Jump to content
The K

[AFF] Landmines

Recommended Posts

they have a significant impact on public health, they don't let people do there normal jobs, stop children from attending school, increase the risk for disease and kill people. what are possible plan texts/ adv's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not topical. FX and Public Health Assistance.

Other than that, its probably very susceptible to alternate actor CPs, as there's no reason US is key. Its more strategic to grab big advantages with something perception based, like Peace Corps with a soft power adv. Are there a lot of landmines in sub-saharan africa to begin with?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's definitely effectually topical, but fx isn't that hard to beat. i'm not sure what the violation would be on public health assistance. i think you're right about CPs, so i'm not sure what the answer to that would be. maybe some solvency evidence about US technology key or something. and i dont know about sub-saharan africa in totality, but ethiopia specifically has a ton of landmines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the idea be to find mines, because it is definitely gonna be heard to find ev for US, + what program would u use as an agent+ wat counntries could be focused on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a ton of lit on it, this was run as a case on the UN topic. The actor on that case though was some UN program.

 

 

The ottowa convention has failed, because of lack of U.S support, the U.S needs to to ratify the convention in order to make other countries follow. U.S demining tech is pretty good so that takes out alternate actors. Yeah its fx, thats inevitable and means more education/ links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd be hard to win if a team made a real good T violation against this. First, it only effectually increases public health assistance and only effectually helps Africa. Second, its extra-T because you can claim adv. ground from the random treaty that has little or nothing to do with public health assistance in Africa. Also, you can get ground from all of Africa, not just subsaharan. Third, public health assistance might mean medicinal, meaning you definitely have to look to solvency. Plan in Vacuum key. Four is basic FX/X-T kills ground, esp. together. You get tons of ground, but the neg gets way less, which probably supercharges aff bias. Even if you win T, it might make you lose K framework debates because aff choice is bad. Five is limits... speaks for itself.

And all that without even looking at plan text. This is definitely my A strat against this aff. Besides politics, case, and actor CP of course.

Modeling args on the Actor CP flow might prove abuse. Tech args are good though. CP - have US send tech and stuff to a landmine NGO? That might be interesting. Is there anyway to get an I-law adv. out of this?

 

Since you still can't get some critical add-on, underview, or adv. out of this, I still think that most other cases are more strategic.

 

Also, what are the advantages to this? I think you'll need a lot of internal links, which might hurt you

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the ICRC writes some pretty compelling stuff about landmines having a direct impact on over 5 public health assistance areas, which are arguably effects T, but what about landmine survivor assistance coupled with demining in order to get out of the the T debate? amputee victims are not given the care they need to be re-integrated into society and this kills 1. physcological status 2. local econs 3. family structures and causes burdens to be placed on women/children --> kills culture. Just an idea.

 

As for the actor debate; the US tech stuff is pretty advanced, spider boots and bombs and the $ to do it and stay commited. and the there is the US commitment key cards that say they are the linchpin to getting the world to solve landmines worldwide.

 

And ya, sub-saharan africa is specifically ravaged with landmiens even though they have signed the treaty, they have no iniative and/or tech/personnel to take signifcant action for demining.

 

And, if you look at the State Department's Humanitarian Demining Program, the areas that they work in are survivor's assistance, demining and education. Education as another possible way around FX?

 

US HMA solves in three independent areas of public health assistance—clearance, education and survivors assistance

US Department of State ‘6 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/68529.pdf

the three major pillars of humanitarian mine action (HMA) are: mine detection and clearance; mine risk education; and mine

survivors assistance. depending on the needs of a country, the United States may assist with financial support in one, two, or

all three pillars. research and development in new demining technologies and advocacy and diplomacy are also considered

by some to be components of HMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroyer1717-

 

You give this rant on why beating that T would be hard, but you never warrant why - you just warrant how you'd go about running the T. I'd say every T can be beaten - if my aff is limited to medicine, negs always win cuz it's uber-easy to prep medicine - affs contract to provide themselves more ground and all of a sudden you see 50 affs about medicine - they grow smaller and less predictable.

 

And, to be honest, definitions of 'public health assistance' vary. I don't see T as any larger an issue than any other argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably not topical. FX and Public Health Assistance.

Are there a lot of landmines in sub-saharan africa to begin with?

