Jump to content
Guest silvermdc1

Water Affirmative Strategy

Recommended Posts

Guest silvermdc1

What would you run against a Water Affirmative with the advantages being

 

Water Borne Diseases and Water Wars and the Plan

 

THUS THE PLAN – The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance by fully funding and implementing the ‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’ to Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you run against a Water Affirmative with the advantages being

 

Water Borne Diseases and Water Wars and the Plan

 

THUS THE PLAN – The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance by fully funding and implementing the ‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’ to Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

 

water=panopticon

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should PIC out of any of the 10+ extra topical sections of the Water for the Poor act like governance or privatization

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T: Water for the Poor Act cant be funded, it's just goals and authorization to fulfill them. There are no programs. There's no increase.

 

T: Substantially=W/out material quals

 

Case (Water Wars adv.): Water Wars don't happen and govt. action worsens.

 

Case (Disease adv.): Education necessary to solve.

 

Case: Generic solvency, inherency.

 

Terminal Defense on both advantages.

 

Constitutionality Disad

 

Spending Disad

 

Corruption Disad

 

International Actor CP (Japan, Canada, etc.)

 

Compassion Fatigue

 

Disease Representations

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T: Water for the Poor Act cant be funded, it's just goals and authorization to fulfill them. There are no programs. There's no increase.

 

T: Substantially=W/out material quals

 

Case (Water Wars adv.): Water Wars don't happen and govt. action worsens.

 

Case (Disease adv.): Education necessary to solve.

 

Case: Generic solvency, inherency.

 

Terminal Defense on both advantages.

 

Constitutionality Disad

 

Spending Disad

 

Corruption Disad

 

International Actor CP (Japan, Canada, etc.)

 

Compassion Fatigue

 

Disease Representations

 

To me that just looks like a massive overload. Just go Solvency, T, and maybe a disad or two, and a K (reps is okay but whatever you want that links). What's the point of thowing all of that useless crap against them?

 

I suggest you just make a generic strat that you know will work every time and use it. Change it a bit depending on the case, but you should always have a generic argument that links to everything and then add some spin that's specific to the case itself. A lot of teams use the TKO strat (where you have a T double-bind that automatically links you to the K and then extra solvency that relates to the K in one way or another). That's just what I use and I think it's a good generic way to debate and not have to spend a lot of time on politics research.

 

I just have a question though: what's the relationship between these arguments and why argue these specifically? Why is it this specific strat that you'll use against a water case.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just have a question though: what's the relationship between these arguments and why argue these specifically? Why is it this specific strat that you'll use against a water case.

 

Nothing, he just enjoys disclosing his favorite neg arguments on the internet so people know what to expect when debating him.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

i totally don't get the link story for constitutionalism...

but my strat is usually politics with a WFPA-specific link, heg bad, D-porn, China CP, China DA, and then a case dump on advantage defense and solvency turns

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you run against a Water Affirmative with the advantages being

 

Water Borne Diseases and Water Wars and the Plan

 

THUS THE PLAN – The United States federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance by fully funding and implementing the ‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’ to Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

You're the most troll-like person ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make args on water wars that the evidence speaks of lack of water as a physical entity, and not the cleanliness of it

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

but the act does provide water

from what i've read, it both provides a free, reliable source of usable water

AND

it increases the quality of sanitation services for countries to supplement that supply with purified water that was once not feasible to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been mentioned before but this is really the best aff to run some sort of international actor counterplan because honestly, there is no true US Key warrant. I just saw on the news the other day that Israel has the best water purification technology in the world. I haven't taken the time to actually try and cut this, but seriously, the US isn't the only ones who can do the plan.

 

Otherwise, it links to just about every other position that you could think of. It is a good aff for negative ground -- substantive, procedural, and critical arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me that just looks like a massive overload. Just go Solvency, T, and maybe a disad or two, and a K (reps is okay but whatever you want that links). What's the point of thowing all of that useless crap against them?

 

I suggest you just make a generic strat that you know will work every time and use it. Change it a bit depending on the case, but you should always have a generic argument that links to everything and then add some spin that's specific to the case itself. A lot of teams use the TKO strat (where you have a T double-bind that automatically links you to the K and then extra solvency that relates to the K in one way or another). That's just what I use and I think it's a good generic way to debate and not have to spend a lot of time on politics research.

