Jump to content

sheep

Member
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

sheep last won the day on April 4 2008

sheep had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

About sheep

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 11/18/1991
  1. yes lol, intentional. think long and hard about that one. as for accidents, mandelbaum would say the existence of militarized tensions would have to precede the accident in order for it to escalate. fortunately, countries would never come to the point of military crisis since tensions would be amicably resolved Fair enough, any specific thing the 2AR should have done?
  2. Okay, that uniqueness point makes sense. Thanks to all three judges and the team for their participation. Any audience reactions to the args in the round?
  3. Penguin (and maybe ORR), how did you evaluate the argument the 2nr took out 100% risk of their net-benefit because he extended our analysis that there'd never be escalation to great power war? That seems to me like a reason to not even look at the Russia flow.
  4. Rule one of debate: Strategic Choices They didn’t make ‘em, vote aff— 1.2NR concedes mandlebaum—great powers won’t use nukes even if they proliferate more of them—if accidents occur, countries would negotiate and call to see that it’s just an accident because there’s no motivation for escalation 2. Overpop is a decision-rule—we shouldn’t test the carrying capacity because we don’t know the environment’s resiliency, that’s world bank—any risk of the perm being better than the counterplan is an automatic aff ballot because this argument is huge and goes untouched by the 2nr 3. It’s called a 2AC add-on—2nr just misses the boat, we’re not going for the LOST disad but the two add-ons we read on that flow—we have one hundred percent risk of our Heg and US-Kenya relations extinction scenarios—heg sustains relations even without mandelbaum and terrorism causes extinction through non-state actors which madelbaum doesn’t assume And, case outweighs— 1. Magnitude—overpopulation is the only scenario for extinction through ozone depletion and environmental collapse, that’s Cote—Kenya collapse causes scarcity wars and an absence of HR leadership guarantees war and genocide 2. Timeframe—Kenya’s on the brink of collapse and terrorism ensures an immediate response 3. Probability—prefer systemic impacts like millions of maternal deaths over one shot “nuke war” claims 4. We solve root cause of their disads—no incentive for starting war if resources are abundant—and it’s impossible to mobilize populations with war propaganda and media suppression of genocides if free speech is actively monitored, that’s Dsouza FREE (OR TAXED) SPEECH You can still protest abortion even if you pay taxes—you’re probably confused about what free speech is since your US David card is super-generic—seriously your lack of 2nr warrants against the biggest case on the topic makes my eyes bleed No impact—D’souza is specific to African NGOs monitoring rights abuse and isn’t saying free speech is intrinsically good as per deontology—and we still have Copeland HR impact No alt to reject taxes—their generic card says all taxation violates rights Extinction inevitable now, only NGO monitoring free speech can stop RUSSIA Non unique—50 mill in Africa aid last week and USAID Africa presence just increased, that’s All Africa and KCCI, that’s read in the 1AC, extended in the 2ac and dropped in the block—1ar card was an extension Relations low—Kosovo, Military threats, and US build up of BMD in Europe are all perceived as Russia containment, that’s Bremmer All their evidence is descriptive of the status quo—if it’s true that Putin and Bush work through hurdles, then they can overcome the plan and there’s zero link—none of their evidence is comparative why aid to Africa is more perceived than BMD—the lesson from this debate is when you read a linear link but a yes/no impact, you need evidence not assertions claiming a brink—assume there’s no internal link because if relations really were on the brink, they’d read evidence on it Levgold is outdated—doesn’t assume Russia working with Iran now, which empirically denies impact Heg solves—plan restores multilat, build unipolarity and resolves prolif, that’s Khalilzad—2nr said Russia is rising so US is not the only hegemon in the squo—well no shit that’s exactly our point, thanks for reading uniqueness to our add-on Link turn—reverse causality is logical—USAID is forced to fund poorly-run government clinics only because of the gag rule—USAID would cut existing aid to governments because they’re not dumb and want to maximize the budget—Russia perceives this as US ceding influence with governments over to China—Russia won’t perceive because plan isn’t demo promo and their link is about governments not NGOS—the 2nr must think the judges are idiots by trying to sell you that family planning aid to Africa is perceived as Russia containment Impact calc answered above SWEDEN Solvency debate NGOs under gag rule cannot work with any pro-abortion donors—existing funding and infrastructure means NGOs refuse Swedish funds, prefer Pantin evidence because it’s predictive and assumes counterplan NGOs