Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Synergy

name some disads you've heard to the WHO coutnerplan

Recommended Posts

Yeah, this was my generic CP for disease based aff's this year and there is very little offence that doesn't link back to the aff besides generics. Depending on how you write the text also determines some offence/solvency takeouts.

 

However UN bad, funding trade off DA's, and solvency turns (UN biased) have been read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't people run UN politics disads? You know, just like regular tix, but based on UN actions instead of Congress?

 

Permanent member X will veto ABC unless they get a quid-pro-quo. Action by the WHO on such-and-such issue would be an olive branch to permanent member X. If ABC gets through the Security Council all kinds of badness will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't people run UN politics disads? You know, just like regular tix, but based on UN actions instead of Congress?

 

Permanent member X will veto ABC unless they get a quid-pro-quo. Action by the WHO on such-and-such issue would be an olive branch to permanent member X. If ABC gets through the Security Council all kinds of badness will happen.

Not to sound lazy, but thats alot of work for a CP thats not run much. I haven't hit a WHO CP all year, and neither has anyone on my team. I also think it'd be a bit contrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some research in hopes of proving a UN politics disad possible.

 

The reality is that it's a lot of work. Your best online resources are cfr.org and securitycouncilreport.org with supplements from the usual rainbow of news sources and think tanks. However, getting the spillover link between WHO actions and Security Council politics is difficult. The link story was very good in the early 90s when the WHO was subject to a lot of politicization and criticism, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

 

I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did some research in hopes of proving a UN politics disad possible.

 

The reality is that it's a lot of work. Your best online resources are cfr.org and securitycouncilreport.org with supplements from the usual rainbow of news sources and think tanks. However, getting the spillover link between WHO actions and Security Council politics is difficult. The link story was very good in the early 90s when the WHO was subject to a lot of politicization and criticism, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

 

I stand corrected.

 

Yeah, no one ever ran anything remotely like this against my WHO CP. Like you said, its probably too much work for a ill-contrived DA.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the link to UN bad?

 

The WHO is part of the UN, so you say the WHO action cements their credibility worldwide and boosts UN cred, then UN bad ev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The WHO is part of the UN, so you say the WHO action cements their credibility worldwide and boosts UN cred, then UN bad ev.

i know that. but voting aff doesn't destroy the un, so un peacekeeping/corruption/etc are inevitable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the link to UN bad?

The link might not necessarily be predicated off the existed on the UN but it's credibility (general or on health issues).

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...