Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
topspeaker70

Banning American Tobacco Exports to SSA/PHA?

Recommended Posts

This article raises the prospect of a type of potential Affirmative case which Ankur suggested in May of this year.

 

 

Please consider the following article. Would a USFG ban on exports of tobacco products to SSA - and/or in particular a ban on exports of tobacco products targeted to children in SSA - be topical?

 

http://article.wn.com/view/2007/07/03/Tobacco_giants_targeted_African_children_to_boost_flagging_p/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the advantages be? and could u really cut a aff on this? seriously this would be hard to access good advantages and ontop of that how much lit is there on this? i wouldnt think to much. So when the teram runs a politics disad against u that impacts nuke war what do u say? "Cancer of the lungs outweighs nuke war"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would the advantages be? and could u really cut a aff on this? seriously this would be hard to access good advantages and ontop of that how much lit is there on this? i wouldnt think to much. So when the teram runs a politics disad against u that impacts nuke war what do u say? "Cancer of the lungs outweighs nuke war"

 

1. Moral imperative to stop preventable diseases.

2. Risk.

3. Impact takeouts, link turns, (obviously not in combination), etc., etc., etc. The usual suspects.

 

Combined, you could make a case with these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what? just because somone has a nuke war impact you cant win? what happened to actual debating?

 

and for your information, there is a lot of evidence out there which likens cigarettes to wmd's and whatnot... toss in some arguments about how we are westernizing the world with our joe camels and you have yourself a critical advantage. toss in some stuff about how joe camel exists to hook kids etc, and you have yourself another link...

 

cigarette smoking is FERTILE ground for impacts... good solid wholesome debate impact... much better than some politics disad which lacks a link and internal link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's slow down a little.

 

The reason I posted this was that, back in May (I think) Ankur posted a hypothetical question as to whether or not a plan which prevented the United States from exporting a pathogen would be topical. I was merely following up on that by suggesting this a such a case, and asking the question again.

 

Next: although I'm not advocating this as a case, and I don't know much literature is out there, it seems to me - if a topical plan can be developed to go along with it - such a case might have some potential.

 

Smoking is generally accepted as being extremely harmful to human health, causing extensive death and morbidity not just because of cancer, but also heart disease and other problems as well.

 

Moreover, tobacco is generaly accepted as being addictive. Smoking can escalate into being an expensive habit, all the more so for people who try to live on $1-2 a day, exacerbating their chronic poverty. So for America to engage in a deliberate policy trying to hook these folks on cigarettes doesn't seem very nice - or look very good.

 

Next, this is obviously an Affirmative area where a lot of CPs wouldn't apply, because American companies dominate the tobacco industry.

 

Next, banning exports of tobacco is pretty cheap in comparison to a lot of other plans to improve/protect SSA's public health. It's preventive, rather than curative, medicine. And it can be done in the US, or at sea by the Navy and the Coast Guard, without one American setting foot on African soil.

 

Finally, as for DAs, I'm sure that there are some folks out there who have briefs that can be extrapolated into saying that restricting U.S. tobacco exports to SSA will cause a nuclear war. Frankly, I'd like to hear one; more importantly, I'd like to read one, because I find the thesis of that argument to be dubious at best. Given the serious crises* this world has endured since August 9, 1945 without having a(nother) nuclear war, I'm inclined to think that it might survive a ban on American tobacco imports to SSA without falling into Armageddon.

 

But again, this was just an attempt to prompt a discussion; not to advocate a position.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

*i.e., the 1948 Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, the Suez Crisis, the Hungarian Revolution, the U-2 Incident, the 1961 Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Six-Day War, the Pueblo Incident, the Yom Kippur War, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, the war in Angola, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the Shooting Down of KAL 803, the Collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Fall of the Soviet Union, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would seriously need T help with increase and public health assistance, but you could probably manange something like:

PHA = anything helping people physically

Increase = increase

 

and something saying you inherently meet increase because of your def. of PHA. I don't know, it's a difficult T but you want the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finally, as for DAs, I'm sure that there are some folks out there who have briefs that can be extrapolated into saying that restricting U.S. tobacco exports to SSA will cause a nuclear war. Frankly, I'd like to hear one; more importantly, I'd like to read one, because I find the thesis of that argument to be dubious at best. Given the serious crises* this world has endured since August 9, 1945 without having a(nother) nuclear war, I'm inclined to think that it might survive a ban on American tobacco imports to SSA without falling into Armageddon.

 

 

no. politics disads say something absurdly foolish like...

 

doing the plan pisses off republicans who backlash, the public hates them and leads to a democratic president in 08, who then crushes hardpower and we all die in nuke war because we lack hard power.

