Jump to content
debatetitan

Best [AFF] for SSA?

And the most solid aff for SSA is....  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. And the most solid aff for SSA is....

    • Solve AIDS
      4
    • Curruption
      1
    • Malaria
      3
    • Genocide monitoring
      7
    • Clean Water
      21
    • Reverse the Global Gag Rule
      19
    • TB
      3
    • Debt Relief
      4
    • Male Circumsision
      4
    • FGM
      1
    • Other
      27


Recommended Posts

What do you think is the most solid Aff for the SSA topic?

Sory, i forgot to put Family Planning under the poll....i guess that is what the other will be then besides the critical aff's like Becoming african and that other stuff. And i forgot the TOP aff to...so i guess that wiollbe under other aswell.

Other=critical aff's, TOP, Family Planning, crazy affs that no one will run after they make it and lose all thier rounds on, anmd i forgot about the health care training ones and infrastructure, and the ones Tomak said, and food aid.

sry i forgot soo much.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only listed one of my three favorites (water).

 

I sent this as a PM to someone a while back.

 

You just need ideas? Okay, here are what I think could be the three best cases next year.

 

1. Vaccinations in Nigeria or the DRC. This case will be particularly tough to beat. Its gets almost 100% solvency for any vaccine-preventable disease. On face the case will save tens of thousands of lives annually. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to link in any other advantages. But it will be even harder for the neg to link kritiks and disads. And the case is so low key and boring sounding that a lot of debaters won't even bother to cut neg for it (figuring that since the case is so meatball-sounding, a generic strategy will work. NOT!)

 

2. Clean water in Ethiopia or possibly Sudan. The scenarios for water cases are spectacular - everything from disease and famine to water wars. But you pay the price of there being tons of neg disad and CP ground. Ethiopian and Sudan are good choices for countries because they share the Nile with Egypt, and there has been tension over water rights over the last several years.

 

3. South Africa doctors and hospitals. Since SA booted apartheid, they have been trying desperately to provide equal access to health care. They have been doing a rather mediocre job, and poor communities are hit hard by lack of doctors/staff/hospitals. This case can be kritiky, with claims of post-apartheid racism, etc. It also won't link to the generics, as South Africa is much more developed and very different from the rest of Sub Saharan Africa. The immediate advantages can be pretty sweet too - everything from AIDS to diabetes. The down side is poor solvency and high cost.

 

 

NOTE

I will be moving any lengthy discussions about cases to their own threads. If you can't find your post, look in the Affirmative Threads Index and check the relevant thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you also spelled corruption wrong.

 

Spelling was never one of my best subjects. Sory about all that. I forgot alot and spelled things wrong...it shows i did it quick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you also spelled corruption wrong.

Spelling/Grammar is biopolitical ;)

 

But I think water may be the best for next year since many diseases and problems come from the fact that people don't have clean drinking water. Also there is some good evidence stating that water is key to culture and religion. So it gets my vote.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And water got my vote to because that and the fact that it can grab such huge advantages, critical ones, and alot of ghreat policy ones that have huge impacts. And it is pretty much undeniably topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Almost 130 views have been made of this thread, but only 30 votes have been cast. Pardon me for speculating, but it looks like a lot of folks are undecided.

 

2. I agree that "water" is a great case area. (A) Most people haven't mentioned it, but "clean water" and "water management" are topics that are smack-dab in the middle of "public health" as a term of art. (B) Water contamination/pollution/stagnation is intimately linked with several important diseases. © Water scarcity is the source of much of the conflict/warfare in SSA. (D) Only 4% of Afican farmland is irrigated; according to the literature, irrigation (or the lack thereof) is one of the big reasons Asia "boomed" over the past 25 years, while SSA (you should pardon the pun) tanked. So again, proper water management=better nutrition=better health=decline in poverty is certainly a more than viable theory.

 

CAVEATS: (A) What are these "water" cases advocating that isn't being at least tried now? (B) WHY the USFG? It seems to me that all potential water cases have to show some unique justification for American initiative, or they will be vulnerable to a host of CPs and Ks, as well as "spending prorities" DAs stemming from robbing the American poor to aid the African poor.

 

3. Realistically, and its just my tentative opinion based upon preliminary research, Africa's MAJOR public health problems seem to be: poverty in general (especially malnutrition), followed by HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria, uncontrolled population growth, and armed conflicts. No pun intended, but to overlook these issues is to ignore the gorillas in our midst.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Almost 130 views have been made of this thread, but only 30 votes have been cast. Pardon me for speculating, but it looks like a lot of folks are undecided.

