Jump to content
Guest silvermdc1

Water Affirmative Strategy

Recommended Posts

Seriously, Omnibus screwed this. Watch out for the non-u DA claim if they somehow weasel out of it. Make them admit that they are just funding.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i get that the inherency is pretty much gone, but im still worried about this case because few ppl can actually win rounds on inherency. i have yet to actually debate this but i know of at least one very good team in my area that is running it. im wondering if anyone has any case specific da's or at least wpa specific link cards..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bloggingonwater.blogspot.com/2008/01/water-for-poor-act-funded.html

 

Yep, signed it and it is specific to Africa and SSA!

 

bush signed it--it was part of omnibus

 

the card i have says over a third goes to fully funding africa + the strong implementation language ensures there won't be diversion like last time. the title of the article is " Omnibus sets aside $300M in foreign aid for safe water programs"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRESS JUST PASSED 300 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE WATER FOR THE POOR ACT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAFE DRINKING WATER TO THE WORLD

 

Ascribe Newswire, “Congress Prioritizes Drinking Water and Sanitation for World's Poor; Water Advocates Commends Congress for Addressing World's Largest Public Health Threat”, Dec. 20, 2007, p. http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20071220.074015&time=08%2006%20PST&year=2007&public=0

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (AScribe Newswire) -- The U.S. Congress demonstrated once again its leadership regarding the key development challenge of the 21st century - the global safe drinking water and sanitation crisis. The omnibus appropriations bill passed by the House and Senate this week includes $300 million for safe drinking water and sanitation supply projects to implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. If the omnibus bill is signed into law by the President, it will result in a dramatic increase in funding for safe, affordable, and sustainable supplies of drinking water and sanitation in the poorest regions of the developing world. Strong implementing language in both the text of the bill and the accompanying joint explanatory statement will help ensure that the funding is spent as Congress intends.

 

THE BILL PROVIDES 125 MILLION DOLLARS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

 

Greenwire, “APPROPRIATIONS: Omnibus sets aside $300M in foreign aid for safe water programs”, Dec. 20, 2007, p. L/N.

 

The omnibus spending bill passed by Congress this week provides funding for drinking water and sanitation supply projects in developing countries. Included in the $555 billion spending bill is $300 million to implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, or H.R. 1973. The act aims to halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015 as compared to 1990 levels. Of those funds, $125 million is slated for projects in Africa, and $15 million is supposed to go to programs improving women's leadership in recipient countries. In the omnibus, Congress suggests another $10 million could be made available to support a fund for poverty-stricken women in developing countries. Although Congress passed the bill and the president signed it in 2005, fiscal 2008 marks the first year legislators have set aside money to fund the programs it authorizes. "This congressional support -- which complements new and greater funding for water from private American citizens -- will reduce disease and improve the quality of life for many of the world's poor," David Douglas, president of Water Advocates, said in a statement. "Water Advocates commends Congress for providing this vital funding." The funding is targeted toward installing pumps and wells, building water systems and supporting safe hygiene programs in developing countries. Sponsors of the bill have been active this year in pushing for its implementation. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spoke at a Water Advocates news conference in the spring and pledged to make the funding happen. "This is clearly something we can do, clearly something we should do," Brownback said (Greenwire, March 22). Water-related diseases kill up to 5 million people annually, according to the Paul Simon Act. The legislation also states that in the world's poorest countries one in five children dies from a preventable, water-related disease.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know that many articles were written about the ineffectiveness of the funding that was passed and i need that for inherency. does anyone have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CONGRESS JUST PASSED 300 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE WATER FOR THE POOR ACT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SAFE DRINKING WATER TO THE WORLD

 

Ascribe Newswire, “Congress Prioritizes Drinking Water and Sanitation for World's Poor; Water Advocates Commends Congress for Addressing World's Largest Public Health Threat”, Dec. 20, 2007, p. http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20071220.074015&time=08%2006%20PST&year=2007&public=0

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (AScribe Newswire) -- The U.S. Congress demonstrated once again its leadership regarding the key development challenge of the 21st century - the global safe drinking water and sanitation crisis. The omnibus appropriations bill passed by the House and Senate this week includes $300 million for safe drinking water and sanitation supply projects to implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. If the omnibus bill is signed into law by the President, it will result in a dramatic increase in funding for safe, affordable, and sustainable supplies of drinking water and sanitation in the poorest regions of the developing world. Strong implementing language in both the text of the bill and the accompanying joint explanatory statement will help ensure that the funding is spent as Congress intends.

 

THE BILL PROVIDES 125 MILLION DOLLARS TO SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

 

Greenwire, “APPROPRIATIONS: Omnibus sets aside $300M in foreign aid for safe water programs”, Dec. 20, 2007, p. L/N.