 

I just have a question though: what's the relationship between these arguments and why argue these specifically? Why is it this specific strat that you'll use against a water case.

agreed, you should be running generic things usually because you'll get better and better at it, but as long as you insert specific links and give examples from the 1ac of links (ie for a critique) it should be fine. Pretty much any kritik links to this, and international counterplans are good as someone mentioned. Extra t as well. Better to just overload the 1nc and block takes 3 or so good arguments

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually having a discussion about the international actor CPs on a different thread the other day. It was mostly about weighing the net benefit against the one or more advantages the CP doesn't solve for because of the US key warrent. I think that when the US key warrent is that weak, like in this case, an international actor CP would probably be a very effective argument to run. I think that if you run it, you should probably go for it, so I would make the 1NR go 5 minutes on-case. That would allow you to make a gigantic impact calc in the 2NR (solvency deficit/ minor disads of the CP vs the net benefits and disad of the aff plan). It would be kind of risky and you'd really have to get used to it, but I think it would probably work pretty well (assuming you know what you're doing). I'm not really a CP debater myself (cuz I basically go for K every round) so I'm just curious to know about the CP start. How much do you care about the US key warrent and is that the argument you really have to enforce on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing, he just enjoys disclosing his favorite neg arguments on the internet so people know what to expect when debating him.

 

I think only 3 of those things on the list are arguments I would actually run. Maybe 4. I was just throwing some ideas out there.

 

I was actually having a discussion about the international actor CPs on a different thread the other day. It was mostly about weighing the net benefit against the one or more advantages the CP doesn't solve for because of the US key warrent. I think that when the US key warrent is that weak, like in this case, an international actor CP would probably be a very effective argument to run. I think that if you run it, you should probably go for it, so I would make the 1NR go 5 minutes on-case. That would allow you to make a gigantic impact calc in the 2NR (solvency deficit/ minor disads of the CP vs the net benefits and disad of the aff plan). It would be kind of risky and you'd really have to get used to it, but I think it would probably work pretty well (assuming you know what you're doing). I'm not really a CP debater myself (cuz I basically go for K every round) so I'm just curious to know about the CP start. How much do you care about the US key warrent and is that the argument you really have to enforce on?

 

The US key evidence on clean water isn't that great. There's also evidence that says that African countries would rather have aid from China than the US or the Western world because of the conditions attached to aid. China could potentially have better solvency on some cases.

 

I really like the international actor CP on this topic. Canada, Japan, and China all seem like solid choices. China has a nice NB to it. If you ask me, the neg is on the better side of the theory debate, not only because I feel that international actor CPs are completely legit, but also because the aff is worse off for time if they get bogged down in a theory debate.

 

Edit: Combined my double posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think only 3 of those things on the list are arguments I would actually run. Maybe 4. I was just throwing some ideas out there.

 

 

 

The US key evidence on clean water isn't that great. There's also evidence that says that African countries would rather have aid from China than the US or the Western world because of the conditions attached to aid. China could potentially have better solvency on some cases.

 

I really like the international actor CP on this topic. Canada, Japan, and China all seem like solid choices. China has a nice NB to it. If you ask me, the neg is on the better side of the theory debate, not only because I feel that international actor CPs are completely legit, but also because the aff is worse off for time if they get bogged down in a theory debate.

 

Edit: Combined my double posts.

 

I agree that China has a definite potential to do the plan. It has a rising economy, a non-Western approach, a non-Neoliberal approach, and it wants to, which is also a big plus. Canada is not really the best country to do a plan like water because it requires a lot of money. Canada's infrastructure and economy isn't as capable of dealing with billions of dollars in aid every year. They have the ability, but because they are a socialist nation with such high taxes, the chances of them investing more money in international aid are quite slim. Japan has a rising economy as well, but Japan doesn't have as much influence in the world or the structural capabilities necessary to solve for the water problems. Those are just some generic answers to those CPs that you've probably heard, but it's really more about the economics than anything else.

 

Have you heard of the Ireland CP? I think Ireland might actually have a chance because they give aid through NGOs but are allowed to firect funding to wherever they think is necessary. Obviously they're kind of corrupt, but they probably have as much, if not more, potential as Canada or Japan.