 

2. I agree that "water" is a great case area. (A) Most people haven't mentioned it, but "clean water" and "water management" are topics that are smack-dab in the middle of "public health" as a term of art. (B) Water contamination/pollution/stagnation is intimately linked with several important diseases. © Water scarcity is the source of much of the conflict/warfare in SSA. (D) Only 4% of Afican farmland is irrigated; according to the literature, irrigation (or the lack thereof) is one of the big reasons Asia "boomed" over the past 25 years, while SSA (you should pardon the pun) tanked. So again, proper water management=better nutrition=better health=decline in poverty is certainly a more than viable theory.

 

CAVEATS: (A) What are these "water" cases advocating that isn't being at least tried now? (B) WHY the USFG? It seems to me that all potential water cases have to show some unique justification for American initiative, or they will be vulnerable to a host of CPs and Ks, as well as "spending prorities" DAs stemming from robbing the American poor to aid the African poor.

 

3. Realistically, and its just my tentative opinion based upon preliminary research, Africa's MAJOR public health problems seem to be: poverty in general (especially malnutrition), followed by HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria, uncontrolled population growth, and armed conflicts. No pun intended, but to overlook these issues is to ignore the gorillas in our midst.

 

I definitly agree that it is extremely counterplanable (this is my made up word) by other actors. And that it will be very accessable to DA's and some K's. But with good bocks and answers i think this wont be much of a problem for a water aff. But i do think that it is one of the biggest issues confronting SSA public health. There is alot of lit about how AIDS and water are interlinked, same with poverty and alot of other problems you have listed as more important that water being clean would solve. Suc as wars and stuff that you mentioned. There is alot of stuff about how the next generation of wars will be fought over water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what critical advantages does a water aff access? i can't think of any.

 

I cant remember...i have seen some about the right to water..and aso there are others that i have read....but i dont think that tjere are that many...but there are some...it depends on what u consider critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one critical advantage area that you could get from a water aff is cultural genocide, dehumanization, levinas/derrrida ethics kinda stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one critical advantage area that you could get from a water aff is cultural genocide, dehumanization, levinas/derrrida ethics kinda stuff

 

O, i didnt know that cultural genocide and Dehum are considered critical. In that case, there are those and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i was more referring to the levinas/derrida ethics part, i guess youre right that critical can be in many different forms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i personally voted for the gag rule aff for a few reasons:

 

1) Advatages: you get advantages like abortion rights and condom distribution which can result in AIDS impacts that can always be great to have in a round against some of those big bad neg DA's; as well patriarchy adv. that are of a more critical nature; not to mention possibly a free speech advatage based off of companies constitutional right of free speech in advertising?

 

2) US Key: international counter-plans probably wont be quite as effective at the point of which its more of united states policy that is preventing us funding in the status quo rather than some sort of international thing; and u can claim some arguments off of correcting the past or moral obligation to correct our image and get rid of that christian only perspective on sex and disease treatments

 

3) It's Topical: getting rid of that policy and actually giving a new form of aid that is actually not being implemented currently in the status quo gives a certain amount of unique flair that i dont think many cases have, som of the arguments against strictly AIDS prevention affs are pretty strong about using inherency evidence against your own affirmative, maybe using something that has been proven to be effective in other parts of the world and bringing it to africa and being backed by someone as powerful as us (USA) some real ground can be broken on halting this epidemic

 

 

but this is just my reasoning on AFFS next year, thought i would giv me input -Later

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. the advantages are all easily turnable, as other posters in these fora have shown elsewhere, particularly with the religious rights backlash

2. the jist of plantext is to have the US shift money from one form of PHA to another--counterplan: have so-and-so give the amount of money we shift to the new form of PHA solves at least part of case and avoids aforementioned backlash. might solve all of case. depends how critical case is.

3. it's not topical. it's offsets.

4. patriarchy good, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. the advantages are all easily turnable, as other posters in these fora have shown elsewhere, particularly with the religious rights backlash

2. the jist of plantext is to have the US shift money from one form of PHA to another--counterplan: have so-and-so give the amount of money we shift to the new form of PHA solves at least part of case and avoids aforementioned backlash. might solve all of case. depends how critical case is.

3. it's not topical. it's offsets.

4. patriarchy good, anyone?

 

At the same time every other case will have these same problems. And this one seems to have less than others overall. Every other case can be proved un-topical by a good neg team and good T blocks. And almost all advantages are turnable usually. Have u heard of a case thats advantages people just leave alone cuz they think its unbeatable? or w/e it is there is always ways to take down a aff's advantages, there are no solid ones. For example u said what about the patriarchy good args. Last year people ran cases like UAV's with thier only advantage as Heg...But isnt there a hell of alot that says Heg bad? Also u could do diff things with the Gag rule plan funding wise that would change how it opperates making it harder to access against actor cp's that wont really work.

