Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jmiller

Treaty of Pelindaba Aff- AFRICA TOPIC

Recommended Posts

The affirmative argues that the United States ratify Protocol I and II of the Treaty of Pelindaba to make Africa a nuclear weapon free zone. Under Protocol I, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and the People's Republic of China are invited to agree not to use or threaten to use a nuclear explosive device against any Treaty party or against any territory of a Protocol III party within the African zone. Under Protocol II, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and China are invited to agree not to test or assist or encourage the testing of a nuclear explosive device anywhere with the African zone.

 

The method the US will ratify by is through nuclear disarmament. The affirmative comes with three advantages: Environment, Terrorism and Middle East Proliferation. The evidence is strong that NWFZ solves.

 

I guarentee every camp will be cutting this affirmative- and it will be good for you to go ahead and buy it so you can be familiar with the literature before camp. If you are not going to camp, it will be an excellent starting AFF.

 

Also, I am cutting a new advantage for this aff which I will sell individually- because it can be utulized as a K. Expect it out by the end of the week.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The affirmative argues that the United States ratify Protocol I and II of the Treaty of Pelindaba to make Africa a nuclear weapon free zone. Under Protocol I, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and the People's Republic of China are invited to agree not to use or threaten to use a nuclear explosive device against any Treaty party or against any territory of a Protocol III party within the African zone. Under Protocol II, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and China are invited to agree not to test or assist or encourage the testing of a nuclear explosive device anywhere with the African zone.

 

how is this topical under "health" or "assistance," or "increase"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is this topical under "health" or "assistance," or "increase"

 

I am sure Jeff can correct if this is wrong but

 

i am sure there is textual evidence saying that an increase can be contextualized through a treaty ratification.

 

Heath assistance can be textualized through the decrease of Nuclear Teasting which ==> cancer which is a "health" problem.

 

My problem with "declearing africa a NWFZ" is that it involves more than the just SSA. Its a classic extra-t case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My problem with "declearing africa a NWFZ" is that it involves more than the just SSA. Its a classic extra-t case.

 

Couldn't you just alter the aff so that it only claims adv.s off of SSA? So that way theres no abuse because you advocate the treaty exlusively for SSA purposes. But then again all aff claim world advs. So I guess it could swing but thats what I would suggest.

 

 

Now my question is, does this aff have like a 32 ans. block to nuclearism and other deterence bad arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't you just alter the aff so that it only claims adv.s off of SSA? So that way theres no abuse because you advocate the treaty exlusively for SSA purposes. But then again all aff claim world advs. So I guess it could swing but thats what I would suggest.

 

Well, you could--but only if the evidence was speicific to SSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you could--but only if the evidence was speicific to SSA

 

Bingo. I don't care what you're "claiming advantages" off of; if your solvency authors assume the entirety of the continent you are certainly claiming advantages from an extra topical action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is particularly an odd aff, first ratification has nothing to do with PHA, and een if you claim so called "topical" and "SSA specific" advantages you would at best be FX topical. Personally this aff is not worth money unless one seeks the headache that is running this case all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is particularly an odd aff, first ratification has nothing to do with PHA, and een if you claim so called "topical" and "SSA specific" advantages you would at best be FX topical. Personally this aff is not worth money unless one seeks the headache that is running this case all year.

not true--aside from extra-t problems, your issues are not really great reasons. Ratifying would be the solvency mechanism. The aff will always win the fairness debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy is right on with the T issue.

 

The Deterrence blocks are coming in the next wave of the file.. The fourth advantage is a Critical approach to deterrence- and the self-fulfilling prophecy it actually is-- aka a lot of Schell evidence, etc.

 

And KookiePhoenix- any aff you buy on Evazon- requires more work. I am not going to DO ALL THE WORK FOR YOU. If you're not a good T debater and worried about T- don't buy the aff- its not for you. But if you're willing to have good interp debates on T- then buy the aff. its topical.

 

And by teh way- the advantages are ALL SPECIFIC to Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure Jeff can correct if this is wrong but

 

i am sure there is textual evidence saying that an increase can be contextualized through a treaty ratification.

 

Heath assistance can be textualized through the decrease of Nuclear Teasting which ==> cancer which is a "health" problem.

 

My problem with "declearing africa a NWFZ" is that it involves more than the just SSA. Its a classic extra-t case.

 

but the aff plan doesnt increase public health assistance, it decreases a health risk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

decreasing risk can = increasing assistance

 

if the us were to send a condom corps over to africa to decrease the spread of aids, that's increasing assistance by decreasing a risk. and if condom corps isn't topical next year i don't know what is.

 

nuke africa, maybe.

