Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bhn7

[AFF] Prisons

Recommended Posts

The african prison system is an absolute fucking nightmare - absurdly packed in, long delays for trials mean that being sent to one for pre-trial detention is essentially a life / death sentence, starvation rations, arbitrary abuse by guards, etc.

 

Somehow promoting shutting some of them down on public health grounds, or giving funding for slightly less hellish ones, would let you apply a lot of the groovy philosophy of prisons evidence (foucault and other more obscure ones). I'm sure they're disease vectors; there's gotta be AIDS and drug-resistant TB literature out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you might be able to go with dehum since packed prisons are not great for the inmates and makes them more violent. It is a very interesting case though, but I wonder how you would fiat SSA to fix their prison system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

I think it might be a bit hard to prove that you "substantially increase"

 

If you can do that however, I think this would be a good case.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALso, watch out for the T on USFG. If the African goverments don't do it, and the USFG has to, then there is a VERY good case for imperialism, (making other countries desisions for them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ALso, watch out for the T on USFG. If the African goverments don't do it, and the USFG has to, then there is a VERY good case for imperialism, (making other countries desisions for them)

 

Just like every other fucking case on the topic. Ohhhhhhhhhh, they dont treat aids so the US is going to VERY good case for imperialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three T problems

1. Its=USFG T (although you could win that)

2. Subs. (Easy to)

3. The problem is its are not public and even if it is its affects

 

If you could modify this aff to make it public it would be pretty cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Three T problems

1. Its=USFG T (although you could win that)

2. Subs. (Easy to)

3. The problem is its are not public and even if it is its affects

 

If you could modify this aff to make it public it would be pretty cool

 

so, since 1 and 2 are "easy," there is really only one t problem?

 

and they are public prisons, there are no requirements of social status to go to prison, and i bet you there is ev that prisons are public, for a stretch, the public is allowed to go to prisons, they could get diseases there also.

 

i bthink there are probably T problems, but those arent them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, since 1 and 2 are "easy," there is really only one t problem?

 

and they are public prisons, there are no requirements of social status to go to prison, and i bet you there is ev that prisons are public, for a stretch, the public is allowed to go to prisons, they could get diseases there also.

 

i bthink there are probably T problems, but those arent them

They are still problems just easily beat. I.E. 2 + x = 4 is a problem despite how easy it is to solve it.....

 

And it falls victim to T interps saying that public, is the average person living in a certain country, (or atleast something like that)

 

And if those aren't the T problems then what are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are still problems just easily beat. I.E. 2 + x = 4 is a problem despite how easy it is to solve it.....

 

And it falls victim to T interps saying that public, is the average person living in a certain country, (or atleast something like that)

 

And if those aren't the T problems then what are they?

 

I don't think it's topical at all. First off, good luck finding a def that says PHA = prisons. Second, that's not USFG authority it can't do that unless it establishes some kind of sanctons which is extra-t AND fx (XT because they can claim advantages based off of human rights and crime etc). Any T debate is winnable you just need to be the better debater, it's like any other argument. I just think it's an uphill battle for the aff to run something SO blatantly extra-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way you would run this plan without losing on topicality is by facing a team that doesn't know what that means, or negating the resolution, which has never worked against me. I think that you would be better off running something that is topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way you would run this plan without losing on topicality is by facing a team that doesn't know what that means, or negating the resolution, which has never worked against me. I think that you would be better off running something that is topical

Just for the sake of debate, you could run it critically and argue, framework with a kritik of T, or that your critisism comes before the T. Most teams will probably say T exist in a vaccum.....This case is in N0 WAY topical but that doesn't mean you can't win on it without facing assholes........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for the sake of debate, you could run it critically and argue, framework with a kritik of T, or that your critisism comes before the T. Most teams will probably say T exist in a vaccum.....This case is in N0 WAY topical but that doesn't mean you can't win on it without facing assholes........

 

That still doesn't work, all I need to win is your kritik of T, which can't be good.

 

Your kritik of T proves why you shouldn't win, your "link" to kritik of T proves my limits args as to why we NEED to limit the rez to topical cases under X interpretation.