The clean water case and Gag rule are my fav's out of all the ones i have seen and looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the same time every other case will have these same problems.

stop right there. most other cases don't involve shifting PHA funds from one type of PHA to another. thus, most other cases at least aim to basically make an increase.

And this one seems to have less than others overall.

that's probably because the best arguments against this case are completely case specific and you're just thinking of generic refutations

Every other case can be proved un-topical by a good neg team and good T blocks.

but this one IS untopical

And almost all advantages are turnable usually. Have u heard of a case thats advantages people just leave alone cuz they think its unbeatable? or w/e it is there is always ways to take down a aff's advantages, there are no solid ones.

there's a matter of opinion...

For example u said what about the patriarchy good args. Last year people ran cases like UAV's with thier only advantage as Heg...But isnt there a hell of alot that says Heg bad?

this in no way disproves my points

Also u could do diff things with the Gag rule plan funding wise that would change how it opperates making it harder to access against actor cp's that wont really work.

give me an example because there aren't any, at least, not the way you've worded it here

The clean water case and Gag rule are my fav's out of all the ones i have seen and looked at.

spiffy. then run them. the gag rule would probably be my favorite aff to negate against that i've heard of so far, were i debating next year's res.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my advice to aff teams on this topic -

go simple. dont overcomplicate your cases with subtle nuances. this topic is ripe for simplicity and associated big impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stop right there. most other cases don't involve shifting PHA funds from one type of PHA to another. thus, most other cases at least aim to basically make an increase.

 

that's probably because the best arguments against this case are completely case specific and you're just thinking of generic refutations

 

but this one IS untopical

 

there's a matter of opinion...

 

this in no way disproves my points

 

give me an example because there aren't any, at least, not the way you've worded it here

 

spiffy. then run them. the gag rule would probably be my favorite aff to negate against that i've heard of so far, were i debating next year's res.

 

But this would make an increase by repealing the Gag rule. U wouldnt necessarily have to put more funding for this case cuz the repeal auto would.

 

I amalso thinking of K's and Cp's that wont work on this case.

 

In your opinion it is untopical. Why are camps cutting a untopical aff then? And it is topical under the resolution becuase it is increasing the PHA to SSA. And like i said, people can always give an interpretation to make any aff untopical.

 

Iit proves my point that u said about "patriarchy good" thing. U said they could just run that when attacking the case in ur other post. But i refuted and said that there is heg bad and people still run heg and win it. Why not patriarchy?

 

here are some ways with the funding...

1. None-repealing alone would increase us funding because its blocked now by the gag rule.

2. Provide money to the PHA programs that were blocked from funding by the GAg rule and repeal

3. Divert funding from a bad source that is wasted and repeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what critical advantages does a water aff access? i can't think of any.

zizek, foucault, and many others.

 

....kidding.

 

 

Water Cases are pretty straight-up. There are some authors who talk about the Sudan and using water dev. as a way to take a small step in genocide awareness.

 

*small leads to large intervention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here are some ways with the funding...

1. None-repealing alone would increase us funding because its blocked now by the gag rule.

No it re-allocates funding. There's a difference between allowing funding to go to more places and allowing more funding to go places.

2. Provide money to the PHA programs that were blocked from funding by the GAg rule and repeal

Loses to counterplan: repeal gag Rule. Net benefit: any risk of spending disad

3. Divert funding from a bad source that is wasted and repeal

Extra topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But this would make an increase by repealing the Gag rule. U wouldnt necessarily have to put more funding for this case cuz the repeal auto would.

this is a ludicrous claim. all repealing the gag rule does is shift PHA that can be sent, not make new PHA allocations.

I amalso thinking of K's and Cp's that wont work on this case.

don't need a K or a CP when there are so many ways to just turn case...

In your opinion it is untopical. Why are camps cutting a untopical aff then?

that may be the worst argument you ever make in your life. keep in mind camps cut both genocide, UAV's, and space force this past year. none of which were topical.

And it is topical under the resolution becuase it is increasing the PHA to SSA. And like i said, people can always give an interpretation to make any aff untopical.

yes, but like i said, rarely is the interpretation TRUE

Iit proves my point that u said about "patriarchy good" thing. U said they could just run that when attacking the case in ur other post. But i refuted and said that there is heg bad and people still run heg and win it. Why not patriarchy?

uhh... okay? first, few people outside of myself that i know of view patriarchy good as a viable strategic option. second, my reference to that was, as such, pretty much sarcasm.. but third, all you're proving is that there IS a generic answer to the case. that fact doesn't help you...

here are some ways with the funding...