 

[/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the question is not africa or not but rather SSA or generic africa

Some of teh evidence indicates SSA and other indicate generic africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that whole all cases are FX to an extent and it just matters how bad you fuck up the neg. argument? **Excuse my incoherency**

 

Yah, Jeff is right it would be a fun T/interp. debate but I think even though the violation would swing toward the neg. the aff can more easily win the standards and voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy is right on with the T issue.

 

The Deterrence blocks are coming in the next wave of the file.. The fourth advantage is a Critical approach to deterrence- and the self-fulfilling prophecy it actually is-- aka a lot of Schell evidence, etc.

 

And KookiePhoenix- any aff you buy on Evazon- requires more work. I am not going to DO ALL THE WORK FOR YOU. If you're not a good T debater and worried about T- don't buy the aff- its not for you. But if you're willing to have good interp debates on T- then buy the aff. its topical.

 

And by teh way- the advantages are ALL SPECIFIC to Africa.

 

No need for the emphasis, files need to be worked on but it would bea headache to attempt to run an aff that claims a topical adv from a non topical plan, but again goood job cutting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, the problem i see with it is that the only instance of increasing public health assistance is decreasing cancer from nuclear waste and whatnot. every advantage you claim outside of that is definitly extra-T (ie perception of the US signing the treaty or whatever the advantages argue).

 

every advantage you claim from the plan text that isnt based off of increasing health assistance is extra-t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea, the problem i see with it is that the only instance of increasing public health assistance is decreasing cancer from nuclear waste and whatnot. every advantage you claim outside of that is definitly extra-T (ie perception of the US signing the treaty or whatever the advantages argue).

 

every advantage you claim from the plan text that isnt based off of increasing health assistance is extra-t

 

all that needs to be topical is your plan text, if your plan text is fine (not extra or fx T), than it doesn't matter if your advantages are topical.

That said, I suppose you can point to certain advantages as proof of abuse on an extra topical plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know that advantages dont have to be topical, but they do have to stem from a topical action from the plan text. i'm saying that everything in the treaty that is outside of increasing public health assistance is extra-t. the aff, from what i infer, claims advantages off of extra-topical portions of the plan text. i probably should've worded that last post a little differently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy is right on with the T issue.

 

The Deterrence blocks are coming in the next wave of the file.. The fourth advantage is a Critical approach to deterrence- and the self-fulfilling prophecy it actually is-- aka a lot of Schell evidence, etc.

 

And KookiePhoenix- any aff you buy on Evazon- requires more work. I am not going to DO ALL THE WORK FOR YOU. If you're not a good T debater and worried about T- don't buy the aff- its not for you. But if you're willing to have good interp debates on T- then buy the aff. its topical.

 

And by teh way- the advantages are ALL SPECIFIC to Africa.

 

If the seller is being arrogant, why purchase the product?

 

Jeffrey can't contextualize the topicality of this aff beseides "its topical" and "Tommy is right on." First, let's look at Tommy's post:

 

I am sure Jeff can correct if this is wrong but

 

i am sure there is textual evidence saying that an increase can be contextualized through a treaty ratification.

 

Heath assistance can be textualized through the decrease of Nuclear Teasting which ==> cancer which is a "health" problem.

 

My problem with "declearing africa a NWFZ" is that it involves more than the just SSA. Its a classic extra-t case.

 

We can clearly infer two things:

1) Tommy hasn't read the evidence, he assumes there is evidence that says it helps a "health" problem

2) He concludes the case is extra-topical, since all the literature is written in the context of all of Africa

 

Meaning, Jeffrey's extension gets him no where.

 

Let's expound on it's un-topicality. The resolution calls for an increase of public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. So, Google 'Treaty of Pelindaba sub-saharan africa.' 195 results. Not promising, at all.

 

Jeffrey comes up with this:

 

Some of teh evidence indicates SSA and other indicate generic africa.

 

So what?

 

First, you haven't given us a plan text, we can't really assume anything unless you give a better description of the file.

Second, if your plan text is in accordance with the evidence (a necssary pre-requisite if one wishes to avoid huge solvency deficits and simple analytics like 'your evidence is discussing something completely different than the plan, prefer the counterplan' etc.), this case is horrendously extra topical. It applies a policy to ALL of Africa.

 

He's going to say that his evidence mentions SSA. Whoopy-dee-do. None of the evidence makes a claim that the treaty should only be ratified for those countries, or anything along those lines. The evidence says it would help SSA. Okay... Doesn't get you anywhere.

 

Effects is another big problem. The resolution says increase the policy the aff establishes therefore has to directly provide public health asistance to SSA. This aff clearly dosn't meet that litmus test. It ratifies a treaty that, if succesful, will help prevent cancer, which is a disease.

