsibly, the DA is empirically denied.

This is from John McCain. Dated yesterday...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...

"He made the same accusation about his GOP colleagues' fiscal failings in addressing his supporters, saying, "We let spending get completely out of control, we Republicans." He vowed that if elected, he would veto every spending bill containing a congressional earmark."

McCain says that yesterday, the US is not maintaining fd, this DA is empirically denied, we should have seen these impacts already.

With that, lets move onto the link.

"n a study of 77 countries that have received U.S. development assistance for at least 35 years, Johnson concluded that 39 were no better off, in terms of economic growth, than they were before they began receiving the aid. "Of those 39 countries, fully half actually are worse off." Johnson says."

That is his link card. This DA is a US specific economy DA. Nowhere in this card does it say that the US giving money to other countries causes a horrible economic collapse for the US. It says that it hurts other countries yes, but this is a US DA, not any other country. So we must assume that passing plan will not hurt the US in any way.

Let us also mention that this DA has NO THRESHOLD. When is too much money? a dollar? 5? 1020? We have no idea where this threshold is.

With the DA taken care of, let us move on to the Ireland CP.... Again, several problems....

1. Look at his solvency. He states that Ireland can help with a few things.... However, I failed to read "safe blood" being among them. Ireland can do all the malaria, aids, and TB help it wants to. But until I read that Ireland is BETTER than the US in safe blood, we will stick with the US giving the aid.
2. Why would IRELAND adopt the recommendations of the AMERICAN Association of Blood Banks? This has to be an American funded operation. Ireland does not have the same medical practices and laws as does the US.
3. With the DA gone, the only the net benefit he has remaining is corruption DA.... Ignoring the fact that Ireland is in the west, let us go ahead and attack this point too. this corruption DA lacks Uniqueness, explain above, so this DA is already faulty. It is also not case specific at all. And my final point on this is that we are not giving any money to the governments or people of africa. This will all be US run, With US people, supplies, and everything. It will not happen to this plan.

With that, the Ireland CP is out, as is the DA and T. You can totally vote aff in todays debate to save millions of lives. :)
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Con

First on your observation- that only applies to one T. My other standards and voters still apply. It still is unpredictable and strays away from the topic. I also wanted to have a real policy debate, not a debate that has the policy resolution.

To topicality- drop to and add the word public. It was a simple typing mistake. My opponent only argues the interpretation. If I win interpretation, I win this debate. He also never argues saying that to means to the people. That is not clash and only says my definition is wrong. Make him prove me wrong.
Cross apply my standards- plus my 'public' definition is preferable because it comes from Mark A. Hall, Fred D. Professor of Law, Wake Forest University. His is from dictionary.com. Mine comes from Lawyers that deal with the public daily.
Cross apply my voter for Fairness in the resolution (predictability) and limits.

RVI- (an RVI? Really? Okay)
Laziness- c'mon, really? I want to have a real policy debate. That is what sets us apart from other people on this website. We are a community of intelligent people that know about real debate, not to mention intense knowledge of political science. Why can't we say these things, even if they are online?
Plus, even if was lazy, why would I take the time to write that? A lazy person would not write that, not get into this debate, not be on this website, not even know what debate was. That certainly does not make me lazy.
Time suck- Do you fail to see the intense irony here? It's online. How much time does it take to read it? A minute? How is that different from writing another argument? Plus, you misinterpret a time suck. A time suck is not for the judge, they will have to listen to 8 minute speeches regardless. A time suck is a time suck for you to have to write about it. And you wrote about every argument, so it seems that is not an issue.

Resolved T- It definitley is T. Do you know what the resolution is? Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substaintially increase public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. Most people look past the resolved, like yourself, but that is the resolution. Even if its not T, it's framework. If you don't meet the framework, everything is untopical.

That definitley was not provided in the plan text. 'The United States federal government will substantially increase it health care to sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks'

That is not passing a plan. That is adopting recomendations of an Association. It is in PEPFAR, which already is in place. Your plan text does not state you are making an association, not making a plan, not anything, only increasing money to a certain target. I don't know why you even said that.

Cross apply voter and standards, which were dropped. Again, if I win interpretation, I win the debate.