 

The omnibus spending bill passed by Congress this week provides funding for drinking water and sanitation supply projects in developing countries. Included in the $555 billion spending bill is $300 million to implement the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005, or H.R. 1973. The act aims to halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015 as compared to 1990 levels. Of those funds, $125 million is slated for projects in Africa, and $15 million is supposed to go to programs improving women's leadership in recipient countries. In the omnibus, Congress suggests another $10 million could be made available to support a fund for poverty-stricken women in developing countries. Although Congress passed the bill and the president signed it in 2005, fiscal 2008 marks the first year legislators have set aside money to fund the programs it authorizes. "This congressional support -- which complements new and greater funding for water from private American citizens -- will reduce disease and improve the quality of life for many of the world's poor," David Douglas, president of Water Advocates, said in a statement. "Water Advocates commends Congress for providing this vital funding." The funding is targeted toward installing pumps and wells, building water systems and supporting safe hygiene programs in developing countries. Sponsors of the bill have been active this year in pushing for its implementation. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spoke at a Water Advocates news conference in the spring and pledged to make the funding happen. "This is clearly something we can do, clearly something we should do," Brownback said (Greenwire, March 22). Water-related diseases kill up to 5 million people annually, according to the Paul Simon Act. The legislation also states that in the world's poorest countries one in five children dies from a preventable, water-related disease.

Inherency! Thats a round winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than existential inherency, what sort of inherency does this AFF have going for it? I mean really, show me some recent cards saying that the money spent isn't enough or that this is the last time we will and maybe everyone wll shut up. Structurally, there is no reason why the USfg wouldn't provide more money, nor any obstacle hindering them. And obviously any attidudes against giving money arent enough to prevent Congress from spending money on it as they already have.

 

My point is this, where are your authors, post-Omnibus, that say the money appropriated is not enough, or that Congress is no longer interested in giving money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inherency! Thats a round winner!

 

I hope that was sarcasm. But sadly, I doubt it was.

 

I leave you with a smiley: :S:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if a case is actually non-inherent, and the NEG completely wins on that point, you can win on that plus a small risk on any stupid DA they hopefully only have defense on, and that'd be a round-winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if a case is actually non-inherent, and the NEG completely wins on that point, you can win on that plus a small risk on any stupid DA they hopefully only have defense on, and that'd be a round-winner.

 

How does that work exactly? What risk can you win on a DA if the case in non-inherent? My point is that if you win the case has no inherency, the DA doesn't have any uniqueness. Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does that work exactly? What risk can you win on a DA if the case in non-inherent? My point is that if you win the case has no inherency, the DA doesn't have any uniqueness. Make sense?

 

I see what you're saying, but for the water aff (assuming it's paul simon water act)

 

say you run a generic spending DA. so the link would be that increasing money for the paul simon act --> mead 92 nuke war. bad DA, but if they don't have offense on it, you win a risk of the impact. now, on inherency, you argue the water aid is being increased anyways, and will solve 100% of their harms, but spending even more than is necessary triggers the spending DA. the argument is that in the status quo, water aid is being increased already, and there still is a perception of fiscal discipline. but adding to it is what triggers the link and pushes the perception of fiscal discipline off the brink.

 

of course, if you do argue exactly what the plan does is non-inherent, your DA would have no unique brink

 

it just seems inherency can be used as a counterplan of sorts - a way to capture case solvency, win a small risk on DA, but instead of advocating the counterplan you advocate the status quo, arguing it already solves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smart teams have cards that more than 125 million is needed. One team read that 4 billion is needed... Inherency doesn't help unless the aff reads perception advantages in which case inherency takes those out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smart teams have cards that more than 125 million is needed. One team read that 4 billion is needed... Inherency doesn't help unless the aff reads perception advantages in which case inherency takes those out.

 

Well, I guess, but isn't the hope that they don't have that evidence why you'd run non-inherency in the first place? And unless they outright drop it, you probably wouldn't extend it to the 2NR. But if you do run inherency, you probably run it in the hope that the 2AC shrugs it off as worthless defense, drops it, only puts defense on one of your DAs, and gets pwnt.

 

That'd be a hilarious block. 8 minutes on a spending DA and 5 minutes on inherency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smart teams have cards that more than 125 million is needed. One team read that 4 billion is needed... Inherency doesn't help unless the aff reads perception advantages in which case inherency takes those out.

 

1) Where are those cards?

2) All of your solvency advocates are speaking in relation to the WFTPA which only required $125 million. Meaning unless your not operating under such legislation, those arbitrary numbers with 9 zeros behind them mean shit and we still gain full solvency w/ the status quo.

3) Smart teams would have abondoned the WFTPA and started to address another sector of water sanitation/assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it just seems inherency can be used as a counterplan of sorts - a way to capture case solvency, win a small risk on DA, but instead of advocating the counterplan you advocate the status quo, arguing it already solves

 

That's what we used to call a minor repair back in the old days!

 

Yeah, "wow"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...