Jump to content
wreckingmachine

Water for the Poor - SSA T

Recommended Posts

I searched this forum for Water for the Poor and to my surprise, found nothing about this. Isn't the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act blatantly untopical?

 

"Both USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation provide significant funding for water and sanitation provision and water-related programs. USAID, however, has the means to offer sector-specific technical advice at regional and global levels. This report lays out USAID strategies in four major regions, along with key countries for 2007 activities. The primary interventions, divided by USAID's four geographical bureaus, include:

  • Sub-Saharan Africa:
    • Expanded access to small-scale water supply and sanitation, including watershed protection;
    • Improved hygiene education;
    • Utility governance and regulation;
    • Mobilization of domestic financing; and
    • Improved local and transboundary capacity for reducing water conflict.

  • Asia and the Near East:
    • Expanded access to safe water supply;
    • Utility governance and regulation;
    • Mobilization of domestic financing; and
    • Expanded access to improved sanitation, with a focus on the urban poor.

  • Europe and Eurasia:
    • Fundamental legal and regulatory reform;
    • Financial and operational sustainability for utilities; and
    • Mobilization of domestic financing.

  • Latin America and the Caribbean:
    • Expanded access to safe water supply and sanitation;
    • Improved watershed management; and
    • Improved water productivity."

Yeah guys, not just SSA.

So in terms of a topicality violation, how could you prove abuse if they don't claim advantages off the other areas? I definitely want to make this into a T shell but am not sure where to go with the abuse story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why teams specify they're only implementing the topical portions of WFTPA in their plan... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if theire plan text simply implements the water for the poor act what you should do is a few things:

 

1) make sure their plan really is all of it...if it specifies ssa, your outta luck

2) read ssa = south of the sahara or some other generic ssa interpretations

3) read that ^ card as your violation to demonstrate how they are extra-topical

4) extra-t bad...:)

 

EDIT: and what he said above me, make your potential abuse is a voter arguments in the 1NC, they are just silly if they really do implement the entire act, thats ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while the argument makes sense.....its so bad.

 

a. the plan texts says to SSA- means they would the portions of SSA

b. even if they do go to the other regions, the only chance at winning this argument is if they claim a Latin American Water Wars advantage or one of the other regions.

c. no abuse

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) make sure their plan really is all of it...if it specifies ssa, your outta luck

 

But, the plan text has to reference the act when specifying SSA in order to still be topical. The plan text must directly claim that the plan will ONLY affect sub-Saharan Africa. If it doesn't they must defend the entirety of the act because they must defend the entirety of the Aff. If the plan text simply says:

 

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the Water for the Poor Act.

 

It's still Extra-T because the plan says it is enacting the entirety of the act. On the other hand if the plan text says something to the effect of:

 

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the topical portions Water for the Poor Act.

OR

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the sub-Saharan African portions of the Water for the Poor Act.

 

The first of the two listed above could also be used as a topicality violation because the term "topical" in the plan text is vague and can easily be used to dodge your links (moving target). Also, to prove abuse on Extra-T in cross-ex ask them if you ran disads to action in other places the plan acts would they defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, to prove abuse on Extra-T in cross-ex ask them if you ran disads to action in other places the plan acts would they defend it.

 

Perfect, that's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, the plan text has to reference the act when specifying SSA in order to still be topical. The plan text must directly claim that the plan will ONLY affect sub-Saharan Africa. If it doesn't they must defend the entirety of the act because they must defend the entirety of the Aff. If the plan text simply says:

 

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the Water for the Poor Act.

 

It's still Extra-T because the plan says it is enacting the entirety of the act. On the other hand if the plan text says something to the effect of:

 

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the topical portions Water for the Poor Act.

OR

The USfg should substantially increase its public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by enacting the sub-Saharan African portions of the Water for the Poor Act.