 

And, running a non-topical aff with a framework doesn't change the fact that it's non-topical. If you want to do something unconventional, run an ANTI-resolutional aff, which is different from what you're trying to point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way you would run this plan without losing on topicality is by facing a team that doesn't know what that means, or negating the resolution, which has never worked against me. I think that you would be better off running something that is topical

 

I think ANY team is gunna know this isn't topical, the plan doesn't even mention PHA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That still doesn't work, all I need to win is your kritik of T, which can't be good.

 

Your kritik of T proves why you shouldn't win, your "link" to kritik of T proves my limits args as to why we NEED to limit the rez to topical cases under X interpretation.

 

And, running a non-topical aff with a framework doesn't change the fact that it's non-topical. If you want to do something unconventional, run an ANTI-resolutional aff, which is different from what you're trying to point out.

Ok

 

1. Mis interpretation: I meant running it Kritikaly and then kritiking T but anyways.........

 

2. Winning the Kritik of T is not wnning topicality directly, which still means you dont drop directly on T

 

3. Topicality under X interpretatin proves the link to the K of T its oppressive, its gay, it stops us from talking about real shit

 

4. If you aff is non-topical but you win on framework that it doesnt matter then you wont lose on T.

 

5. This case could be considered somewhat "anti-resolutional" seeing as though we both will concede that it violates almost every word in the rez.

 

6. MY KRITIK OF T IS THE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you can theoretically win a critique of topicality against a (much) worse team speaks nothing to the quality or legitimacy of the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you can theoretically win a critique of topicality against a (much) worse team speaks nothing to the quality or legitimacy of the aff.

I concur, but neither does beating them on T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok

 

1. Mis interpretation: I meant running it Kritikaly and then kritiking T but anyways.........

 

2. Winning the Kritik of T is not wnning topicality directly, which still means you dont drop directly on T

 

3. Topicality under X interpretatin proves the link to the K of T its oppressive, its gay, it stops us from talking about real shit

 

4. If you aff is non-topical but you win on framework that it doesnt matter then you wont lose on T.

 

5. This case could be considered somewhat "anti-resolutional" seeing as though we both will concede that it violates almost every word in the rez.

 

6. MY KRITIK OF T IS THE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Since this is devolving into sniping at each other (though some of the comments definitely warrant it), I thought I'd respond to the substance of these "arguments"

 

1. The fact that you have to rely on a K of T to win, regardless of what the case is, is kind of shady and dangerous. And if you're relying on a K of T to win anyway, you might as well just run a blatantly non T aff. With this one it makes far more sense to try to make the plan text sound T, make some answers, and then K T if you want.

 

2. No you don't drop directly on T theoretically. But when you lose the K of T, then you do, because you have no other answers on the flow.

 

3. I'm sorry did you just say that I proved the link to your K of T by running T? No shit. . .

 

4. Again, this is true of any case, not just this one, and for the record, it's ultimately difficult to run a case in which you on face admit that you're not topical and then go for framework. The fact that you don't have a topical plan text to check predictability arguments etc. makes it infinitely more difficult to win the framework flow (even taking into account offensive arguments you could make like Nayar and Kulynch etc)

 

5. Just because it's not topical, that doesn't make it anti resolutional. It makes it not resolutional.

 

6. ...ok, good luck with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont u know that trying to fix a broken system only masks the disciplinary power relations within it and allows da biopowa to expand?

 

but seriously, this case has two massive problems with it:

 

1) Not T, "public" is defined as open to all persons in a certain area i.e. sub-Saharan Africa, you only help prisoners (yes, its debatable but i guarantee u will lose that limits debate 100% of the time)

 

2) Even tho it was a joke above, this case will get CRUSHED by a good K team, simply read Foucault w/ an abolish prisons alt or something like that to solve our case.

 

solid idea, definitely dont abandon it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't let this degenerate into a thread over how "shit" MELE-MEL's K of T is.

 

 

I think it could be argued the aff is public health assistance for African prisoners?

 

bpower-

 

1) this overlimits. public mods health, so we can assist the public health of SSA prisons. also no case is t, b/c your interp that public=whole means that the aff can't subset, but the rez itself specifies a subset: it must be in SSA.

 

2) well ppower/gitmo teams on the college topic won with agamben affs. no reason it can't be reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like every other fucking case on the topic. Ohhhhhhhhhh, they dont treat aids so the US is going to VERY good case for imperialism.

 

But here, you directly get involved in what the goverment does. The person running this plan virtually lose Imperialism immediatly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't specific to Africa but it is pretty informmative.