key to overpop and Kenya since abortion is illegal so funding governments entrenches problems Overturning gag rule and free-speech NGOs key to effective clinic implementation and to create in-country NGO networks that monitor HR abuse and work for abortion legalization RH model—the global family planning movement is shifting towards a population control and countries are turning to coercive practices because of the gag rule precedent, that’s Sinding—Sweden goes beyond ICPD, that’s bad because that means counterplan isn’t perceived as REVERSAL in policy—only US action can rob other coutnries of the excuse that they’re just following US—coercion turns solvency because it fails and only stigmatizes clinics, that’s Spahn All their cards assume aid actually is implemented through NGOs—otherwise they don’t access abortion legalization or providing education No impact to GGR in other parts of the world Prefer specific evidence—Kenya government models US gag rule #3 Perm is dual action—cooperation is an effect, not a mandate—perm text doesn’t say cooperation Solves Russia because it’s perceived as multilateral action focused on overpop, not US demo-promo #4 No international fiat—resolution means judge assumes role of US policymaker so other countries you have no control over aren’t reasons to not act—don’t evaluate interpretations without resolutional basis because they are arbitrary and 2nr lacks offense Disad alone solves education—disad tests US desirability, not counterplan— And, unlimited possible actors overstretch aff research burden—this skews in-depth case research Our model is best because no policymaker can choose between multiple nations—lulling over is only relevant if Sweden’s already solving, but that’s what we call INHERENCY—their counterplan only makes sense in a debate round, which skews literature comparison and real-world education—destroys the value to debate Reciprocal—we fiat US so do they No warrant for rez basis Neg always wins—any actor looks best if we can’t prepare disads against it—this outweighs aff bais since we can’t research what we can’t predict and 2ar persuasion still needs offense Vote aff to deter thousands into researching case-specific strategies #5 Backflip stunning, but no new 2nr tricks
  5. My 2ar might be a little delayed as I'm working a long shift this weekend. Also I am just stunned by your perfect backflip.
  6. Would a result of the plan be the complete elimination of the US and Russia's nuclear stockpile? If not, doesn't your card say that accidents are always inevitable unless there's total disarm? You seem to rely on many spurious assertions that "plan is the final straw" -- I am asking you if you read any evidence that contains warrants saying that, if Russia and US care enough about their relations to work through something huge like US trying to contain them through NMD, then why would Russia care more about African health clinics? Next, if you say US and China are paranoid of each other, doesn't that imply that China already fears containment? US sending long-range missiles to Taiwan sounds like containment to me. Do you read evidence saying what number of containment policies is needed to breakdown relations? Bonus question, are relations impacts yes/no (aka, either we have relations of we don't) or linear (aka, we can have varying fluctuations in relations, but they won't totally collapse)? How does that make any sense? You read a card saying the USAID Democracy and Governance Office is promoting democracy in Africa with every single development project that US ever does in Africa and that US is funding demo-promo groups in USSR to monitor elections, etc. Why doesn't Russia perceive US as imposing and spreading democracy now? I don't get how you can call this "having but not imposing" ideology.
  7. will you defend that the plan causes total nuclear disarmament? you claim our U evidence just proves the brink. do you read any evidence saying China cares more about RH clinics than US-sponsored Taiwan missle buildup OR that Russia cares more about US helping African health than the Eurpean MD system which Putin has been complaining about since January, saying this is an attempt to contain Russia? If it's true that US and Russia are working to sustain their relations despite the major controversy of the NMD system, why wouldn't they work around the plan? Your Gill evidence describes the current US engagement in Africa. What ev distinguishes the plan from the status quo aid? What counts as a breakdown in relations? You say "Ideologies have no direct impact on the relationship" -- so why would promoting pro-democracy ideology kill relations? What warrant does Sagan give? Where does he talk about environment? Opop? Who would nuke Africa? Your USAID card indicated all USAID project under the "Democracy and Governance Office" cause demo promo. This clearly distinguishes that some USAID ops can be demo-promo while others may be conducted thru different offices. What evidence do you read saying plan would go though the Democracy and Governance Office? If all USAID projects inherently promote democracy, and USAID has a major presence in Africa now, why is your perception link still unique?
