Jump to content
Tomak

Sub-Saharan Africa

Recommended Posts

There seems to be some confusion here on the forums over what "Sub-Saharan Africa" means. It means all the African countries that are not in North Africa. North Africa includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt.

 

subsaharan.jpg

 

Note that the dividing line is the country borders - not the Sahara Desert itself. There is no real ambiguity over which countries are included, with one exception.

 

There will be some dispute about Western Sahara is part of North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa. It's the thin, green-shaded country on the west coast dangling down from Morocco. The territory is disputed. It is currently occupied by Morocco. Mauritania tried to claim it for a while. There is an internal push for independence, which I think they almost got at one point. Usually it's considered part of North Africa, but sometimes you see it categorized with Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

The T debates will only be mildly interesting. The country only has like twelve people, and doesn't really have the same public health problems the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa does. I don't think they receive any assistance from USAID. It's unlikely that any aff next year will send so much as a bottle of aspirin their way. Looking for a violation will look almost as silly as looking for ground loss.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is not a mass noun. Yes, you can choose a small part of it as your object.

 

Yes, there will be negs running this violation anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note how that line cleverly establishes that the primarily Islamic portions of Africa are not apart of the desperate, black Africa that is always needing help. Silly black people - they could never support themselves. :rolleyes:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those times where the community made its bed, and is going to have to sleep in it. "Sub-Saharan" is going to be nothing but headaches, all season long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one of those times where the community made its bed, and is going to have to sleep in it. "Sub-Saharan" is going to be nothing but headaches, all season long...

 

As with any resolutional term, it will create a predictable set of strategic costs and strategic benefits.

 

For example, a team that wishes to address the broadest possible region and be unambiguously topical will allow the negative some control over the scope of their plan by putting the term "Sub-saharan africa" in their plan text.

 

Of course, I think such teams would be very unwise, because the resolutional term itself is subject to extremely valid political criticism.

 

Teams could, of course, just target their program to a single country or sub-region that's unambiguously sub-Sarahan, such as South Africa.

 

I suppose the mildly interesting question is whether teams that don't put resolutional terms in their plan text will still be subject to criticisms of those terms. (Probably not.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one of those times where the community made its bed, and is going to have to sleep in it. "Sub-Saharan" is going to be nothing but headaches, all season long...
Why do you say that? It's pretty well-defined, and every ambiguity I can think of is largely irrelevant to either team's useful ground. Besides, it's by far the most frequently used term in the literature to refer to that region. What would you have suggested instead? Black Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But unless an aff is tailored to include DG, it won't come up. And when it does, there is enough literature categorizing it as part of SSA that the T debates will be over before they start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you say that? It's pretty well-defined
Much as I hate to say it, I think we might have been better off if the topic had read "one or more nations in Sub-Saharan Africa." As it is, here's where I see the headache coming from:
  • The resolution uses the preposition "to" instead of the preposition "in." To me, this choice restricts Affs to PHA that basically targets the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one will want to live within those restrictions, of course, so we'll all pretend that so long as the targeted country or countries are in Sub-Saharan Africa, that meets the resolutional requirement. It will mean a rash of new, stupid T presses, though, and that will just make it that much harder for those of us who try to run T with the intention of winning on it...
  • Depending on where you debate, I think Michael is correct that actually including the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" will expose Affs to a topic-specific kritik (those are the hardest to answer, in my opinion) that many k fans will enjoy pulling the trigger on...

Does that answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much as I hate to say it, I think we might have been better off if the topic had read "one or more nations in Sub-Saharan Africa." As it is, here's where I see the headache coming from:

  • The resolution uses the preposition "to" instead of the preposition "in." To me, this choice restricts Affs to PHA that basically targets the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. No one will want to live within those restrictions, of course, so we'll all pretend that so long as the targeted country or countries are in Sub-Saharan Africa, that meets the resolutional requirement. It will mean a rash of new, stupid T presses, though, and that will just make it that much harder for those of us who try to run T with the intention of winning on it...
  • Depending on where you debate, I think Michael is correct that actually including the phrase "Sub-Saharan Africa" will expose Affs to a topic-specific kritik (those are the hardest to answer, in my opinion) that many k fans will enjoy pulling the trigger on...

Does that answer your question?

 

While I agree with most of what you say, I think that debaters are still going to pull out really silly T's to run on any topic. For example, you proposed the topic say "one or more countries in...", but as evidenced by the civil liberties topic, there were still kids running "or = and" and the like. I think the T debates you spoke of there are almost inevitable in the context that 'substantial' always becomes a huge "affirm entirety or parts" that is apparent on EVERY topic. This time, there's just a grammatical justification for it. Meh.