 

and that would be in the top 1% of warranted politics disads....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - I've been working on this case for about a month. I think it might be PHA that China, Japan etc can't do. Couple of good PH cards - no "PHA" in context yet. Let me know if you find anything good on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

doing the plan pisses off republicans who backlash, the public hates them and leads to a democratic president in 08, who then crushes hardpower and we all die in nuke war because we lack hard power.

 

 

 

So that's a "politics" DA.

 

(1) Pardon my lapsing back into my lawyer's mind-set, but isn't that line of reasoning just a tad speculative?

 

(2) Even if this line of reasoning isn't absurdly speculative, how is this DA unique? Isn't the political scenario you outline here exactly what's already happening because of Iraq?

 

(3) The U.S. has been in two World Wars under Democratic Presidents.

We won both of them with the lowest level of casualties of any of the major combatants.

 

(And I'm not even going to mention the "Spark" analysis.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. politics disads say something absurdly foolish like...

 

doing the plan pisses off republicans who backlash, the public hates them and leads to a democratic president in 08, who then crushes hardpower and we all die in nuke war because we lack hard power.

 

and that would be in the top 1% of warranted politics disads....

reason #524 to like ankur: his opinion on politics disads.

Michael - I've been working on this case for about a month. I think it might be PHA that China, Japan etc can't do. Couple of good PH cards - no "PHA" in context yet. Let me know if you find anything good on it.

you don't need a definition in context. i say this because there are few definitions of PHA in context as an entire phrase; the only ones that even sort of do that are circular; the only ones that even sort of try to define it and could be argued as non-circular are talking entirely about domestic policies here. so having a contextual def of PH will suffice.

 

plus you could always call t genocide, or something. [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

also it doesn't cause a communicable disease, and there's good evidence why public health means communicable diseases that effect the whole public not just individuals.

 

 

What about birth defects and sidestream smoke as communicable diseases/pathologies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on politics: ankur's example of a politics disad is exactly what's accepted as a legitimate argument nationally. all of them are extremely bad arguments from a traditional perspective in terms of the uniqueness issues and link issues and link uniqueness issues.. what's even worse is that 75% of the time, the cards don't even say what the team wants them to say.

 

on synergy's post: the problem with that interpretation is that the best evidence on PH definitions is about PH meaning any area of assistance so long as it's targeted toward a health issue and it's an attempt to improve health across the entire population--i.e., targeted towards improving statistics rather than addressing individuals. this solves back most of your offense on T if your interp is communicable diseases that affect the whole public not just individuals, especially since your reason for that is a card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you will lose on the limits debate because this interpetation allows for "stop war/genocide in africa by banning oil imports, etc" type affs. everything effects public health with the right number of steps.

 

As a scientist, Ankur is probably well ahead of me on this, but I've seen prevention of tobacco use - especially for children - discussed in numerous sources as a mainstream public health issue. I haven't seen the same thing about oil exports.

 

And most American exports are not usually thought of as dangerous to public health - tobacco products, however, are carcinogenic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for interrupting the relevant discussion, but the Soutpark episode about big tobacco companies versus anti tobacco groups was on tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on politics: ankur's example of a politics disad is exactly what's accepted as a legitimate argument nationally. all of them are extremely bad arguments from a traditional perspective in terms of the uniqueness issues and link issues and link uniqueness issues.. what's even worse is that 75% of the time, the cards don't even say what the team wants them to say.

 

So why would any rational person "accept" these arguments? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this cite. I think you might find one or two "magic words."

 

www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,287672,00.html

 

 

Michael - I've been working on this case for about a month. I think it might be PHA that China, Japan etc can't do. Couple of good PH cards - no "PHA" in context yet. Let me know if you find anything good on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why would any rational person "accept" these arguments? :confused:

 

2 points-

1. It's not so much accepting these arguments as rational, it's accepting them as won in a debate round. Substantial difference.

2. The politics debate is a very technical one - affs don't lose because they fail to call the d/a's convoluted - they do, but negs will still read 5 pieces of evidence for every argument that the 2ac makes.

 

Also, some politics d/a's make more sense than others. For example, Bush announcing 2 days prior to midterms that a draft would be put in place probably wouldn't fly so well for Congressional Republicans.

 

On subject - the problem with this aff in terms of T isn't "public health" in my view, but "assistance". Most definitions of assistance I've seen are along the lines of "providing material aid" or something. Banning cigarettes doesn't provide a form of assistance (eg, doctors, medicine, funds, etc.), it removes a bad product already in the marketplace, and therefore any form of assistance would be effects T at best.

