The Instigator
softball06
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Rousseau
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

increasing the public health to sub sharan Africa by helping to decrees the number of Malaria cases.

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: 1/14/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 1789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (10)

 

softball06

Pro

We should increase out giving because malaria is a treatable and preventable diseas and action must be taken. Every min. five children will die from malria. With a smiple package of commodites we would be able to stop these needles deaths.
Plan
1. Require that the funding of the Bush Mlaria plan require DDT spraying and the switching of the funds
2. Provide health care workers to deliver the nets, drugs, and other assistanc
3. right to define terms
4. right to fiat
Rousseau

Con

All right. I think it is safe to assume that you are a Policy debater, and thus it wouldn't be unfair to treat this round as such. Therefore, I ask that my opponent and the voters all treat this like a Policy round, and adhere to the rules and structuring of one.

That being said, here is the resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. For those non-policy debaters, the resolution is what is being debate over. The Affirmative advocates a plan that has distinct advantages over the status quo (current system). The Negative team (Con) supports the status quo over the plan. Any plans outside this resolution (i.e. a plan giving aid to Germany) are un-topical, and should not be voted for (assuming the Negative brings this up).

First off, I would like to ask several things:

1. Provide sources for your Inherency/Harms Evidence. Sources are important specifically on statistics, because they make your claims credible. As of now, your claims have no weight in this round because they are not backed up.

2. Clarify your plan. What exactly are you changing about Bush's Malaria Plan? You say something about DDT, drugs, and bed nets, however the current plan does this already. If the Pro team doesn't change anything, then the Affirmative team is un-topical (violation: increase) because nothing is increasing. Aid is staying the same.

3. Give something that says that your plan can solve. I'll attack the plan on the assumption that it can solve, but I would like to bring into question whether or not it can.

4. Provide Advantages. What this does, is provide reasons the plan is better than the Status Quo. Also, just saying your plan solves for Malaria isn't any advantage. You must prove that there are advantages outside of solving in order to garner any votes in today's debate.

Just a heads-up: SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa.

Alright, now on to my attacks:

1. Topicality:

Word: Sub-Saharan Africa.

Infraction: Bush's Malaria Plan provides aid to: Angola, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Benin, Ethiopia (Oromia Region), Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, and Zambia. (http://www.fightingmalaria.gov...) Now, these are all Sub-Saharan countries, but the real problem is... there are 33 other countries in SSA. Obviously the Pro is not providing aid to Sub-Saharan Africa if they just give aid to 1/3 of the countries. The Pro's plan text no where says anything about expanding the Malaria Plan's targets for all of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Con must therefore assume that the only countries tackled by the plan are the ones tackled by the current plan. Thusly, the Pro does not give public health assistance to all of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and is un-topical.

2. Justification:
"action must be taken" is the phrase I really want to center in on. Assuming Pro wants to stay topical, they advocate the U.S. as the actor. However, because of burden of proof, the Pro is required to justify that U.S. action is superior to either inaction or action by another actor. The Pro stated nothing about how the actual action taken by America would be superior to, say, the European Union... and therefore has not justified the terms of the resolution (specifically "United States Federal Government"). On demand, I can produce evidence showing other actors to be competent and willing to address the malaria issue.

3. Inherency
The Pro advocates supporting Bush's Malaria Plan, however isn't clear as to what they are changing. This brings up two problems. First off, they are non-unique, as they're plan is happening. Secondly, if the original plan is solving, than the plan is not needed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

That article talks about how the plan has already 'helped' 11 million people in Africa. Thus, the Pro plan is useless as the Status Quo is handling the problem.

4. Alt/Causes
http://www.aaas.org...
Basically, this link talks about how development and population movement cause movement of malaria – which in turn, spreads the disease throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, conflict and hunger perpetrate the disease further. Therefore, without solving for each and every one of these things, Pro cannot solve.

5. Solvency Barriers:
http://home.att.net...
This link talks about how the Climate makes Malaria unsolvable. Just another barrier that prevents the Affirmative from solving.
http://home.att.net...
This talks about how agricultural development keeps Malaria from being solved. I can bring up more, but I think this will suffice, for now.

6. Solvency Turn:
The European Union purchases large amounts of crops from sub-Saharan Africa but bans any such crops from containing DDT. With the plan, either African countries won't accept our DDT and the affirmative can't solve or the African countries will accept and our DDT use will ruin their economies and agricultural system leading to extreme poverty and famine. Pro may argue that misuse of DDT won't happen, however: Misuse of DDT will happen unless the significant lack of infrastructure in the Status Quo is addressed and solved (http://www.aei.org...)