Substaintial T-
"It says that substantial is 11%. However, it does not say that it has be at least 11%. It could be 10, it could to 2, it could be .000000000000000001%. We dont know, all we know is that 11% is included."

ummmmmm... what? Ah, the card says "Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects..."
That says that Bush used 11% for international aid. That is a substaintial increase. How is that not a clear definition? It says that number reflects what is needed. That is a perfect definition.

Cross apply voter, standards, dropped yada yada from the last line of the last T.

I really don't feel like debating Spending, so I'll drop it. We've got so much offense already, it is also uneeded. I have proved to the judges this is untopical. That is procedural and should come first.

Counterplan- this is very lazy on the part of the pro.
Here's what he said-
1. "However, I failed to read "safe blood" being among them. Ireland can do all the malaria, aids, and TB help it wants to."

Ummmm... what was your main advantage? O yeah, AIDS! If you are not helping with any of these diseases, there is really no point in doing your plan. What are you helping with? People looking at 712 million dollars worth of blood?? That is definetly not public health assistance.

So definetly Ireland can solve this plan. It says they can solve for AIDS. If they can solve for AIDS, which my opponent admits, they can do the plan. It is also better because it fixes the problems with blood as well as other cases that AIDS is transmitted.

2. "Why would IRELAND adopt the recommendations of the AMERICAN Association of Blood Banks? This has to be an American funded operation. Ireland does not have the same medical practices and laws as does the US."

CARDS PLEASE!!!!
That is not true and somewhat sterotypical.

Also, they're doing this because its a good plan. Why can't they do it? They're only taking recomendations, not taking over the plan. Ireland can definetly take suggestions.

3. "this corruption DA lacks Uniqueness, explain above, so this DA is already faulty. It is also not case specific at all. And my final point on this is that we are not giving any money to the governments or people of africa. This will all be US run, With US people, supplies, and everything. It will not happen to this plan."

First, you never say non-unique. So I say, Corruption is Rampant in Africa. There's ya go.
Second, it really doesn't have to be case specific. I proved that ALL AID will be stolen. That includes your aid. What makes your plan so special.
Third, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT OH MY GAWD I WON THIS DEBATE. You just admitted you don't give to governments, which is untopical. Boo ya. Cross apply government/public T. Wow. That was amazing. All you even had was interpretation, and you lost it.

Offense on CP-
My opponent never responded saying that Ireland can't solve. He never said the US can solve better. He never even said it was a bad counterplan. Ireland can pwn US at international aid. They are the Keltic Tiger. They went through a technological revolution in their own country, and they can do the same in Africa. Also, Africa hates the US. They have a broken image. Ireland has been on their side since the 1700's. They have the diplomatic inroads. They won't get their money stolen by corrupt governments.

Vote neg to save tens of millions of lives. Ireland is amazing, and they can solve this problem. What's the main issue? We all want to save the most lives we can, and Ireland captures that.

O yeah, he admitted he was untopical. I dunno why he did that, but I'll take it. Vote Neg.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Ok, sorry for my delayed response....

So I hate to have to do this in the 3rd round, but I feel this must be expanded upon. To those that don't know policy debate, (and some that do) there are very few rules as to how things have to go. Time limits is about the only real rule, the rest of how policy debate is structured is theory. That means that basically this is just how debate evolved, but there are no rules guiding this. Thus topicality, is simply a theory. In real policy debate, T is used to prevent abuse. It is used to make sure that the neg is not put at a disadvantage in the round because the aff presented something that the neg was not prepared to debate. They came into the round with all of their evidence that they cannot research in round, and have to make due. But if the neg were say to run a T, then have cards on the aff case, in theory the T should not have been run because the neg was prepared that case. Thus, if the neg IS NOT AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE ROUND, T SHOULD NOT BE RUN. I realize that my opponent wanted to get as close to real policy debate as possible. However, on an internet debate sight where one has 3 days to research ANYTHING with the entire internet to use, there is no way possible to make this truly like a policy debate. And because my opponent was simply too lazy to actually use the entire internet, you should not vote on the T's. He had 3 days and the entire internet to find anything on this case (and trust me, there is a lot out there, the neg file on safe blood is not small) and he chose not to do it. Do not punish the aff because the neg was too lazy to research. That is what the reserve voter of laziness was.

With that.... Each T specific again....