1. None-repealing alone would increase us funding because its blocked now by the gag rule.

mixes burdens, requires looking to solvency for topicality; furthermore, not true--other barriers to aid giving; finally, not true--congress could block the funding shift because you don't spec funds in plan so fiat doesn't help you there. that's not just a solvency mitigator; it's a reason to vote down on t because it effectively makes the increase conditional--if, with plantext, you COULD concede a solvency takeout that would make you nontopical, then you're not.

2. Provide money to the PHA programs that were blocked from funding by the GAg rule and repeal

only works if it's in plantext; even if it is, actor CP's still apply just fine

3. Divert funding from a bad source that is wasted and repeal

still, only works if it's in plantext; and even if it is, actor CP's will still apply just fine

 

i don't really wanna get in a huge line by line over this but you get where i'm going with it. nothing about this case makes it specially avoid cp's. and just because you can run it as a K doesn't mean it's automatically immune to other K's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it re-allocates funding. There's a difference between allowing funding to go to more places and allowing more funding to go places.

 

Loses to counterplan: repeal gag Rule. Net benefit: any risk of spending disad

 

Extra topical.

 

1. the funding isnt being provided at all, so repealing would actually provide funding to the places that dont recieve currently. So the US would provide that funding becuase now it can.

 

2. then do #1

 

3. Thats easy to debate and is winnable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. the funding isnt being provided at all, so repealing would actually provide funding to the places that dont recieve currently. So the US would provide that funding becuase now it can.

 

2. then do #1

 

3. Thats easy to debate and is winnable.

 

I haven't really researched this aff so far, so I'm just going off what I've peiced together from what people have said so far, so forgive any inaccuracies.

 

If your plan is just "repeal the gag rule", you don't mandate that funding goes anywhere at all, you just open up possibilities where it could be sent. And even if it does cause an increase in funding to abortion, then the funding will have to come from somewhere else, decreasing PHA in another location so there is no net increase. (and as we all know repealing and giving more funding will lose a lot to PICS"

 

On the other hand, the only possible argument I thought of so far against this would be that the abortion somehow provides more PHA than the stuff the money is being taken away from, causing a net increase. However, this means the aff is pretty much effects t. This really does not seem topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is a ludicrous claim. all repealing the gag rule does is shift PHA that can be sent, not make new PHA allocations.

 

don't need a K or a CP when there are so many ways to just turn case...

 

that may be the worst argument you ever make in your life. keep in mind camps cut both genocide, UAV's, and space force this past year. none of which were topical.

 

yes, but like i said, rarely is the interpretation TRUE

 

uhh... okay? first, few people outside of myself that i know of view patriarchy good as a viable strategic option. second, my reference to that was, as such, pretty much sarcasm.. but third, all you're proving is that there IS a generic answer to the case. that fact doesn't help you...

 

mixes burdens, requires looking to solvency for topicality; furthermore, not true--other barriers to aid giving; finally, not true--congress could block the funding shift because you don't spec funds in plan so fiat doesn't help you there. that's not just a solvency mitigator; it's a reason to vote down on t because it effectively makes the increase conditional--if, with plantext, you COULD concede a solvency takeout that would make you nontopical, then you're not.

 

only works if it's in plantext; even if it is, actor CP's still apply just fine

 

still, only works if it's in plantext; and even if it is, actor CP's will still apply just fine

 

i don't really wanna get in a huge line by line over this but you get where i'm going with it. nothing about this case makes it specially avoid cp's. and just because you can run it as a K doesn't mean it's automatically immune to other K's.

 

1. I read articles that said that we have not spent the money because the rule and that simply repealing wouldhave us use that funding that we have not used do to the gag rule.

 

2. Name some ways to turn the entire case.

 

3. That is true, but they can be argued topical.

 

4. w/e. topicality is such a huge issue and is evaluated differently almost everytime, good teams can make it seem true. for example many have won the interp this year that In=throughout T

they argued it good....but would it make sense that i said "SEVVDOG went throughout the room"? No it doesnt. Just becuase they are untrue doesnt mean its not winnable and make the aff "untopical" in the judges vote in the round.

 

5. same answer i said about 4. There are so many ways to argue T and so many interps and that it will be diff everytime. It doesnt need to be true. If u can argue it even if ur wrong u can get out of the problem.

 

6. they apply but can they have the USFG repeal the Gag Rule to SSA? NO. Actor CP's wpuldnt really work if its like a country actor. The USFG would have to repeal it. So how could china do this? or Japan? Or the EU? or NATO? or the UN? they cant repeal. They could have the US repeall though and they provide the funding...but alll in the same. IT IS ARGUABLE AND EITHER WAY U DONT HAVE TO ARGUE THE TRUE SIDE TO WIN.

 

7. Yea i dont wanna get into the line by line either for the simple fact that this could go on forever and neither of our minds will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...