 

The first of the two listed above could also be used as a topicality violation because the term "topical" in the plan text is vague and can easily be used to dodge your links (moving target). Also, to prove abuse on Extra-T in cross-ex ask them if you ran disads to action in other places the plan acts would they defend it.

 

that was my point...i didnt actually feel like typing it out which is why i said: "if it specifies" meaning if the plan text enacts the wpa directed only towards ssa then they are topical

 

my point was to make sure, such as in cross-x, that they are going to defend their plan as written

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PIC out of the other areas that tehy implement and read a spending disad, or go to college caslists and put together a quick disad to assistance to china.

 

totally own them and dont even need to go for T.

 

good idea

 

the college topic this year is middle east though so you could put together a da to that actually i guess also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PIC out of the other areas that tehy implement and read a spending disad, or go to college caslists and put together a quick disad to assistance to china.

 

totally own them and dont even need to go for T.

 

But if they say that they aren't going to spike out of the links in cross-x, there isn't any reason not to go for T, too. Plus if they decide to be creeps and say "we don't give it to x country" despite saying in cross-x that they won't do that you're almost guaranteed to win the abuse story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if they say that they aren't going to spike out of the links in cross-x, there isn't any reason not to go for T, too. Plus if they decide to be creeps and say "we don't give it to x country" despite saying in cross-x that they won't do that you're almost guaranteed to win the abuse story.

 

I don't agree with this. Even if they won't defend neg offense outside of sub-Saharan action, their plan text still mandates it. The aff should be forced to defend the entirety of the plan text. But, the T abuse story is that mandating action outside of sub-Saharan Africa is illegitimate because that should be neg ground. For example, if you read a politics disad and the impact was Middle East conflict the aff could claim they somehow solve the impact. Or, even a CP to enact the Water for the Poor Act globally, should be neg ground, but under the aff's interpretation they get it. It basically makes a joke of the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think of it like this: either,

A. they don't defend the other regions and cannot guarantee solvency because their solvency evidence talks about the *entire act,* not just the act in SSA. (most likely). and dig up evidence on this. the act was designed to fix problems in all of those areas...just using one means that the act wont function properly.

 

or

 

B. they do utilize the act in the other regions and are Extra-T, and they must defend disad scenarios in those other regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah guys, not just SSA.

So in terms of a topicality violation, how could you prove abuse if they don't claim advantages off the other areas? I definitely want to make this into a T shell but am not sure where to go with the abuse story.

 

You don't even need to win on T

 

WFPA already passed, $300 million, they don't claim any of their advantages since they haven't changed (at least I don't think so)

 

Vote neg on presumption, easy win

 

But in this case, you can make the extra-T claim, if you can turn that into a card you can also prove how only a small fraction goes to Africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't even need to win on T

 

WFPA already passed, $300 million, they don't claim any of their advantages since they haven't changed (at least I don't think so)

 

Vote neg on presumption, easy win

 

But in this case, you can make the extra-T claim, if you can turn that into a card you can also prove how only a small fraction goes to Africa

 

while this is partially true they can still get their wpa aff if theyre smart about

 

a) strategic plan text

B) what your referring to happened recently but that 300mil was for all of the acts funds not JUST ssa

c) theres some good comparative ev. indicating the amound allocated for ssa isnt enough and it says it explicitly needs ____ more, good solvency advocate

 

just because some measures have been taken do not guarantee a 100% inherency/solvency takeout

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't even need to win on T

 

WFPA already passed, $300 million, they don't claim any of their advantages since they haven't changed (at least I don't think so)

 

 

OMG INHERENCY

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably rarely win the potential abuse story. They never make the claims on face that they solve for more than just sub-saharan africa, and they probably specify in the plan text. However, I suppose it is always worth a shot. Extra-T usually errs aff without abuse though.

 

You could however claim that their literature that says like, "millions of people die because of poor water treatment" or whatever include non sub-saharan african deaths, and thus when they try and outweigh your disad thats abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...