 

Moller' 04 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2004/action1/action1_2004_25_en.htm

 

Prison is a setting where we find a very high prevalence of HIV, TB and of life threatening life styles.

In order to increase our knowledge of prison health, trends in prison health and the importance for public health there is a need to establish a system to collect relevant prison health indicators and other health determinants.

An information system will be used to develop evidence-based guidance on cost-effective disease control and health promotion in prisons as part of national strategies for public health protection and promotion.

With a few exceptions (Norway, France, England and Wales) prison health is generally an integral part of the judicial or security system rather than of the health system, thus isolating health in prisons from the mainstream of public health and bringing along many questions about independence, quality, accessibility and level of (preventive and curative) health services provided.

Prisons have become focal points for communicable diseases and many illicit drug users have their first drug experience in prison. The poor health status of prisoners impacts on society, through early release, through contact with staff, family and others in the community and increases the risk of re-offending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now in this scenario is obvious the aff would indeed have problems with T but no K of T is needed, simply proving that prisons are part of PHA and that funding for new better prison systems wouldn't be hard for the US to do, but then there is the arg that funding is FX, but this aff is pretty interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok

 

1. Mis interpretation: I meant running it Kritikaly and then kritiking T but anyways.........

 

2. Winning the Kritik of T is not wnning topicality directly, which still means you dont drop directly on T

 

3. Topicality under X interpretatin proves the link to the K of T its oppressive, its gay, it stops us from talking about real shit

 

4. If you aff is non-topical but you win on framework that it doesnt matter then you wont lose on T.

 

5. This case could be considered somewhat "anti-resolutional" seeing as though we both will concede that it violates almost every word in the rez.

 

6. MY KRITIK OF T IS THE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'

 

Okay let's get some things straight,I'll answer your arguments.

 

1. Even if you run your aff critically, if you defend the resolution you need to be topical. Unless your advocacy has NO plan text and DOESN'T claim to affirm the resolution, you have the burden of being topical, regardless of whether or not you claim K advantages or not.

 

2. Yeah it is if those are the only args you make, puts you in a double bind:

A. You only read K of T, so if I win it I win topicality is a burden on you and you concede you're not topical

or

B. You make args to answer the T which bites your own framework about why T is "oppressive and genocidal" and you lose anyway.

 

3. This is the most retarded arg ever. The evidence is written by an undergrad former debater who probably wrote the ev as a joke. It literally says "Voting Neg leads to genocide." Your arguments as to why T doesn't matter is exactly why T exists, to prevent you from doing stupid shit like that by limiting the debate.

 

4. Again, yes it does. If you defend a plan text you have to be topical. In order to win plan happens you need to defend policymaking, and even if you don't defend plan happens you'll lose if you engage the negative on their framework debate, it's a sneaky trick that works great for the neg. Your engagement in the framework debate (most likely realism) means you have to defend plan action and you'd concede to being non-topical.

 

5. No, anti-resolutional is when the plan does the opposite of the rez or completely abondons it, your aff is just shitty. Anti-rez would be like, steal all the public health assistance from africa. Or like this year- ban the military as an aff. Those things make the neg the aff and the aff the neg.

 

6. No. It isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't specific to Africa but it is pretty informmative.

 

Moller' 04 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2004/action1/action1_2004_25_en.htm

 

Prison is a setting where we find a very high prevalence of HIV, TB and of life threatening life styles.

In order to increase our knowledge of prison health, trends in prison health and the importance for public health there is a need to establish a system to collect relevant prison health indicators and other health determinants.

An information system will be used to develop evidence-based guidance on cost-effective disease control and health promotion in prisons as part of national strategies for public health protection and promotion.

With a few exceptions (Norway, France, England and Wales) prison health is generally an integral part of the judicial or security system rather than of the health system, thus isolating health in prisons from the mainstream of public health and bringing along many questions about independence, quality, accessibility and level of (preventive and curative) health services provided.

Prisons have become focal points for communicable diseases and many illicit drug users have their first drug experience in prison. The poor health status of prisoners impacts on society, through early release, through contact with staff, family and others in the community and increases the risk of re-offending.

 

That's great and all but that's not what the idea behind the aff was. This would be a more topical version of the aff but I still think its XT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...