Jump to content
aznguy930

Bird Flu Quarantines AFF

Recommended Posts

i went up against this case a few weeks ago about quarantines for ppl with bird flu in the US. it says that the US detains ppl with the bird flu without charge in US quarantines...they claim US modeling, racism, burd flu, and protection of human rights as advantages....

 

does anyone have a good strategy against this aff? i mean i think this is a rly non-inherent case, and i think topicality detain without charge could be ran against it...but i'm not sure, i lost to this....any suggestions?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How does the case claim bird flu as an advantage?"

probably like the HIV Exclusion case claims HIV as an advantege. they probably say something along the lines of 'as long as quarenteens exist people will hid their flu because they dont want to get in quarenteens - increases the number of bird flu cases'...

 

a kritik with some foucault masking links sounds a little attractive due to the similarities between prisons/detentions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it sounds like the link v. link turn argument is a card war that is probably won pretty easily by the neg - there are probably some pretty recent link cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP: Ban all quarantines. They only modify the USFG's quarantine system, and we abolish it. You can't modify something that doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the counterplan 'arguably' wouldnt solve the case because they'll claim that totally abolishing the quarenteen system would logically increase bird flu and that the plan is the middle ground between the 'left-ist' status quo and the 'radical right' lol i wonder if there is a critical advantege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my argument, in terms of the counterplan suggested, is that bird flu isn't as much to worry about as x,y, and z diseases that we quarantine for. We may not necessarily solve their bird flu harm, but may outweigh anyways through NBs and such...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that A framers intent argument would work against this case, I think that is you say that the framers where trying to decrease athority to hold with out charge of people due to terrorism. It would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the quarantines evidence is better for the affirmative than the negative. It says that quarantines will fail (after all, you can't quarantine birds) and that they are counterproductive. The affirmative sources are very good.

 

But, we aren't quarantining anyone now. And, couldn't an executive order counterplan pick up all the impacts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, Avian Flu has A. not spread to the United States yet, and B. has not mutated into a person to person transferring form. The Aff case is a lie. Case closed. Nothing further needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Let us all run an Aff case on what could happen in the future and let us use harms from future status quos. Makes sense.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best cards they have would be bush saying that the goverment would use quarintines. But they are not now. It is not happening know and is thus illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case's inherency is a horse of a different color. I might agree with you that the case is not inherent. That depends on the nature of the President's authority to quarantine, in my opinion. If the President has the authority to quarantine and the affirmative reads evidence saying he will, and plan takes away that authority, that might work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us review the plan:

Topicality-Generally Fine, no accounting for the pointless stuff people run though.

Significance-No one in the United States is or has been infected and if Avian Flu mutates into a person to person form, we can not predict how effective it will be any way.

Solvency-Shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Advantages-Possible, but no avian flu advantage available right now.

Harms-None right now.

Inherency-No real barrier. It is just that it is not really an issue now.

 

Also, the most important thing is that the affirmative evidence on the alleged destructive nature of Avian Flu. Yet, there is no way to predict how effective it will be in killing humans once it has mutated into a form that can transfer from human to human. Granted it has the potential to kill horribly, but it also has the potential to do barely anything.

The whole aff case is purely theoretical. Very few hard facts. You have to try to predict the godestructive power of the disease, how efficient at spreading it will be, whether or not the verment will actualy quarintine, if we will have effective means of treating the disease, and thus the case is purely theoretical and is something that might happen. Just bring these facts up against the case. Since it is true they will have a hard time beating it. But if no one sees anything wrong in debating over what could happen in the future with conmpletely theoretical impacts, etc., tell me and I will go write up a case on the PATRIOT ACT II which mght be passed in the year 1024 PA. Yah, I will think up a new era. Maybe we will have a case about what is going on in the next millenia. Heck, we are already a few years into this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the fact that a team running this case would cut "pandemic inevitable/soon" cards? Yes, if you win a 100% takeout that there won't be a pandemic... well good luck with that.

 

In the mean time, cut a disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the CDC just increased bushs authority. the NYT wrote something on november 23rd.