 

An aff that would provide an education campaign or medicines to treat lung cancer/emphysema would be more defensible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, calling out the messed up reasoning of politics disads works. Miller's argument about the situation in Iraq thumping the disad, for example, has been a winner for me in a couple politics rounds.

 

Politics wins because affs often fail to do this adequately, and convoluted reasoning which is not properly indicted is admissable in national circuit debate. Frankly, I don't think that's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On subject - the problem with this aff in terms of T isn't "public health" in my view, but "assistance". Most definitions of assistance I've seen are along the lines of "providing material aid" or something.

 

 

Question 1: In your view, are laws/regulations requiring the licensure and approval of the manufacture/distribution of commercial tobacco products, forbidding the sale of tobacco products to minors, prohibiting advertisement of tobacco products on radio and TV, restricting the placement/location of cigarette vending machines, regulating the tar and nicotine content of tobacco products, and creating mandatory "smoke-free areas" a form of public health assistance?

 

Question 2: If your answer to the foregoing question is "no," just how would you classify such laws and regulations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Politics wins because affs often fail to do this adequately, and convoluted reasoning which is not properly indicted is admissable in national circuit debate. Frankly, I don't think that's bad.

 

Well said in every respect. This is as it was in the beginning (NDT 1947), is now, and (probably) ever shall be.

 

It would seem to me that a poorly-reasoned, weakly-evidenced DA like this (regardless of the volume of the weak evidence) is ripe for the picking by a well-organized, highly-disciplined C/X period followed up by the coup de grace arguments in 1AR. If any Afffirmative is not prepared out the ying-yang to do that, it's their own fault; after all, the Affirmative selected the case and plan - surely they knew what was coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On subject - the problem with this aff in terms of T isn't "public health" in my view, but "assistance". Most definitions of assistance I've seen are along the lines of "providing material aid" or something. Banning cigarettes doesn't provide a form of assistance (eg, doctors, medicine, funds, etc.), it removes a bad product already in the marketplace, and therefore any form of assistance would be effects T at best.

 

That's true - the debate will be very similar to the 'barrier's=/= increase' of this year. But, assistance is literally help. helping the public would be to outlaw exports.

 

I feel like the solvency of this affirmative might be hurting as well. I'm sure

if there is talk about this (on the aff side) the same author would probably report something along the lines of 'tobacco industries will export anyway'. Especially when reading X government=corrupt.

 

Cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 points-

On subject - the problem with this aff in terms of T isn't "public health" in my view, but "assistance". Most definitions of assistance I've seen are along the lines of "providing material aid" or something. Banning cigarettes doesn't provide a form of assistance (eg, doctors, medicine, funds, etc.), it removes a bad product already in the marketplace, and therefore any form of assistance would be effects T at best.

 

i dont think the resolution supports that interpretation. i think the resolution is flawed in that there is no language surrounding the word which distinguishes it as such.

 

i think a lot of T debates will indeed come down to assistance -

if the aff provides tangible, the neg will go intangible

if the aff provides intangible, the neg will go tangible

 

and this may work for the first month or so, but after a while, there will be a backlash on the part of judges... because its just going to get boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Yostarica that "assistance" is the biggest problem for these kinds of cases. I was thinking about the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which places export controls on items that could be used for bioterrrorism. Strengthening export controls to SSA would be an increase and it would be for the benefit of public health. But it comes to the same question as tobacco: is it assistance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I these types of cases are a little effectual. It is an export control plan not a PHA plan. It just so happens that they result of controlling the exports of tobacco will aid in the health of Africans. That is only one step effects and some judges may not think that this is too bad. But when there are so many ways that assitance can be given directly some judges may feel that a T violation is acceptable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i disagree. i think the debate over assistance will come down to whether the definition/interpretation comes down to whether assistance is an act or an object. i dont think that either is wrong or that either is preferable.

 

example: ankur rendered motor vehicle assistance to the elderly couple with a flat tire.

 

i think its reasonable to say that i helped change the tire... not that i went to pep boys and bought them a new one, and therefore assistance refers to an action, not an object.

 

example: ankur gave financial assistance to the underpriviledged student.

 

i think its reasonable to say that i gave something and that being money, and therefore assistance refers to an object, not an action.

 

 

i dont think either is wrong in the context of the resolution and i dont agree that there is any reason to prefer either interp over the other.

 

which is why i dont think that topicality debates over this will be terribly exciting nor relevant after a short while - because the eng will simply choose the interp which excludes the affirmative and the affirmative will respond with 'we can never be topical because the neg would just switch it up'

 

 

 

 

PS - for the grammar lovers here.... do you think assistance might be a transitive verb?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...