Ok, so now that this "to" T has become a "public" T, I guess we shall deal with it as that. Let us look at his definition of public.

"In the legal arena, public does not simply mean "widespread." It invokes a special set of justifications for government intervention and coercion."

Now my opponent argues that "public" means I have to give the aid to the governments of SSA. Please point out ANYWHERE in those 2 lines where it says that! It doesn't. My opponent is misrepresenting his own evidence. It says that there have to be special justifications for the US to go into another country. However, my opponent fails to put in the part of what the special set of justifications are. This definition is incredibly vague and thus I provide a counter definition. From dictionary.com...

Public-"of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole"

reasons to prefer:
1. Although he provides a definition from a professional, he does not include enough of what that professional thinks "public" means. He left out what the special set of justifications are, thus his definition is incomplete. You should take mine over his because my definition is actually complete.
2. More common. When we think of the word "public" we don't sit here and nitpick that definition so only very certain things mean public. It obviously means the population as a whole. I meet my definition because ANYONE in SSA has the opportunity for safe blood under my plan. (This also covers his me admitting I'm untopical thing.)

RVI:
1. Laziness- Explained above.

2. Forget time suck, the laziness is good enough to prove that T should never have been run in this debate, thus it takes out his standards of fairness and limits.

Resolved T.....

Ok, so although I still completely disagree with this point, I will let the word 'resolved' be a T. I am not going to waste my time arguing that it isnt when my opponent completely dropped my definition. Thus he agrees with me that Resolved means "firm in purpose or intent; determined." What I said about this is that the framers put that word in the resolution to show that we are firm in purpose that this is what we are debating about and nothing more. He agreed that it doesnt mean that the leg will pass it. (even though I meet that definition too)

Now to show how I do let the leg pass it....

First of all, this went completely dropped.....

"Not only that, but the legislature is passing this. The judges are "Congress" and "The president".... So when they vote aff, they are voting to pass a plan. The plan I provided in plan text. I'm sorry that my opponent doesnt understand that. Even if this was a T, I meet his definition. Also extend my laziness and abuse arguements from the earlier T."

Thus, again he agrees that you, the judges are congress and the Pres, and when you vote aff, you pass my plan.

He also states that it isnt anywhere in my plan text, however, he keeps only posting one part of plan text. Let me post, and capitalize where the leg pass it.....

PLAN-

3.) THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM CLAIMS THE RIGHTS OF FIAT, LEGISLATIVE INTENT, and Clarification.

It was in plan text, thank you.

RVI:
1. Laziness.

On to substantial....

Let us look once more at my opponent's definition....

"Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects..."

Now my opponent doesn't seem to understand what I am arguing here. The word substantial has to start at a certain level, and go up from there. He is trying to say that it starts at 11%, and goes up. However, again my opponent misrepresents his own evidence, when someone provides a number for the definition of substantial, it needs an "at least" in it so we know where the minimum of where susbstantial starts. My opponent's def lacks the "at least". It says that 11% is included in what substantial is, however, it could very well start at .0000000000001%. In my opponents definition, only 11% itself would be substantial, nothing more or less, however we know that it doesn't work like that, thus you can still use my definition as being better.

RVI:
1. Laziness.

On to the CP...

My opponent argues that because Ireland can solve for AIDS, they can do the plan. However, there are hundreds of ways to fight aids, safe blood is one, and Ireland has not proven they can solve using safe blood. They are good some other way, they have to prove that they can do it with safe blood, thus no Solv.

Not true and stereotypical? How so? They are a different country, of course health things will be different!

"They're only taking recomendations, not taking over the plan. Ireland can definetly take suggestions." Um, no. You said that Ireland is doing the aff plan, dont switch what they are doing, they have to do my plan, not something similar.

"I proved that ALL AID will be stolen." Including Irelands... thus their corruption program fails and your CP has NO SOLVENCY or NET BENEFIT. As my opponent dropped my entire case, he agrees I do have solvency and the US can do this. Thus you should aff to make sure that lives will be saved. He also completely dropped the part where I said that this is US run, and governments cant steal the aid, thus I dont bite the DA anyway. Thus with no DA standing, (non unique, no link), and T, &CP, I win.
Debate Round No. 3
Pluto2493

Con

"Do not punish the aff because the neg was too lazy to research. That is what the reserve voter of laziness was."