  8. yes. I was busy today so I defered the questions to my partner, Megan. You can still ask us questions during your prep, since we asked you a lot during ours. As for the severance question, you're just misunderstanding what severance means. We only have to defend that the USFG should do the plan, not that that the USFG or USAID are good in all instances. Also, our argument is a link turn. It's kind of like an aff that said in the status quo, USAID is focused on demo-promo. That's bad and we should instead focus it on family planning. It's not that we "severed" the link... there never was a link to your contrived disad.
  9. Order is XT, ASPEC, Case, politics, China, Russia, Sweden XT We meet Taylor 5 - Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (Michael and Julie Howard, “Investing in Africa's future”, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf) USAID’s Bureau for Africa is responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating USAID’s development strategies and programs in sub-Saharan Africa. No voter— a. PICs solve—they should PIC out of extra-T plank b. Don’t reject the team—worst case, disregard extra-T planks c. Potential abuse is judge intervention—it’s impossible to quantify abuse in particular instances ASPEC 1.No resolutional basis—arbitrary specs are unpredictable and justify always making us specify one more thing—the plan would be 8 minutes long 2.We meet—specified USFG—only congress can appropriate funding 3.We meet—specified USAID—solves their process-focus education 4.Increases ground—they get more links by reading evidence on normal means—their interpretation is worse because hyper-specific plans generate unpredictable offense that moots generics 5.No right to agent ground—no reason to vote us down as long as we’re topical 6.Agent counterplans bad— a.Topic specific education—generic process counterplans encourage generic debates—analytic education is inevitable and topic education prevents stale debate b.Moots our entire case—running disads alone test overall plan desirability and solves ground loss CASE Case outweighs a. Magnitude—overpopulation is the only scenario for extinction—it makes environmental destruction, deforestation, and ozone depletion inevitable, that's Cote—they concede the precautionary principle d-rule calculus so even a risk and you vote aff, that’s World Bank b. Timeframe and probability--Kenya's is a key flashpoint—recent election violence prove that overpopulation puts Kenya on the brink of state collapse, which escalates to great power wars over oil, that's Glick c. Root cause—reducing overpopulation reduces the incentive for international competition--and upholding international law de-escalates all war because free speech prevents the mobilization of the body politic for military conflict, that's Dsouza d. Systemic—half a million maternal deaths annually outweigh their one-shot impact OPOP ADVANTAGE Population increasing, prefer our ev— a. Africa specific—population is projected to triple b. cites statistics by from qualified studies c. their card has no warrant We solve—USAID services empirically stabilize population growth through services, condoms, and counseling and will reduce unsafe abortions, that’s Cohen and Lasher INTERNATIONAL LAW No impact— a.you can still believe that abortion is bad even if you’re taxed b.taxation is inevitable now c.doesn’t turn our advantage—our free speech and human right impacts aren’t deontological, they’re specific to NGOs monitoring rights violations by African governments KENYA Recent election violence abated, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg, that’s CSM—plan solves the root cause of demographic conflicts—it’s not about election violence, but future conflict SOLVENCY Voluntary key—it’s provides culturally sensitive clinics and avoids stigmatization—empirically, no one will attend coercive clinics, that’s Spahn and Cohen Gudorf wrong—consensus is on our side Andreason 99 (Rod, 1999 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 769) To its credit, the ICPD in Cairo explicitly rejected coercion in population planning programs." It concluded that coercive programs have caused serious violations of human rights. The Programme of Action includes several statements opposing the use of coercion.9 The Conference delegates are to be commended for stating opposition to at least the more blatant forms of coercion; however, subtle forms are not as likely to be eradicated. Unfortunately, some voices oppose the ICPD's more humane stance and still push for more coercive programs. One ICPD critic declared that, [T]o the extent that this agenda aims at totally non-coercive solutions to overpopulation, it is doomed from the start to some degree of failure. We have simply waited too long in that we do not have enough lead-time left to make totally voluntary means work.... . . . There can be little doubt that reductions of twenty-five to eighty percent will require some form of coercion.80 Fortunately, such voices appear to be in the minority. "If there were indisputable evidence that specific disasters would occur unless population growth rates were drastically and immediately curbed, strong measures might be warranted. But there is no such evidence."81 The Cairo Conference members took a significant step in the right direction. The results of dramatic drops in birthrates should cause them to take the next step: not promoting population reduction at all. LOST 1.Non-unique—fifty billion in foreign aid last week, that’s KCCI 2.No internal link—unpopular legislation won’t make GOP switch their opposition on LOST—they wouldn’t backlash against themselves 3.Non-unique—their card says Senate should act, not that it will—there’s no GOP support for LOST in the status quo 4. Lost won’t pass and won’t be voted on until elections World Magazine 1/26 (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13691) The treaty requires 67 votes in the Senate for ratification, a high enough hurdle that opposition from a bloc of conservative senators kept Democrats from bringing LOST to the Senate floor for a vote late last year. Whether the Law of the Sea becomes the law of the land may depend on how many of those senators are still in office—and which presidential candidate is celebrating—after the November elections. 