 

second, this case would probably be probabilistically topical if it applied only to the bird flu. so fuck it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that hengelli makes an excellent point. The aff team is going to win a 100% risk that a quarantine is coming. I dont think that there is any disputing that, I mean as far as in a debate round goes. As far as what Heggo is saying goes, this case is no different than korematsu in the fact that noone is being interned now but they still win rounds. I think that all of the possibilities of advantages leave the negative shot in the butt. I think that some sort of an argument that could be cut/made is a relations argument. I am sure that us quarantining(sp) is key to relations. That is probably very true with like China/Taiwan. I think but am not sure but i think that these countries quarantine people right now. So when we do the same, then it increases relations. If all of this is true, then the argument that the affirmative makes is that if we do one of their policies now, we will continue to do so. Kind of like consultation with X country over plan means consultation over everything.

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i went up against this case a few weeks ago about quarantines for ppl with bird flu in the US. it says that the US detains ppl with the bird flu without charge in US quarantines...they claim US modeling, racism, burd flu, and protection of human rights as advantages....

 

does anyone have a good strategy against this aff? i mean i think this is a rly non-inherent case, and i think topicality detain without charge could be ran against it...but i'm not sure, i lost to this....any suggestions?

 

trying to control disease is one of the foundations for soverign power and is your link to a foucauldian criticism of disease (i.e. trying to rid people of the bird flu leads to the exclusion of people who cant be cured etc.) and you can roll the liberal rights paradigm links etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that hengelli makes an excellent point. The aff team is going to win a 100% risk that a quarantine is coming. I dont think that there is any disputing that, I mean as far as in a debate round goes. As far as what Heggo is saying goes, this case is no different than korematsu in the fact that noone is being interned now but they still win rounds. I think that all of the possibilities of advantages leave the negative shot in the butt. I think that some sort of an argument that could be cut/made is a relations argument. I am sure that us quarantining(sp) is key to relations. That is probably very true with like China/Taiwan. I think but am not sure but i think that these countries quarantine people right now. So when we do the same, then it increases relations. If all of this is true, then the argument that the affirmative makes is that if we do one of their policies now, we will continue to do so. Kind of like consultation with X country over plan means consultation over everything.

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Quarintines 100%-not necesarily true. The aff can't prove that there will be an epidemic/pandemic that will cause mass fatalities and will require quarantines. The same literature the aff uses that argues many will die can be used by the neg to argue the opposite point. The only problem will be overcoming the aff's evidence that will come from sensationalist news media sources, which is indeed in abundance. I suggest some sort of media k or rhetoric kritik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first -- i'm pretty sure this case is inherent, bush has the authority to detain any airline passenger on suspicion of having bird flu.

 

Second -- the bird flu advantage seems like a lie. Unlike HIV exclusion, where there is a logical reason people would resent us, thereby undermining our aids-solving-policies, there is no real reason why bird flu quarantine is bad, especially since no one is pissed off yet about it. It seems like the main point of this advantage is to preempt the bird flu disad. That said, i think that the negative could easily win a link to a bird flu disad that would significantly outweigh the aff's solvency. It seems very unstrategic to run this case and argue bird flu as one of the major advantages.

 

Third--although i haven't hit this case, this leads me to believe that their advantages will mostly be predicated upon the racism (anti-asian/orientalism maybe? because we fear bird flu coming from china?) and the human rights advantages. These are fairly common and therefore should be easy to answer for a prepared negative.

 

Fourth--the original post mentioned a us modeling advantage. out of curiosity, what do they argue is modeled? is it the US's bird flu policies or the US's quarantine policies in general? it seems unlikely to me that there would really be good ev on modeling of our policies towards a disease that hasn't started spreading inter-humanly yet.

 

Last--I think the best strat against this case would be to read a pile of bird flu links on case (straight turn what is likely their weakest advantage), read a big stick disad like war on terrorism or politix/deference (depending on their agent) and pile the util good cards against all their other advantages. Also, a topicality argument could be articulated that since the US hasn't detained anyone under the provision (as i doubt they have -- not sure here) the plan would not be significant. That might be sketchy on a grammatical/definitional level, but you could probably win the limits, ground, and aff predictability standards, which ought to be enough to win you the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush does have the authority, and the racism deal won't work well. Bird Flu has spread to parts of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...