 

The aff will read evidence that cancer is a 'public health risk.' That's non-responsive. A 'public health risk' does NOT constitute a policy of increasing public health assistance. The aff has to directly increase to guarantee negative links to an increase and keeping an already HUGE topic limited down. Imagine a world where the aff could help to prevent any disease. Under the aff's interpretation, funding research for an HIV vaccine would be topical. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Moreover, this 'contextual evidence' that cancer is a public health risk doesn't address public health assistance. The evidence doesn't say 'allievating cancer is service to public health' or anything along those lines that would make the aff even slightly topical. It doesn't meet increasing PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE. It meets 'prevent cancer' or 'help decrease public health risks.'

 

Mixing burdens is a good standard here.

 

This aff isn't DADT (where 'good T debaters can win the T debate'), it's funding multilateral organizations on the UN topic.

 

Don't sell a file unless you ARE willing to do the necessary work. This isn't extra, it's straight up necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE BUT...

i do NOT think this is a good aff at a couple of problems...

1. T--you may win its a public health thing...but signing treaties WILL not be considered assistance because its a form of NEGATIVE assistance...for example rather than sending people in to give out condoms we just stop doing something that hurts public heath...

also NUCLEAR DISARMENT IS NOT ANY BIT TOPICAL...

2. CP to disarm all nuclear weapons and decrease public health assistance solve (i think) all the aff

3. REALISM

4. HEGE--disarm would probably destroy hege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE BUT...

i do NOT think this is a good aff at a couple of problems...

1. T--you may win its a public health thing...but signing treaties WILL not be considered assistance because its a form of NEGATIVE assistance...for example rather than sending people in to give out condoms we just stop doing something that hurts public heath...

also NUCLEAR DISARMENT IS NOT ANY BIT TOPICAL...

2. CP to disarm all nuclear weapons and decrease public health assistance solve (i think) all the aff

3. REALISM

4. HEGE--disarm would probably destroy hege

 

1. Signing treaties is T because it isn't hard to find a legit interp. that says "Decreasing health risk increases health" or something like that.

 

2.The CP has some problems:

A. Object Fiat

B. Treaties solve better because they historically (or atleast when you have the U.S. involved) work.

C. You could cut a multi-lateralism adv. for this and disarm CP doesnt solve

3.The CP links to realism but all you need is a kritikal adv. and it in itself can answer realism.

4. The aff doesn't advocate a complete disarm it just bans testing and use in Africa. And to be reasonable how much of that goes on in Africa.

 

Scott I honestly think you would be better off just arguing some T a nuclearism K, and some ssolvency.;)

 

I think this aff could be legit but as, Kookie Phoenix and Jeff said it will need ALOT of work.

 

My question however still remains. What is the plan text and how good will the nuclearism/detterence bad answers be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Signing treaties is T because it isn't hard to find a legit interp. that says "Decreasing health risk increases health" or something like that.

 

2.The CP has some problems:

A. Object Fiat

B. Treaties solve better because they historically (or atleast when you have the U.S. involved) work.

C. You could cut a multi-lateralism adv. for this and disarm CP doesnt solve

3.The CP links to realism but all you need is a kritikal adv. and it in itself can answer realism.

4. The aff doesn't advocate a complete disarm it just bans testing and use in Africa. And to be reasonable how much of that goes on in Africa.

 

Scott I honestly think you would be better off just arguing some T a nuclearism K, and some ssolvency.;)

 

I think this aff could be legit but as, Kookie Phoenix and Jeff said it will need ALOT of work.

 

My question however still remains. What is the plan text and how good will the nuclearism/detterence bad answers be.

dude...

ASSISTANCE = The activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort or purpose; "he gave me an assist with the housework"; "could not walk without assistance"; "rescue party went to their aid"; "offered his help in unloading"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assistance

 

plan disarms american weapons...it doesint contribute or ANY OF THAT SHIT...

and on the object fiat debate...this aff couldnt argue that b/c they even say they will disarm...they sign the treaty and enforce it though disarming

 

and dude they get rid of nuclear weapons...they probably link turn the K...

 

anj just incase

The method the US will ratify by is through nuclear disarmament. The affirmative comes with three advantages: Environment, Terrorism and Middle East Proliferation. The evidence is strong that NWFZ solves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if signing a treaty that makes Africa a nuke free zone is topical because nukes --> radiation then you're justifying me writing an aff that mandates the armed forces go into Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities because their is a risk that they will launch a nuke at Africa leading to radiation. Come on, this aff explodes the topic. No one is planning to launch nukes at Africa right now which means you're not going to be able to avoid the FX debate either. Show a piece of contextual evidence from a public health association saying that part of their job is to prevent nuclear radiation. Not to mention that it's extra topical because it turns all of Africa into a nuke free zone. I don't see the strategic value in running this aff at all unless you like to get into big topicality debates.

  • Downvote 1

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...