 

angola has thousands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroyer1717-

 

effects wouldnt be too much of a compelling arguement, especially since most people have awesome affirmative blocks this year they could use to answer it back, and from most ballots i have gotten this year effects is never enough to give a win, unless the abuse is clearly shown, nevertheless i really dont see how it takes alot of steps, look to the bottom of this post. Also, the ground standard is terrible, as said above, this was a popular case for the pko topic and tons of negative evidence for, anyways the only standard i could see getting you anything is extra, but if they dont claim advatages from outside of africa, then the maxiumum punishment, which is severence, would have no effect. also i dont understand the "alot of internal links", isnt it 1. get rid of landmines 2. people stay alive/increase in public health....or maybe i dont understand, please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phycological truama, death of thousands each month, mass starvation- they take people away from their agriculture, kills the african economies, maybe water wars if people can't get acess to water cuz mines are there

 

Case is fx, case has systemic harms/ moral obligation. Pretty solid case not huge impacts but good solvency with the spider boot / de-mining/ education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also i dont understand the "alot of internal links", isnt it 1. get rid of landmines 2. people stay alive/increase in public health....or maybe i dont understand, please explain.

This is twofold. First is that just saving lives isn't good enough. To reach a huge "save the world" scenario, you need a bunch of internal links. You might save a few million lives on face by removing landmines, but that doesn't compare to global nuclear exchange.

 

Also, even if there aren't a lot of I/Ls, timeframe is still an issue.

i.e. -

1. removing landmines takes time (you'll want a perception-based adv. to counter this)

2. Agriculture/water wars - not happening now, means it won't happen for long time. Also, need internal link from this if you want big !.

 

Politics will probably outweigh at this point. Especially against a team like Lex that always has a new politics d/a with a huge brink and minimal timeframe.

 

Moral obligations would be a good, and probably essential, argument, but i've never been a fan of it.

the stuff ifg added definitely make this case better, but i think something like the water aff might still capture the !s better and more strategically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroyer1717-

 

why is the "save the world" impacts needed, why not just be more probablistic and stick with saving a "few millions of lives", at the end of the debate round, with mitigation on ptx, impact calculus as far as probablity will always go aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true. Definitely true. But "true" isn't debate. It'd be an uphill battle. The other team could argue magnitude and probability outweigh probability, especially if they win a decent risk of an impact. It would go "have a 10% chance to save the world from imploding within the next few months, or save a few million people in africa?" Even mathamatically its a bit off.

 

Also, its not strategic to have to rely on probablity. It means it gets really hard to win solvency deficits on counterplans and that the solvency deficit matters. Also, if the neg has turns and defense on case, your strat becomes near impossible to win against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do they de-landmine an area? What kind of costs and whatnot are we looking at? What actor should this be done though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran this on the UN topic and lost all of like 4 or 5 debates with it. Its a solid case with a ton of advantages.

 

if anyone has a 1AC or the links they could send me i would be very greatful, or if you wanna send me the whole aff ;)

 

please send to my email tsilvernail@gmail.com, i know my students would be greatful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the plantext that Miami put out

 

The United States federal government should deploy the Quick Reaction Demining Force to Angola and provide all further assistance needed to establish a sustainable indigenous mine action capacity in Angola. We’ll clarify."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved this case during the WMD topic of years long passed, even though it was definatly not T. This year though, I think there's a strong case for this Aff, and a TON of extra-T advs that go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ITopicality - Mines kill people, overload public health institutions, cause long term psychological trauma, and prevent the access of public health care ( Random rebels mine road to small villages in Africa, preventing doctors/red cross/NGOs from entering.

 

Cars kill people too; handguns kill people. So do machetes and child soldiers. Making the standard for "public health" anything that puts people into public health facilities, you tremendously explode the topic. As for the "landmines keep people FROM public health facilities" standard, you've just included "better road maps" as part of the topic. As sympathetic as I am to the cause of removing land mines around the world, this is a public safety issue, not a public health issue.

 

It isn't like the Aff has to search for very hard for good, relevant public health issues for the topic. This topic is incredibly broad anyway. Granted, most of them will require the Aff to do something other than just recycle old files, but that does seem to be the reason why we select a new topic each season.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the case that never dies. The reason it never dies is that, like Korematsu (on privacy-based topics, and hell even on WMD), even though people know it's coming and have answers prepped out it still wins almost every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...