Jump to content
The K

[AFF] Landmines

Recommended Posts

That doesn't answer back my argument -- somebody has to step on a landmine in order for it to be public health assistance. This means their interpretation is effectual in itself and relies on solvency evidence to prove itself true. This means that any affirmative that potentially can improve the health of an African would be topical. Pulling McDonalds out of Africa would be topical.

 

 

Why would someone have to step on a landmine for it to be PHA? Just find evidence saying landmines are PH issue, then say plan directly removes them, which is assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who runs landmines, you aren't T, but u can win the T debate. you don't have a US key warrant but you can claim bullshit like heg with bad links and win it, and you link to ptx but ptx isn't unique.

 

best aff ever

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as someone who runs landmines, you aren't T, but u can win the T debate. you don't have a US key warrant but you can claim bullshit like heg with bad links and win it, and you link to ptx but ptx isn't unique.

 

best aff ever

 

 

That doesn't make it a good aff.

That just makes you a good bullshitter.

 

Don't neg rep me if bullshitter's not a word lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah layne that definitely doesn't make it good.

What about someone engaging your heg debate and calling out your shotty links?

or someone who is competent/set going for T and it's 8 minutes of the block?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't answer back my argument -- somebody has to step on a landmine in order for it to be public health assistance.

 

No. Landmines block access to clean water, health clinics, and farm land. This means that 1. they get waterborne illnesses because they still have to use contaminated water 2. they aren't able to get medicine, go to the doctor, etc. and 3. they are malnourished. You don't get T from this case just by "people step on landmines, they get blown up."

 

you don't have a US key

 

How is their no US key warrants? The article from Sahlin in 98 give you a lot of reasons why the US needs to be the one to act.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - PHA - PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE MUST BE THE TREATMENT TO THE PUBLIC, which landmines doesn't qualift as

 

T - SSA = all countries in SSA

 

Tix DA, Spending DA, Aid Tradeoff DA

 

Actor CP or "America ratifies 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer or Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction" CP.

 

And then non-inherent, no solvency (+solvency takeout), alt-cause, and advantage take outs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actor CP or "America ratifies 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer or Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction" CP.

 

How does this solve for demining advantages and harms? Last time I checked the Ottawa Treaty only bans the production, use, sell, transfer (as your post states) and does absolutely nothing about the mines in the ground. This means the CP isn't competitive at all. Perm: Do Both wins.

 

Also, the fact that mine bans haven't worked in the past due to the blackmarket means you can't solve anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squo solves (inherency), and landmines are put in faster than demining possible, so doing their plan will still put more landmines in the ground than not

 

it's functionally competitive and avoids our case turns and disads

 

should have clarified that in what I ran onCase with that specific CP.. but yeah, the actor CP might work better

 

in all likelihood though I'd probably just go for T

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squo solves (inherency), and landmines are put in faster than demining possible, so doing their plan will still put more landmines in the ground than not

 

The fact that landmines are put in the ground fast gives you solvency deficit because that means that more rebels have these landmines and you can never gaurantee a destruction of them.

 

it's functionally competitive

 

Its not competitive. You can't solve for the advantages of demining just by banning landmines. Perm: do both still wins.

 

and avoids our case turns and disads

 

How?

 

in all likelyhood I'd probably just go for T

 

Good teams will have this blocked out. Plus, its reasonably topical. You won't be able to prove any abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that landmines are put in the ground fast gives you solvency deficit because that means that more rebels have these landmines and you can never gaurantee a destruction of them.

 

You can never guarantee taking out every last land mine, either.

 

Its not competitive. You can't solve for the advantages of demining just by banning landmines. Perm: do both still wins.

 

Yes, you can. Give me advantages and I'll explain how you can solve for those advantages, and yeah, you can do both but your plan doesn't solve as good and has case turns and disads on it.

 

How?

 

Spending is obvious - doesn't spend $100 a mine on 150 million mines

 

With a link to aid tradeoff through landmines, signing a treaty that an int'l body supports doesn't drain political capital nearly as much as going in there and demining all of those mines, or take away from other foreign aid budgetary appropriations

 

And I already explained the case turns.

 

Additionally, an int'l actor doesn't link to those, and the Gates Foundation doesn't link as well.

 

Good teams will have this blocked out. Plus, its reasonably topical. You won't be able to prove any abuse.

 

No, it's not public health assistance under most interps - effectual at best - and self-admittedly doesn't give assistance to even half of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's not reasonably topical, and I'd run a South Africa tix disad, have them spike out of it, and prove the abuse story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can never guarantee taking out every last land mine, either.

 

Case will always have a better chance at getting rid of mines then a ban that doesn't take the mines out of the ground.

 

 

Yes, you can. Give me advantages and I'll explain how you can solve for those advantages, and yeah, you can do both but your plan doesn't solve as good and has case turns and disads on it.

 

One, you can't solve for hegemony. We prove that right now the U.S. stance on deming erodes US hegemony.

 

Two, you can't solve for agriculture. Mines are still in the farm lands, ban doesn't demine these areas.

 

Three, can't give them access to water. Landmines block the access to the clean water areas because of the fact that armies didn't want people getting to these places, not demining means you don't solve. Also, you don't demine meaning the contamination that comes from old mines leaking chemicals still happens.

 

Four, the general economy. These people don't have the ability to take their produce to the market (if they can actually grow it) because rods are mined. This increases inflation.

 

Spending is obvious - doesn't spend $100 a mine on 150 million mines

 

Turn: We increase the African economy, give them a way to farm without the fear of stepping on a mine. This means that these countries can export goods from the U.S. and this makes more jobs available.

 

Also, spending is non-unique.

