Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HxC Forensics

Aff: Wetlands. Good Idea?

Recommended Posts

Im putting a South African Wetlands Rehabilitation Aff. Can any think of any neg strats that could be run on it? Im writing up blocks so all help will be appreciated. The solvency claims are; 1. Water. sub a. Water wars. sub b. Disease. sub. 2. Food. 3. Biodiversity. 4. Soil erosion.

 

I'm also thinking of running a 2AC add on Econ ADV.

 

-Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

ok

we need more than just an idea in order to come up with some strategy

plan text would be greatly appreciated

although on face, you're most likely not going to have any internal links to water wars, biodiversity, or food production

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Enviro not public health

Some sort of enviromental securitization K

Maybe an envirmental management K

Spending

WFPA Enforcement CP (Yah, it solves your advs)

China

Country exlusion bad

Politix

Spending

(Other germane disads)

EU/China (any international actor)

 

Thats what you should be blocked for off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of right now, i actually dont have a plan txt. We were writing the case last night and have yet to get to it.

 

But i imagine we would write it like so... The united states federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance by rehabilitating all potential wetland areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Im sure we would word it better, but right now thats the best i have.

 

Svfry- Our internal link for water wars (which has evidence) is that the reason that water wars are occuring is because of factors like, wetland degregation, deforestization, etc. As for biodiversity, we have cards saying that wetlands are the most influential ecosystems in the world and because they are slowly decaying, species that can be found in no other places are dying. Then we lead into the over used card that says "with every exctinction of a species, we become that much closer to humanities exctinction." Finally for food production, again, we have evidence stating that wetlands are key for agriculture, and can be directly and indirectly used for food consumption by millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey
As of right now, i actually dont have a plan txt. We were writing the case last night and have yet to get to it.

 

But i imagine we would write it like so... The united states federal government should substantially increase its public health assistance by rehabilitating all potential wetland areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Im sure we would word it better, but right now thats the best i have.

 

Svfry- Our internal link for water wars (which has evidence) is that the reason that water wars are occuring is because of factors like, wetland degregation, deforestization, etc. As for biodiversity, we have cards saying that wetlands are the most influential ecosystems in the world and because they are slowly decaying, species that can be found in no other places are dying. Then we lead into the over used card that says "with every exctinction of a species, we become that much closer to humanities exctinction." Finally for food production, again, we have evidence stating that wetlands are key for agriculture, and can be directly and indirectly used for food consumption by millions of people.

 

ok

before i begin, i run the WFPA on aff, so don't think i'm pulling this out of my ass. i'm pretty familiar with how water affects africa.

 

water wars: first of all, there are no water wars occurring in the SQ. that should be your inherency. and your internal link can't be because there's wetland destruction, it has to be because of water shortages. and the last time i checked, wetlands didn't really provide any useful drinking water anyways, so....

second, just because you provide a somewhat useful source of water doesn't mean you provide the means/infrastructure for them to use it properly, which has two implications. 1) it means the "fund the water for the poor act" CP solves your entire case better than the plan. 2) it means that countries will inevitably misuse the wetlands, making your impacts terminally non-unique

 

bio-diversity: wait, i thought it was to south africa?..... if it is, then you're in a double bind - either a) you have no internal link to the biodiversity of ALL of SSA and for that matter global bio-d or B) you do have one and your impact is non-unique/has no threshold because destruction of species is kinda happening right now and there's no way to tell how many species in SSA we need to lose global bio-d, plus, use something other than the Diner 94 card. its awful. each species we lose definitely does not bring us a lot closer to extinction.

 

food production: okay. this is fundamentally flawed for a couple of reasons.

one, there's no way people can use wetlands for agriculture; they're called "wetlands" for a reason: its not possible for farm on them because they are soaking wet! But if it were somehow possible for them to produce food on them, then its an internal case turn, because that just means that the water in the wetlands gets used up faster, increasing the risk of water wars.

 

Edit: I highly recommend using this Bio-d impact card:

 

The doctrine of biodiversity breaks down the dominant structures that cause suffering. We uniquely solve for the evils of patriarchy, violence, colonialism, militarism, and globalization. We must reject utilitarian impact and recognize the biological imperative.

 

Hawthorn 01 (gale group, “wild politics: feminism, globalization, and biodiversity”

 

There are the many millions…and how we act

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...