5.Empirically denied—many issues have come up since October, including a failed repeal of the gag rule, free trade, FISA, elections, economy, and Iraq—if all that didn’t knock LOST of the agenda, then plan only delays ratification, not blocks it 6.Ideology turn— LOST will be decided on ideology, not politics—increasing multilateral spirit is key Progress Report 7 (Oct, The Neoconservatives' New Fight, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/10/pr20071029) With little notoriety, a major political storm is brewing over the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On one side, an impressive coalition has formed, uniting the Bush administration, business groups, environmentalists, oil companies, a large bipartisan majority of U.S. senators, and 155 different nations under one tent. On the other side, a small contingent of knee-jerk isolationists is threatening to sink a seemingly non-controversial treaty that would "create a system for negotiating drilling, mining, and fishing rights." Revealing their core distrust of multilateralism, a familiar cadre of right-wing voices such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, neconservative hawk Frank Gaffney, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and others are aggressively attempting to thwart passage of the UNCLOS treaty. "The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation," writes Scott Paul, deputy director of government relations for Citizens for Global Solutions. "Its champions detest all forms of international organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior." The same far-right ideologues who have argued that the United States should feel unencumbered by international law to go to war, torture, and pollute are now raising their heads in opposition to the UNCLOS treaty. For that reason, the convention is the "the perfect issue for progressives to rally around," writes The American Prospect's Kate Sheppard, because "it reveals the outrage from the outer edges of the right for what it really is: anti-cooperative isolationism that is both unfounded in fact and counter to American interests." Moreover, winning the battle over the Law of the Sea is an important step toward restoring America's international reputation and paving the path for future international agreements on climate change, weapons proliferation, and a host of other issues. Plan changes ideology by building multilateral pressure and leadership CRR 2k (http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_bushggr_violation.pdf) The global gag rule causes foreign NGOs, and others, in foreign countries to scorn the United States for imposing restrictions on their right to democratic participation, free speech and reproductive self-determination.58 Foreign women’s groups are ostracizing foreign NGOs who cave in to USAID’s global gag rule requirement in order to obtain funding. The global gag rule only serves to foster anti-American sentiments, particularly related to U.S. foreign assistance programs around the world. A heightened anti-U.S. climate around the world only hampers the ability of the U.S. government to maintain its leadership role in international settings. 7. and, that’s an external heg good impact Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. 8. Biden turn— Plan is a concession from Bush to Biden Feminist Daily 3 (July 10, Boxer Amendment to Reverse Global Gag Rule Passes Senate, http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7919) Co-sponsored by Democratic Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Joseph Biden (D-DE), and Patty Murray (D-WA) as well as Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the amendment would allow nonprofit organizations around the world to receive USAID funds even if they provide information about abortions. Working with Biden is more key than PC Schlafly 9/21 – attourney, Masters in PolSci from Harvard, JD from Washington U Law School (Phyllis, Law of the Sea treaty doesn't hold water, http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/9494.html) With all the critical problems facing America today, it's hard to see why President George W. Bush is wasting whatever is left of his political capital to partner with Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to try to get the Senate to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is scheduled to hold a hearing loaded with pro-treaty witnesses and then try to sneak through ratification while the public is focused on other globalism and giveaway mischief. 