Jump to content
Tomak

[AFF] Vaccines

Recommended Posts

I think this will be one of the strongest cases all year. Vaccines are cheap; you can funnel all funding through NGOs; the solvency will be almost untouchable; you can tailor the plan to any number of hundreds of diseases; it's virtually disad-proof and partly kritik-proof; there is tons of literature; there are NO topicality problems; and you can save millions of lives every year. That's not including the extra advantages from freeing up hospitals, improved African work force, pharmaceutical company growth, and all the other indirect advantages you can claim.

 

Family planning, water, and TB cases will be more popular next year. But I think vaccines will be the best.

 

As usual, start with the WHO page on the topic:

http://who.int/topics/vaccines/en/

 

See especially this article:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs288/en/index.html

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you funnel the funding through NGO's doesn't that leave it open to T its. Where you say since the U.S. doesn't fund the plan its not increasing IT'S assistance its increasing the NGO's assitance. Abuse is proven because we have no links to spending or any government linked K's or DA's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit like saying "increase does not mean establish" is a T problem for such-and-such a case.

 

Get real. By your interpretation PEPFAR would have been non-topical when Bush announced it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with Mele-mel. You are increasing an NGOs assistance in reality, not the USFG. That's what it's DA proof. At best, if the USFG is forcing NGOs to increase assistance, it's FX/XTRA. Not cool. I'd agree vaccine solvency is out there and great, but why not make the USFG do the whole plan like the resolution says. Doesn't seem to hard. Leave the NGOs to the neg for CPs. Just my $.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Tomak. The USFG cooperates with and funds NGOs that work in Africa now. It seems to me that to increase that funding and the scope of operations of the NGOs qualifies as an increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why not make the USFG do the whole plan like the resolution says. Doesn't seem to hard. Leave the NGOs to the neg for CPs. Just my $.02.
If you prefer.

 

Either way, I don't want this thread to turn into a T debate. If you have links to articles or ideas for solvency mechanisms, please post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this thread needs to be a T debate, because that's the big problem you are going to have if you run this next year. People have been saying that this topic is so less FX than nat service. NOT IF YOU RUN THIS. if you run this, it's like well the USFG can mandate the NGO, then give them the money, then the vaccines. SO basically the USFG doesnt incresee ITS health assistance, it's mandating the increase of an NGO in Africa. Not cool. While NGOs can and do work really well for this topic, I just don't see how you think this is topical. WHile it would be fairly easy to argue that it is, why not do what the resolution says, and have just as sound of a case. It just doesn't make sense to me why you are being so stubborn, when you could just as easily change a couple words of the plan text and nothing more. Let's talk solvency then.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Tomak. The USFG cooperates with and funds NGOs that work in Africa now. It seems to me that to increase that funding and the scope of operations of the NGOs qualifies as an increase.

 

Yeah, the money that is given to the NGO increases the health assitance scope and operations of that NGO so that they can perform better. But is the USFG increasing health assistance? NO! It doesn't matter if the USFG funds NGOs now. It matters if the USFG will increase public health assitance now. So it is terribly effects and classic effects. Especially when you can just take out the middle man and find solvency that shows the USFG is best to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, this case does not necessarily need to be run through NGOs. The CDC is perfectly capable of leading global immunization campaigns, for example. I think your interpretation is wrong, but please take the NGO T discussion to its own thread if you care to discuss it. I think we can all agree that immunization cases will be at the heart of the topic. Assume a topical plan text.

 

Let's talk diseases.

 

Here's some inherency and harms for Meningitis vaccinations

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/2007/02-15-2007.cfm

 

Inherency and harms for polio vaccine

http://www.who.int/countries/nga/mediacentre/releases/2007/19_feb/en/index.html

 

 

Browsing through the literature, it seems that this case could be run two ways. Of course, affs can endorse gigantic, multi-vaccine comprehensive plans with huge advantages. On the other hand, cases can be made extremely time-sensitive to respond to individual epidemics in certain countries. The former would save more lives, the latter would link to fewer disads. It think the best cases will find a strategic balance between the two extremes, as determined by what the literature is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomak, wouldn't one way to attack these cases be a PIC saying, US meningitis vaccinations to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, but Chinese/EU/Saudi . . . meningitis vaccinations to Country X? Net benefit is either Country X will backlash against American aid or needs to improve relations with China/EU/Saudi Arabia. . . for some reason.

 

At your urging, I will resist the temptation to discuss topicality.

 

Have you seen in the literature yet who administers the vaccines? If they are administered by local health care providers, you will need an answer to nursing/doctor shortage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you prefer.

 

Either way, I don't want this thread to turn into a T debate. If you have links to articles or ideas for solvency mechanisms, please post.

Ok, off of T I dont know the specifics but this is what the case seems to link to (offense wise) I think the literature is wonderful.

