Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wahoobob

Cactus Aff

Recommended Posts

This weekend I was faced countering the following argument in a regional debate tourney:

 

"The US Gov't should increase public health assistance to SSA by planting 400 million cacti there."

 

Apparently these cacti only grow in the Southwestern US, and a select number of universities in the area know how to grow them. Thier 'juices' can be used to purify water 3x faster than 'normal methods,' and they can also be used to eat and to repell insects. [solves: water, food, malaria]

 

My opponents would not discuss the cost of the plan, declaring a Fiat and arguring that the cost was thus irrelevent.

 

I tried running a "Japan Does the Plan" CP, but the opponents claimed that Japan did not have the experties or the resources.

 

How would I better counter the argument in the future to win the debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien-invasive species bad seems like a viable on-case strategy.

 

Also, you can point out that most of Sub-Saharan Africa is not a desert. Seems like a pretty major solvency deficit to me.

 

Oh, and if that's their plan text you could always run Cactus-Spec. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t. t pha, t its, t ssa won't be able to plant them in every part of the region because it is unrealistic to think they would be able to do it (need to research that though). do a huge solvency dump, like they would be destroying the eco-system by putting these foreign plants there. run a development k. run a cp with a different solvency mechanism for water as a time skew, and mostly win on t. what was the plan text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably evidence out there that says plants and animals tend to die when placed in entirely different environments (i.e. desert cactus into a very precipitous area); that would gut solvency. Also, it probably destroys ecosystems.

 

Topicality; sending plants probably isn't public health assistance, at best it's effectually topical.

 

Get their cites; I seriously doubt any of their evidence is good, and you can make fun of it and how cacti won't be able to solve anything (because they probably can't).

 

They don't give to governments and they don't provide funding; that's a T violation, too.

 

Your actor counterplan probably won't work; they're right, Japan doesn't really grow cacti. If you do a bit of work, you can probably PIC out of something (like, instead of planting the cacti, cultivate them in temperate climates; that solves back for the plants all dying).

 

If they refuse to tell you how much the cacti will cost, just read your own ev. I did a quick google search, and found out that they can cost almost 3000 dollars apiece (http://phoenix.craigslist.org/clt/623332012.html). That, times 400,000,000 would be 1.2 Trillion dollars... make them read evidence that says otherwise. Fiat doesn't mean the plan won't spend money.

 

 

So your strat could look something like:

 

T - PHA is Bilateral Only / funding only

T - Cacti =/= PHA

PIC

Solvency

Spending DA

Advantage 1/2/3

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How would I better counter the argument in the future to win the debate?"

 

Like stated above, having a very good set of things too say on T-PH is very good. I have random stuff about how introducing new species kills local species which ruins biodiversity in my tub. But yeah I just cut irrelevant cards for fun and never use them. So that probably wouldn't have helped anyway.

 

But I can bet if you collected their ev. It probably didn't have very good warrants/specifics so I would have definately listed implementation problems: i.e. who plants these cacti? where are they planted so local people can get them?

 

Finally, I defs would have talked about how African climated are horrible (maybe in a biotech AFF) (the lit.s definately out there) unless they had a super good card saying these cacti would survive everywhere in Africa. cuz I live in New Mexico, and I'm pretty sure most cacti are difficult to try and grow. Like isn't there flooding in like Ethiopia *tries to add another like for effect*?

 

I probably wouldn't run a pic. An advantage counterplan with a spending DA would work though. Like cacti=1.2 Trillion dollars, irrigation funding=a lot less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\\

 

My opponents would not discuss the cost of the plan, declaring a Fiat and arguring that the cost was thus irrelevent.

 

How would I better counter the argument in the future to win the debate?

 

Well first thing you can say is that you can't fiat spending because the spending is something that would happen as a result of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If their evidence is right that it is only in US territories and universities, then there's no reason why an Agent CP wouldn't solve. In the instance of Japan - fiat means that Japan will do the nasty nasty (or you know, just trade/purchase) cacti from these universities and sellers. I mean, seriously, the US isn't the only country with cacti. There isn't some "super, secret cactus that only the USFG can use!" -- especially if they're planting 400 million in a climate not suitable for cacti....

 

Even if your solvency mechanism is just "they'll buy them from US universities / cacti farms," it still avoids the politics or US spending DA because they're obviously separate from the fed gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well first thing you can say is that you can't fiat spending because the spending is something that would happen as a result of the plan.

 

I know that you can't fiat spending, and I told them that they would still need the money from somewhere, but they replied that the cost was irrelevent did I have any other questions.

 

What would I do in a situation where they basically refuse to answer the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that you can't fiat spending, and I told them that they would still need the money from somewhere, but they replied that the cost was irrelevent did I have any other questions.

 

What would I do in a situation where they basically refuse to answer the question?

 

Explain why cost IS relevant... in the form of a disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the funding is what you're worried about, run a Spending DA and F-spec along with the rest of the strats suggested. If they spike out of spending with their ridiculous fiat claim, you've got legit abuse on the F-spec flow.

 

EDIT: What school ran this aff? I can't understand why anyone would want to submit themselves to defending it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...