 

And I think the topic-specific kritiks are inevitable anyhow. Every rez has linked to Statism/Anarchy, but its popularity isn't exactly high. Although I do agree that it will get ran a lot probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Much as I hate to say it, I think we might have been better off if the topic had read "one or more nations in Sub-Saharan Africa."

 

I will have to disagree with this. This gives the aff too much ground. Not only do they get to pick the type of health assistance they will provide, but also what country they will send it to? Seems a little unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will have to disagree with this. This gives the aff too much ground. Not only do they get to pick the type of health assistance they will provide, but also what country they will send it to? Seems a little unfair.

 

"in" is in the present participle, altering the state of "sub-saharan africa", meaning it doesn't decide what type of PHA the aff gets to use - only the country.

 

And I think counter-spec is good for your ground. Means you get specific disad links and you can no-link your Sub-Saharan K. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"in" is in the present participle, altering the state of "sub-saharan africa", meaning it doesn't decide what type of PHA the aff gets to use - only the country.

 

And I think counter-spec is good for your ground. Means you get specific disad links and you can no-link your Sub-Saharan K. :)

 

But what if that country has multiple health problems, which is the case with most SSA countries. Then an aff can decide what type of assistance they would like to give.

 

I agree there would be specific links, but the same would be true with just limiting it to helping SSA as a whole, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with most of what you say, I think that debaters are still going to pull out really silly T's to run on any topic.
I don't disagree, but read what I wrote. I'm predicting a rash on NEW stupid T positions... ;)
And I think the topic-specific kritiks are inevitable anyhow.
That may be true, but a kritik of the term "Sub-Saharan Africa" will have a special cachet, I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"in" is in the present participle, altering the state of "sub-saharan africa", meaning it doesn't decide what type of PHA the aff gets to use - only the country.
You misread S_F_'s claim I think. The argument wasn't that "in" gives Aff too much freedom on what type of PHA to provide...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it is not a mass noun. Yes, you can choose a small part of it as your object.

 

Yes, there will be negs running this violation anyway...

 

Can you give me or help me find definitions that would support both ends of this interpretation? I'm trying to build a mass T file for my squads and I want to have this T in particular, both ways.

 

I was thinking the violation should be on the word "to" but I'm not sure which definition would be the best one.

 

Thanks

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See this thread. It's a little disorganized, so you'll have to dig for the good arguments. If that doesn't answer your question, I suppose it's worth starting a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really dont think that it would overstretch aff ground to allow them to pick as many nations as they want. the aff will still have the same outcome, so the neg has the same amount of arguments and actually mnore b/c they can choose whether to argue on specific country exclusion/inclusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what i think about this exclude country debate.

 

 

first let me tell you that i love pics i think that they are possibly the coolest thing ever, that being said here is my opinion

 

on this specific topic i dont think that the aff should be able to run a case that deals with one specific country, why because it makes it impossible for the neg to research, and i think that if the community allows people to read cases this year that allow for the aff to give aid to a specific country then this year for the neg is going to be very hard, because the topic is broad enought, but allowing the aff to read a country specific case multiples the poential number of cases by what 48? (# of countries in SSA) and then could potentially multiply that even further if it delth within a specific group or class or type of people within that specific country.

 

that being said i dont think that the neg should be able to get pics either, because it justifies the tiny tiny affs that are next to impossible to beat. and even smaller pics which are even harder to beat, that is why i dont think country specific pics are legit this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why you feel that way, but I can't see any resolutional basis for "the community" disallowing single country cases. Wouldn't that just be judicial intervention writ large?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that implementation is a question of solvency. It seems to me the negative has a couple of possibilities here. It can look to the affirmative solvency advocates to see if they suggest country exclusion. I think it's unlikely that they do. Or they can ask the 1AC in cross ex, "Which countries in Sub-Saharan Africa will receive assistance?" Affirmative waffling on that question would be one of the few times where I think ASPEC might be justified.

 

Your example of a terrorist in Cape Town is just reductio ad absurdum, much like a minus a penny counterplan. I'm not advocating a "one terrorist" counterplan, I'm advocating minus Zimbabwe. There is plenty of reason to believe that an author talking about AIDS policy in SSA would be advocating US assistance in Zimbabwe as well, isn't there? Unless the author states to the contrary, I believe the 1AC solvency evidence saying "we solve for AIDS in SSA" can be presumed to include Zimbabwe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...