 

There are some policy cases I've heard that claim modeling solvency. I don't know if there are cards specific to water, but in any case, when you debate an international actor CP, not only do you focus on the advantage solvency deficit but also the modeling stuff. I personally disagree that the US is modeled very much right now, but Iraq proves differently and so does current aid to SSA, so that might be a pretty good US key warrent just to have in your case.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though if this became the primary strat this year and if everyone ran the international actor CPs. I think China is best, but again, there's lots of debate on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water for the Poor act just calls on everyone to meet the Millennium Development Goals, it doesnt increase anything. Run some international actor CP, T-increase, Extra T (I think the bill just says developing countries, which would include Asia and Latin America), Corruption DA, and some disaster porn K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that China has a definite potential to do the plan. It has a rising economy, a non-Western approach, a non-Neoliberal approach, and it wants to, which is also a big plus. Canada is not really the best country to do a plan like water because it requires a lot of money. Canada's infrastructure and economy isn't as capable of dealing with billions of dollars in aid every year. They have the ability, but because they are a socialist nation with such high taxes, the chances of them investing more money in international aid are quite slim. Japan has a rising economy as well, but Japan doesn't have as much influence in the world or the structural capabilities necessary to solve for the water problems. Those are just some generic answers to those CPs that you've probably heard, but it's really more about the economics than anything else.

 

Meh, generic arguments. Even if CP doesn't solve 100% of case, you can still win some solvency and outweigh with a few disads.

 

Have you heard of the Ireland CP? I think Ireland might actually have a chance because they give aid through NGOs but are allowed to firect funding to wherever they think is necessary. Obviously they're kind of corrupt, but they probably have as much, if not more, potential as Canada or Japan.

 

Any idea who put out the Ireland CP?

 

There are some policy cases I've heard that claim modeling solvency. I don't know if there are cards specific to water, but in any case, when you debate an international actor CP, not only do you focus on the advantage solvency deficit but also the modeling stuff. I personally disagree that the US is modeled very much right now, but Iraq proves differently and so does current aid to SSA, so that might be a pretty good US key warrent just to have in your case.

 

Modeling arguments are dumb, imo. There's a card I like that says a great quote saying something along the lines that "The US couldn't lead in organizing a lemonade stand, much less humanitarian intervention".

 

The US doesn't have a whole lot of international respect right now.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though if this became the primary strat this year and if everyone ran the international actor CPs. I think China is best, but again, there's lots of debate on both sides.

 

I'm sure my China file will be well used as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I suggest you just make a generic strat that you know will work every time and use it.

 

 

Or you could be strategic and have a specific strat and win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you could be strategic and have a specific strat and win the debate.

 

Maybe for a case like water that's okay, but there are so many different aff this year that it's impossible to diffentiate your strat that much. PLus you get used to the arguments you run every round so you actually increase your win chances that way. Being too specific is bad because the affirmative knows their case really well so they can argue it a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe for a case like water that's okay, but there are so many different aff this year that it's impossible to diffentiate your strat that much. PLus you get used to the arguments you run every round so you actually increase your win chances that way. Being too specific is bad because the affirmative knows their case really well so they can argue it a lot better.

 

If you run generic arguments every round you become really easy to scout/prepare for and are more likely to lose because you'll get out-teched on the link debates to arguments by their specific evidence- not to mention how much easier it is to generate offense against generic positions than new case specific strats. if anything, you are more likely to lose because the aff knows their case well when you run a generic argument that a specific counter-plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you run generic arguments every round you become really easy to scout/prepare for and are more likely to lose because you'll get out-teched on the link debates to arguments by their specific evidence- not to mention how much easier it is to generate offense against generic positions than new case specific strats. if anything, you are more likely to lose because the aff knows their case well when you run a generic argument that a specific counter-plan.

 

I wasn't saying you can't differentiate your strategy, but just that this year has so many different aff cases that it's almost impossible to have arguments ready for every single case. If they can out-tech you on the links, that just means they're a really good team, so you just have to focus more on that argument. Or, as I would do, I would usually just go for the solvency time skew if that happens (as in, devote the entire block to differentiated offense on their case and drop everything else). The thing about this specific counterplan is that they will be ready for it. They've spent months preparing for arguments that are specifically against their case, so they know what to expect. Then some guy comes into a round with a kritik of time (or just some arguemnt that's really old) and they pull out their backfiles to read the generic answers they have. Obviously you have more of a chance. Agreed, though, that by the time you've debated them two or three times, they will have a nice block written to it, but that works for everything, even that specific CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think they wont be more prepared for a generic strategy than a specific counterplan or PIC that you cut yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you think they wont be more prepared for a generic strategy than a specific counterplan or PIC that you cut yourself.

 

What exactly do you mean by "cut yourself"? Chances are, if it's good, it's something they've already heard of and know what to expect. If it's not, then it's not really a winning argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...