First I would like to point out that the fact that he just says 'RVI' does not prove anything. There is no analysis in this argument. There is no reason why laziness hurts him, and he doesn't even try to prove this. This takes out all of his RVIs. Do not vote on the RVI, there are no pre-fiat implications beyond the fact that 'I'm lazy'.

I will go on to the counter plan and go for this in this debate, because my opponent did a very poor job answering it.

There is a major flaw in this argument:
" there are hundreds of ways to fight aids, safe blood is one, and Ireland has not proven they can solve using safe blood. They are good some other way, they have to prove that they can do it with safe blood, thus no Solv."

Think about it. I want my opponent to think one step deeper.
1. Blood loss is a major cause of AIDS
2. If we can solve for blood loss, we can solve AIDS
3. Ireland Solves AIDS

If Ireland solves for AIDS, and blood is the only way to solve, they will do this through blood packets. It's hard to explain, but try to understand.
Say by some chance Ireland can't administer blood. If they solve for AIDS, why do it? The only advantage the aff had was AIDS. Who cares if Ireland can't administer blood packets, they can solve for AIDS, which is the point in debating this.
One more thing. The aff has never proven the US can solve better than the US. I have proved that Ireland can solve. It is the duty of the aff to prove me wrong. Until he does, you can only vote neg to save millions of lives, and avoiding extinction.
Lastly, how hard is it to admister a blood packet? I bet Ireland could learn in one day and teach it to the Africans, and they can do it themselves. Heck, even I could change a blood packet.

"Not true and stereotypical? How so? They are a different country, of course health things will be different!"

I urge my opponent to back this up. And, with evidence. Sure, something or another may be legal there and not here, but safe practices are practiced through the entire world. If you get a scrape, what do you do? You put a band-aid on it. Does everyone honestly think they don't do that in Ireland?

"Um, no. You said that Ireland is doing the aff plan, dont switch what they are doing, they have to do my plan, not something similar."

Ok, wow. Here's my plan text.

TEXT: THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND will substantially increase it health care to sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.

adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.
adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.
adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.

Yeah, notice the words 'adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks.' in there. Their taking those same recommendations and turning it into the aff's plan.

And also, how could they possibly 'take over the plan'? That's ridiculous. First, the plan HASN'T EVEN BEEN PASSED YET. How could you steal something that doesn't exist? Second, it is physically impossible to take over America's plan. What are they going to do, come into America and overthrow the AABB?
That argument is completly illegitamate.

"I proved that ALL AID will be stolen." Including Irelands... thus their corruption program fails and your CP has NO SOLVENCY or NET BENEFIT. "

What?! My opponent jumps to MASSIVE conclusions. I proved that AMERICAN aid will get stolen. Cross apply Ayodele in 05. I also proved none of Ireland's aid will get stolen. Cross apply O'Boyle in 07, which states this:

"Ireland is set to extend its aid spending from EUR800million this year to EUR1.5billion in 2012."This is a massive increase and we need to ensure the money is spent correctly." Mr Lenihan said... "Thankfully, there has never been any major misappropriation or wastage of Irish aid."

That card proves that there was never ANY MONEY stolen from Ireland. You need to look to this first because it is the only card in this argument.

"As my opponent dropped my entire case, he agrees I do have solvency and the US can do this. Thus you should aff to make sure that lives will be saved. "

Are you kidding me? I fail to see ONE CARD in this round that says specificially the USA needs, and can, solve this crisis. Just scroll up, you won't find it. Don't let him bring up a new card, as I can not respond to it. However, you will find cards that say IRELAND can solve. Ireland not only focuses on short term solutions, but also HELPS the governments to provide longer term sustainability. Ireland's own success with its technological revolution shows that they can do the same in Africa.