9. Turn—plan restores US-Kenya relations key to fighting terrorism—stability is on the brink WP 8 (1/7, Kenya 'critical' to U.S. military, http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NATION/405397742/1001&template=printart) A destabilized Kenya would deprive the United States of one of its staunchest allies in Africa, because Nairobi since September 11 has provided military bases, communications networks and intelligence-sharing to prevent al Qaeda from making inroads on the continent. "For the eastern portion of Africa, Kenya is critical," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations on the Horn of Africa. "They are strategically located in the area bordering Somalia," he said. "They were critical for us in Somalia in the early 1990s. Without them, we could not have operated. They allowed us to use their bases while we were conducting operations in and out of Somalia, and they still allow us to use those bases today." A failed state in Kenya, as exists in Somalia, would erase "one of the top friendly militaries to the United States in Africa," the retired three-star general said. The prospect of a destabilized Kenya arose in recent weeks in the aftermath of a contested Dec. 27 election that kept President Mwai Kibaki in power. International observers reported ballot-counting irregularities. Street violence broke out in the capital of Nairobi, killing more than 300. Alarmed, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dispatched her top African diplomat to Kenya to urge reconciliation between the opposing parties. U.S. envoy Jendayi E. Frazer met Saturday with Mr. Kibaki, who announced a power-sharing proposal in an effort to end the crisis. "What we have here is one of the most promising countries in Africa on the brink," said Michelle Gavin, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Kenya is not peripheral to the struggle against terrorism," she said. "Kenya has been a reliable partner."Ms. Gavin fears a destabilized Kenya would be "extending the failed state space already occupied by Somalia that has appeal for terrorists." 10. CIL solves benefits to LOST WSJ 7 (11/3, A Sinkable Treaty, http://opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010820) Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty. We also hear that the U.S. must have its proverbial "seat at the table" in negotiations over such claims. But the nations with a direct geographic Arctic claim ought to be able to cut a deal without giving Cuba or Zimbabwe a seat. America's historic experience with similar multinational bodies (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Commission) hardly justifies confidence that having a seat will enhance our influence, rather than constrain it. The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size, with no fewer than 320 articles and nine annexes. These cover everything from "Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship" (Article 27) to "Anadromous stocks" and "Catadromous Species" (Articles 65 and 66) to the "Jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber" (Article 187). Much of this is anodyne, but perhaps the Senators should read the fine print before voting. They might be surprised by what they find. Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities. The Administration says these are excluded from the treaty and, further, that the U.S. gets to decide what constitutes such activity. But then how to explain Article 20, which states that "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag." How will this affect the ability of U.S. submarines to gather intelligence in coastal waters or deploy special forces on hostile shores? Last we checked, a $1 billion submarine called the USS Jimmy Carter had been built precisely for that purpose. The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars--which some environmentalists say harm marine life--could run afoul of Article 196. This states that countries "shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control." Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is . . . not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis. Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation the treaty confers on the International Seabed Authority. The details of this innovation are buried in Article 13 of the treaty's third annex, and contain a mix of "production charges" and annual million-dollar "administrative" fees. Such measures are all but unprecedented for an international organization and have a potential for corruption, especially when the taxes can run as high as 70% of net proceeds. Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage. 11.Not intrinsic—USFG can do plan and pass LOST a.Resolutional basis—judge assumes the role of the entire USFG b.Best model—assuming control over future actions allows in-depth focus on unavoidable costs c.Justified by counterplans that test advantage intrinsicness CHINA 1. China relations now UPI 7 (11/30, U.S.-China relations sour over Taiwan, http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/30/us-china_relations_sour_over_taiwan/6775/print_view/) A diplomatic row is brewing between China and the United States over the Bush administrations offer to build-up Taiwan's anti-missile artillery. China canceled a port visit by the USS Kitty Hawk following a refusal by Beijing to deny port access to U.S. minesweeping ships seeking shelter during a storm. Chinese officials reversed the move against the USS Kitty Hawk on "humanitarian grounds" but said China had "grave concern" about weapons sales to Taiwan, the International Herald Tribune said Friday. Spokesmen said Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama affected U.S.