Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cheershoes09

(Aff)Water for Poor Act plan

Recommended Posts

I just want to know some opinions about one of my cases for this years topic.

Plan: Basically we're taking 20 or 30% of the money that goes to countries that don't need clean water and sanitation efforts as much as sub-Saharan Africa does and adding it to the 15 million dollars that the Water for Poor Act already provides for sub-Saharan Africa...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been out of the loop for a while. But to be totally honest I'm a little confused as to how this plan is going to work. How are you going to determine if a country doesn't need the clean water and sanitation efforts if they're already receiving the clean water and sanitation aid? And what impacts will this 15-20% deduction in aid have on the countries you will be withdrawing it from? They obviously need the aid, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving it. Also, how will you be able to determine which SSA nations will need the aid the most?

 

Will you give it to the Sudan who recently has desert moving into their country and is a cause for the Darfur conflict, due to the decrease in land for the farmers and nomads, or some other nation?

 

Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my teams has been running this aff pretty successfully. The way we're running it claims that the money is being spent in the wrong places now and that is perpetuating the harms. Plan puts in the right place. We claim disease and the big advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funding mechanism would need evidence on its being normal means. Otherwise, yeah, Will's right. Even though you aren't neccessarily claiming advantages off where you're taking the money from (i.e, X country is corrupt, WFTP somehow feeds it, -->Impact), you'll lose that you're taking non-resolutional action to fulfill the plan mandates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well to clear up how we decide what countries dont need the water, we have evidence as one of our harms that the U.S has sent "clean" water sanitation and supplies etc. to countries out of strategic interest. In other words giving aid to AFGANISTAN b/c we don't have good ties with them, so the U.S would just give them aid to look good..so we're not saying these countries don't NEED it..SSA just needs it more right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been running this plan with Urban areas only as an I and its undefeated so far lots of evidence on good governance, solvency, and also Education is apparently a big one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That links hardcore into a trade-off disad, like funding to Iraq, and when you start spiking out of disads it proves abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to know some opinions about one of my cases for this years topic.

Plan: Basically we're taking 20 or 30% of the money that goes to countries that don't need clean water and sanitation efforts as much as sub-Saharan Africa does and adding it to the 15 million dollars that the Water for Poor Act already provides for sub-Saharan Africa...

 

 

T on Public and SSA defined as sent to everyone in all 48 countries... you could alter P.T. but 1. Abuse 2. Link hard to spending and tradeoffs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

that makes sense

its not his fault you don't know that P.T. means plan text

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...