7. No advantages basically make it so there is no reason to vote for the plan. The plan has no advantages over the status quo, and therefore shouldn't be voted for.

I look forward to the responses.
Debate Round No. 1
softball06

Pro

softball06 forfeited this round.
Rousseau

Con

Well, under the rules of policy debate (the format that softball06 made this debate in) Pro just lost. She just, technically, dropped all arguments... and in policy: "Silence Is Compliance".

However, this isn't the exact same as Policy debate, and so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. But in my experience on this site, when someone drops one argument... they generally don't come back. I'd like to think this is because of my superb arguing skills, however the case is probably much more unglamorous (i.e. the account closing, or the person forgetting about the account). Anyway, My arguments stand:

Topicality
Justification
Inherency
Alt/Causes
Solvency
Solvency Turn
Lack of Advantages

I also would appreciate an answer to the following:

1. Provide sources for your Inherency/Harms Evidence. Sources are important specifically on statistics, because they make your claims credible. As of now, your claims have no weight in this round because they are not backed up.

2. Clarify your plan. What exactly are you changing about Bush's Malaria Plan? You say something about DDT, drugs, and bed nets, however the current plan does this already. If the Pro team doesn't change anything, then the Affirmative team is un-topical (violation: increase) because nothing is increasing. Aid is staying the same.

3. Give something that says that your plan can solve. I'll attack the plan on the assumption that it can solve, but I would like to bring into question whether or not it can.

4. Provide Advantages. What this does, is provide reasons the plan is better than the Status Quo. Also, just saying your plan solves for Malaria isn't any advantage. You must prove that there are advantages outside of solving in order to garner any votes in today's debate.

So yeah, thanks for your time, and I await the (hopeful) responses.
Debate Round No. 2
softball06

Pro

softball06 forfeited this round.
Rousseau

Con

Well, under the rules of a Policy debate, my opponent conceded every single attack, and agrees her plan isn't inherent, cannot solve, is not justifying the resolution, and has no advantages. For these reasons, I urge a vote in negation. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
I'd be willing to debate it up with anyone on this. Feel free to host.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
yea, pluto, i agree, better then the other one about the universal health care.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
I... Love... POLICY DEBATE. Watch my debate on the exact same thing.

Also did you guys see the next years resolution? Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substaintially increase its alternative energy incentives in the United States. Sounds pretty good.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
Someone is practicing for state. That is the high school res this year. Who did you debate for in Mo Ross? Jerk? Softball?
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
GeoffG: About 20 minutes, basing it off of a few files I had laying around.

gonovice: The point of policy isn't debating about whether the resolution in question should be fufilled. It's much more about whther or not the topical plan is beneficial to the status quo. If not, then there is no reason to vote for it. Just because we SHOULD help, isn't any guarentee that any plan should be passed. To clarify: A Plan with good inentions shouldn't be passed unless it has solvency.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
i'm in a debate class at school and sub-saharan africa was our topic, and i think that they do need our help.
Posted by GeoffG 9 years ago
GeoffG
Rouseau, how long did it take you to formulate your argument in Round 1?
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Well, I think that this really wasn't much of a contest. Had my opponent responded, it could have been. Alas, she didn't, and as the Beatles said: "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Life Goes On"
Posted by GOOFYTU 9 years ago
GOOFYTU
GO S****Y :) policy is awesome. Both sides did well, but I don't really know what to say since Iam a Puffer. well, done.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Honestly though, my recent debates have been plagued with people who drop tons of arguments. It's getting to be, literally, I accept the challenge, post, and then no response for the rest of the debate. Maybe I'm getting flaky opponents, but I wish there were some guarentee of clash. I guess its possible my arguments are just unrespondable (hah), but more than likely my opponents are just being flaky. I'd like to see some safeguard against that... Maybe a wait before you can post topics?

Example: New members must wait (x) hours before they can post a debate topic.

Just to weed out the people who will log in once, and never again.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
softball06RousseauTied
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 SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
softball06RousseauTied
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 Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
softball06RousseauTied
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 Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
softball06RousseauTied
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 batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
softball06RousseauTied
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 gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
softball06RousseauTied
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 Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
softball06RousseauTied
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
softball06RousseauTied
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 GOOFYTU 9 years ago
GOOFYTU
softball06RousseauTied
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 Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
softball06RousseauTied
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