"He also completely dropped the part where I said that this is US run, and governments cant steal the aid, thus I dont bite the DA anyway. Thus with no DA standing, (non unique, no link),"

First of all, he never even mentioned n-u until that last statment, so just throw that out. Let's attack the no link-
1. I'd like my opponent to prove, with cards, that the US will not link to corruption. This is an empty argument and does not have any warrant whatsoever.
2. Aff is sending blood packets. I have proved time and time again with Ayodele 05 that ANY AID FROM THE AMERICAS WILL BE STOLEN. My opponent just says, 'we don't link'. There is really no reason for this, see as how:
3. Uniqueness outwieghs the link. If corruption is so rampant in Africa and there is so much violence, we can not even think about giving aid without addressing the governmental problem. These dictators are stuffing their fat corrupt pockets and are getting more and more greedy. They are not focused on helping their people, but rather fighting or personal gain.

Offense on the CP-
1. Ireland can solve. They are the Keltic Tiger. They have the technology to focus on long term sustainability, AS WELL as solving the aff. What's more important, saving lives or giving blood packets? Well, Ireland can do both, while aff can do one.
2. My opponent never responded to the fact that IRELAND CAN SOLVE BETTER because of their IT technology.
3. All US aid will fail. Ireland effectivley works with the government, implements aid, and gets out of there. As we can see from Iraq, the US is committed to faulty goals that can not get resolved.
4. Ireland can solve AIDS, and that is the reason for doing the aff plan. It doesn't even matter if Ireland can't administer blood packets, which they can, because they are taking an easier approach to reaching the aff's goal, which was never responded to by the aff.

Ireland solves much better than the United States. They take quicker approaches and foucus on long term sustainability, not to mention solve back to the aff's plan. Vote neg if you want to help those poor, sick, dying people and stop this AIDS crisis once and for all.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Ok, seeing as this is the last the round, I will keep new arguments to a minimum. I have found only one or two places where they will be needed, but other than that, this will all be rebutting... I thank my opponent for this round.... Now let us finish this....

"First I would like to point out that the fact that he just says 'RVI' does not prove anything. There is no analysis in this argument. There is no reason why laziness hurts him, and he doesn't even try to prove this. This takes out all of his RVIs. Do not vote on the RVI, there are no pre-fiat implications beyond the fact that 'I'm lazy'."

What?! There is no analysis in the first paragraph of round three? That entire paragraph was topicality theory and you just pass it off as not being analysis?! You say that laziness doesnt hurt me, you completely misunderstand what I am saying.... T is an abuse issue to make sure YOU arent put at a disadvantage in this round, you only run T when I do something that hurts your ability to debate this issue. You cant be hurt in the debate round when you have the entire internet to use! And three days to use it! Thus, I cant abuse your ground in the debate round almost at all. The only thing I could do is start switching what I am doing mid round. But you aren't hurt at all by not being prepared. That is what that entire paragraph about T theory was about....

Also on that note, he completely drops all 3 T's he is running. At the very least I have proved NOT to vote against me in those, and I should also be voted FOR because he dropped them. I throw an RVI (reverse voting issue) on the T's that he runs, and he simply passes them off as 'laziness' is nothing to vote on. He drops the theory on why this is important. I am topical and he should be voted against....

The CP.....

"Think about it. I want my opponent to think one step deeper.
1. Blood loss is a major cause of AIDS
2. If we can solve for blood loss, we can solve AIDS
3. Ireland Solves AIDS"

1. My opponent doesnt seem to understand. Blood loss does not literally cause AIDS, unsafe blood spreads it. So unless Ireland is doing my plan exactly, they will not be solving the same way I am. Further on this, my opponent keeps repeating that my only benefit in this round is AIDS.... he fails to read my harms A. and B. where I tell you that just being short of blood is a bad thing. I also solve for that, so if he is running a CP that only covers AIDS, I have a ton more solvency than him. If he running a CP where Ireland just takes over what I am doing, then I will prove why the US should do it.

"The aff has never proven the US can solve better than the US. I have proved that Ireland can solve. It is the duty of the aff to prove me wrong. Until he does, you can only vote neg to save millions of lives, and avoiding extinction."

I dont have to prove that the US can solve better than Ireland (i know what you meant) I have to prove that the US is the only one that should be doing this, and I have/will. Also, it isnt my duty to prove you wrong, I am the aff... However, if you were to say my plan causes aliens to attack us, it would be your burden first to prove that aliens would attack upon passage of my plan. It is unfair to expect me to able to prove that aliens won't attack us. This is a huge misconception in debate, but it is the duty of whoever brings up the argument to prove that it will happen.