 

1. Nayar/Global K

2. Dirty needles DA (Vaccines suck becuase they make bacteria resistant and speeds up spread, turns case)

3.Anti-F-spec(specifying spending sux becuase you kill our spending Links, and it makes you extra T. It has some other stuff though)

4.Extra T

5.FX-T

6.It's-T

7. Dependency DA/ Heg.

8.PIC-Don't vaccinate against X

 

Thats just off the top

 

P.S. Congrats on your third bar Tomak, I wish I had good rep (tear, tear)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Globalization will link to the extent the aff claims economic competitiveness advantages. Not a bad way to go for the neg, if they are given a link. But I don't imagine any affs would allow this debate to start unless they were prepared to try to turn it.

 

Vaccines don't cause bacterial resistance. That's physically impossible. But vaccine safety is a possible case turn. A small percentage of recipients of various immunizations do in fact experience serious side-effects. The aff will have to be prepared to quantify and outweigh this.

 

Dependency will be straight-turned. Eradication of diseases eliminates dependency on the West. There's no need for small pox treatment in Africa these days, for example. Come to think of it, this would make a nice advantage, if there's enough literature.

 

Hegemony bad with a soft power link story will certainly link, especially if it can be shown that the USFG will be a leader in the vaccination efforts. Totally agreed there. The aff might want to preempt this by running soft power good in the 1AC, although that does open the door to more possible neg attacks. Probably the best strategy is just to wait until the 2AC to turn it. Keep in mind, soft power link stories to heg bad take an extra internal link, and also usually have some conflict between their initial link and terminal impact (the two authors usually disagree with one another).

 

The PIC strategy will work against comprehensive vaccination affs. This will be true of all big stick cases next year. I think the best way for the aff to manage this is to narrow their case down to the countries and diseases that give them the biggest solvency, and doing their homework on the possible disads that link to their narrower focus.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dependency will be straight-turned. Eradication of diseases eliminates dependency on the West. There's no need for small pox treatment in Africa these days, for example. Come to think of it, this would make a nice advantage, if there's enough literature.......

 

 

The PIC strategy will work against comprehensive vaccination affs. This will be true of all big stick cases next year. I think the best way for the aff to manage this is to narrow their case down to the countries and diseases that give them the biggest solvency, and doing their homework on the possible disads that link to their narrower focus.

Your right for the most part. T will keep people from singling countries(in=throughout in round abuse no pic ground),but on the heg thing they could become dependent on the U.S. for aid.

 

1.It enforces the mentality that they cant help themselves that the U.S. must do it.

 

2. Without this aid, (say if for some reason after the plan was passed aid stopped) these countries wouldn't have their own systems set up to deal with it.

 

3.Dependecny ups heg.

 

I think it can be turned, but the argument itself is just as open as Anna Nicole

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your right for the most part. T will keep people from singling countries(in=throughout in round abuse no pic ground),but on the heg thing they could become dependent on the U.S. for aid.

Despite the fact "in" isn't even in the resolution?

I think it can be turned, but the argument itself is just as open as Anna Nicole

Stop trying to be funny.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"to sub-saharan africa" OK watevs, sub-saharan africa means all of it (thats the interp) so it still applues. Pardon my mistake.

 

 

Im not trying to be funny its just a saying guy. If you thinks its funny then laugh if not then just dont post about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sub-saharan africa means all of it (thats the interp)

Is there any basis for this interpretation at all?

Y DO U SUCK? Y ARE U ALIVE? Y ARE U SO GAY?

This however, is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis is that because the reso. doesnt specify regions it means all of ssa, any spec. is over spec OR any spec means its not to SSA because its not all of SSA

 

This is probably wrong but I know I got the basics

 

O I didn't sign? My B, I was rushing, but whats really funny is you "counter repped" me.... I feel so priveleged........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any basis for this interpretation at all?

 

Theoretical arguments don't need to be grounded in the resolution, as long as the Neg wins their standards.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theoretical arguments don't need to be grounded in the resolution, as long as the Neg wins their standards.

Did I say it needed to be grounded in the resolution?

 

MELE-MEL:

I don't give neg rep.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly would you vacinate? You cure TB with Antibiotics, and even if say that is a vaccine, you would have to deal with resistence DA's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, an aff would vaccinate for measles, mumps, polio, cervical cancer (yes, there's a vaccine, google it), meningitis, hepatitis B, Hib, yellow fever, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, pneumococcal disease, rotavirus diarrhoea.....

 

Just giving every child in Africa their DTP3 and MMR shots could save millions. Read the links I posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you have to enact this policy for each new child born? Vaccines don't get pasted down from generation to generation. Also, how would you keep track of all the children who are born? Your plan would have to address this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What agent of action would be used to implement?

 

Would vaccines be sent to countries for their own usage, or would we send people to deliver them?

 

If we send people, will they be willing to go or would we be coercing them?

 

 

Just some questions that stood out for clarification.

 

Also you could get out of "countries don't want us" d/a's by saying we only go into countries that ask. Then you would only have to have one country ask to be topical. Increasing the parts of sub-saharan africa who want us is still increasing in sub-saharan africa. Didn't mean to talk about T, I just thought about it. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm not super experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone give me an example of layout for this affirmative

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...