 

With a link to aid tradeoff through landmines, signing a treaty that an int'l body supports doesn't drain political capital nearly as much as going in there and demining all of those mines, or take away from other foreign aid budgetary appropriations

 

1. Defecit spend, this means no tradeoff

 

2. A tradeoff disad contradicts with spending. Your tradeoff disad assumes that we take money from an existing budget while your spending disad assumes we defecit spend.

 

 

Additionally, an int'l actor doesn't link to those, and the Gates Foundation doesn't link as well.

 

1. US is key. We have tech and a moral obligation.

 

2. Other actors can't solve for US heg.

 

3. Do both- No reason why we can't work with these organizations

 

No, it's not public health assistance under most interps

 

This is ridiculous. Why isn't public health? 1. water 2. malnourishment 3. can't get to health facilities 4. the actual effect of stepping on a landmine 5. blood transfussions needed after stepping on a mine.

 

Also, good teams, once again, will be able to beat you on T. Its not hard.

 

effectual at best

 

Who cares. What case isn't FX T and whats the abuse coming from it? None.

 

and self-admittedly doesn't give assistance to even half of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's not reasonably topical,

 

Counter interp. resolution doesn't say ALL of SSA. Its reasonably topical, its a big problem in SSA, its predictable and you have evidence against it. No abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, you claim moral obligation? Forget it, I'd just run eight mins of Nietzsche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Case will always have a better chance at getting rid of mines then a ban that doesn't take the mines out of the ground.

 

Yes, but the problem is, the case doesn't solve for landmines being planted in the future. The United States is on of the prime manufacturers of landmines (your evidence says so, I believe).

 

 

One, you can't solve for hegemony. We prove that right now the U.S. stance on deming erodes US hegemony.

 

Two, you can't solve for agriculture. Mines are still in the farm lands, ban doesn't demine these areas.

 

Three, can't give them access to water. Landmines block the access to the clean water areas because of the fact that armies didn't want people getting to these places, not demining means you don't solve. Also, you don't demine meaning the contamination that comes from old mines leaking chemicals still happens.

 

Four, the general economy. These people don't have the ability to take their produce to the market (if they can actually grow it) because rods are mined. This increases inflation.

 

The United Stance has a stance on Deming? I'm so flattered.

 

Your three points above are all correct (other than what I pointed out above), but I'd love to see how landmines increase inflation...that seems a pretty bold leap of logic.

 

Turn: We increase the African economy, give them a way to farm without the fear of stepping on a mine. This means that these countries can export goods from the U.S. and this makes more jobs available.

 

Also, spending is non-unique.

 

How does one "increase" an economy?

 

Also, are you talking about exporting goods to the United States or importing goods from the US?

 

And, spending is always unique (until it causes a nuclear war); it just has a terrible threshold.

 

 

1. Defecit spend, this means no tradeoff

 

2. A tradeoff disad contradicts with spending. Your tradeoff disad assumes that we take money from an existing budget while your spending disad assumes we defecit spend.

 

A tradeoff disad does contradict with spending, but we're assuming they didn't run both in the same round. Also, if they have more specific evidence than you about where normal means dictates the money comes from, you're screwed (you know, assuming you can't answer a tradeoff disad).

 

1. US is key. We have tech and a moral obligation.

 

2. Other actors can't solve for US heg.

 

3. Do both- No reason why we can't work with these organizations

 

Tech sharing solves. Moral obligation is silly if another country can solve just as well.

 

True, other countries can't solve US heg, but I ran this aff at camp, and the links for the US being able to solve US hege through the plan suck.

 

This is ridiculous. Why isn't public health? 1. water 2. malnourishment 3. can't get to health facilities 4. the actual effect of stepping on a landmine 5. blood transfussions needed after stepping on a mine.

 

Also, good teams, once again, will be able to beat you on T. Its not hard.

 

Unfortunately, all the examples above prove the effectual topicality of the plan.

 

 

Who cares. What case isn't FX T and whats the abuse coming from it? None.

 

I don't care to get into an F/x T debate here; there are enough on other threads already. Just fair warning, the case has serious T issues.

 

Counter interp. resolution doesn't say ALL of SSA. Its reasonably topical, its a big problem in SSA, its predictable and you have evidence against it. No abuse.

 

Yawn, all defensive arguements. You need offense on their interpretation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, you claim moral obligation? Forget it, I'd just run eight mins of Nietzsche.

 

which is obviously unbeatable. no one is prepared for nietzsche...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, your case turn is a defensive PMN instead of an offensive turn. You say CP solve the PMN, but case itself is provides a need that CP doesn't meet, meaning that only the perm can supposedly solve. This is like running a politics DA and then CPing through the impact to make the previously intrinsic perm now legitimate.

 

In other words, CP cannot solve for the impacts occuring in the squo - meaning that when they go all structural violence on you, you are gonna have to parade around a bunch of scenarios of nuke war and try to win high probability (unlikely) or framework.

 

I like the international actor CP with a disad that can mess up solvency against this case. Only problem is that most Africa specific impacts don't link - dutch disease etc. So try to read Africa scenarios to your generic DAs - Nigeria oil shocks, regional instability due to loss of hege, etc.

 

Oh and T PHA, which beats many of the teams running this aff. Don't run it unless you are better at T than the other team.

 

Tradeoff disads are awful because the entire case is an impact turn - its setting up a plan - DA impact debate, which the aff usually wins because they have the 1AC. One or even two impact scenarios are not going to answer the 5 minutes of well written advantages in the 1AC. And they have a VERY tough time turning case. Even if you are running with a CP, aff can hit up the solvency deficit and have a goos shot.

 

FX T is probably less resolutionally justified this year, if you have good contextual evidence on this stuff, then you should be OK assuming they don't out tech you on the T flow.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...