I have provided evidence in my solvency that say that the US can do this plan specific, my opponent comes up with this very vague CP that says Ireland is good at international aid. However, his solvency fails to mention what my plan is doing.... and that is safe blood. Until he proves, (remember this is his CP) that Ireland is really good at adopting the recommendations of the AABB, and administering safe blood the way the US health codes regulate it, his CP cannot hold up to my plan. That is what I am saying, I have proven solvency, he doesnt.

"And also, how could they possibly 'take over the plan'? That's ridiculous. First, the plan HASN'T EVEN BEEN PASSED YET. How could you steal something that doesn't exist?"

I meant that in more of a metaphorical sense, you have to do what my plan text states.....

""I proved that ALL AID will be stolen." Including Irelands... thus their corruption program fails and your CP has NO SOLVENCY or NET BENEFIT. "

What?! My opponent jumps to MASSIVE conclusions. I proved that AMERICAN aid will get stolen. Cross apply Ayodele in 05. I also proved none of Ireland's aid will get stolen"

So my opponent starts out saying that ALL AID will be stolen, then it moves to just american. If it is all aid, then irelands will be stolen too, if it is just the US's aid, then my opponent is switching advocasies and should be voted against for that.

"First of all, he never even mentioned n-u until that last statment, so just throw that out. Let's attack the no link-"

From my second round...... "this corruption DA lacks Uniqueness, explain above, so this DA is already faulty."

Oops, looks like i called it n-u my second round...... The DA is non unique, corruption is rampant, too bad it will hit Ireland too (explained above)

Also there is no link because I dont give anything to the governments of africa, this is US run! Unless they wage a mini war on some blood donation workers, it is kinda hard to steal from us. I dont give anything to the governments, thus they cant take anything, simple as that.

Now reasons to vote aff....

1. The T's went dropped in his last round, he also massively undercovers the RVI, thus I win on the T's and the reserve voters.

2. Ireland has not proven that they can do safe blood, I have solvency cards saying I can. Thus the the CP stands on its net benefits of corruption.

3. I have beaten the corruption the DA by calling it non unique, and proving that the entire thing will be US run, without killing us, it is hard to steal. I dont give money to the governments of africa. Thus, the DA is and the net benefit is gone. The US is the only reliable actor.

4. He drops my case proper, he simply tried to steal it via Ireland, he agrees I can solve and have harms and the plan is legit. With that, I can see nothing but a affirmitive vote.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
I vote Aff:

1) T's were dropped plus I accept Aff's analysis.
2) DA: never bought the link to any of the harms. I'm pretty sure it was dropped too but even if it wasn't, it was shot down.
3) CP: The AABB was NEVER proven to even be of interest to Ireland. There was no interest of Ireland doing this. Plus Ireland can do it with us. Therefore, I pass both the Aff. plan and the Neg. CP and therefore vote Aff.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
I really sucked at debating my novice year
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
qwerty15ster, i believe you should focus more on the debate itself instead of spending half of every round (not literally of course :D) on telling us that we should vote for you because of this or that point.

;)
Posted by malaki 9 years ago
malaki
Palms face, omg debate nerds, GUYS WE ONLY DEBATE IN CLOSED ROOMS!!!
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
Wow, this debate was a lot of work, congrats to you too Pluto, and good luck. :)
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
"and B. where I tell you that just being short of blood is a bad thing."

LMAO
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Think I will actually flow this later and vote. Looks exciting.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Hey good debate qwerty.

I don't want to make an argument in the comments, but my point in the 'lack of analysis' is that it was lacking why that hurt you (like an impact). I see the link but I didn't see why that hurt you. I just wanted that clear for me.
Posted by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
Hrm policy debate where policy debaters are actually forced to stop, think, and make arguments.

I shall have to read this one.
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
I forgot to post this on this debate, but I am leaving town at 10 tomorrow morning, and will be without electricity for 4 days. So I hope my opponent responds by then. If not, just pretend my last round never happened, thank you.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 
Vote Placed by ETKANG 9 years ago
ETKANG
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 milkshake01 9 years ago
milkshake01
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 zibeltor 9 years ago
zibeltor
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 pirates1434 9 years ago
pirates1434
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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 qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
Pluto2493qwerty15sterTied
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