-Chinese relations as well. Top U.S. officials expressed concern recently over China's increased defense spending following announcements to upgrade Taiwan's Patriot missile batteries for nearly $940 million. Beijing officials contested the move saying it posed a strategic threat to China. 2. NGOs turn— a.Plan trades off with US aid to governments Reece-Evans 3 – Masters Thesis from Western Washington University (Linsay, Thinking Locally, Acting Globally: The Implications of the Global Gag Rule, p. 76) Several phone and email interviews conducted with representatives of NGOs also indicated that while the direct effects of the GGR may be difficult to classify, many indirect effects exist. One frequently mentioned result was a decrease in the standard of reproductive health services. According to Barbara Crane of IPAS, when an NGO refuses to sign the GGR, USAID must find other service providers to fund. This often leads to funding being channeled into government programs rather than NGOS, which leads to a reduction in quality of services as government programs tend to be less effective and less concerned with long term care, such as is required with contraceptive methods like Norplant and IUDS. Another effect of USA]ID's funding changes is that of lag time; while new providers are trained, existent services may be inadequate or unavailable. According to Crane, when organizations lose USAID funding, they also lose a substantial source of technical support, such as training, manuals, and publishing, that is unlikely to be replaced. b.China derives influence from African governments, but doesn’t care about NGOs Gill 6 (Bates, Center for Strategic and International Studies, “China’s Expanding Role in Africa Implications for the United States”, 12/1, Report of the CSIS Delegation to China on China-Africa-U.S. Relations, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/chinainafrica.pdf) The Chinese approach is neither familiar nor well equipped to engage with the emergent and increasingly vocal and influential nongovernmental groups in Africa. Following the end of the Cold War, as the political environment in Africa liberalized, incipient grass roots groups, suddenly less constrained, began to proliferate. As the 1990s advanced, their expertise and presence began to be seen across multiple sectors: electoral preparations and monitoring; independent media; and advocacy for economic reform, human rights, protection of vulnerable populations, and empowerment of women, among others. By the end of the 1990s, the nongovernmental sector was firmly established in many countries as an essential partner in any national policymaking deliberations. Indeed, the nongovernmental sector began to seed smart, reformist talent to serve government reform efforts and became central to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) peer review process in places like Ghana and Kenya. 5. China’s policymakers are confident that a state-centric approach to Africa will build strategically on Beijing’s core strengths and align with the stated preferences of African countries. Beijing’s principal and highly preferred means of engagement with Africa is through official government-to-government relations. 3. No war Korb 2 – CFR vice president (Lawrence, http://www.cfr.org/publication/4675/does_chinas_rapid_military_buildup_threaten_us_interests_in_east_asia_no.html) China's participation in the global economy, its stake in regional stability and even its successful bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing are reasons enough for China to avoid confrontations with the United States over Taiwan, not to mention the fact that they would lose a military struggle. In the short term, in spite of all the aggressive blustering by Chinese and Taiwanese politicians, it appears that they both wish to maintain the status quo for the foreseeable future. 4. No escalation Mandelbaum 99 (Michael, Is Major War Obsolete?, http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/cfr10/) Major war is obsolete in the way that slavery, dueling, or foot-binding are obsolete. It is a social practice that was once considered normal, useful, even desirable, but that now seems odious. It is obsolete in the way that the central planning of economic activity is obsolete. It is a practice once regarded as a plausible, indeed a superior, way of achieving a socially desirable goal, but that changing conditions have made ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst.” Why is this so? Most simply, the costs have risen and the benefits of major war have shriveled. The costs of fighting such a war are extremely high because of the advent in the middle of this century of nuclear weapons, but they would have been high even had mankind never split the atom. As for the benefits, these now seem, at least from the point of view of the major powers, modest to non-existent. The traditional motives for warfare are in retreat, if not extinct. War is no longer regarded by anyone, probably not even Saddam Hussein after his unhappy experience, as a paying proposition. And as for the ideas on behalf of which major wars have been waged in the past, these are in steep decline. Here the collapse of communism was an important milestone, for that ideology was inherently bellicose. This is not to say that the world has reached the end of ideology; quite the contrary. But the ideology that is now in the ascendant, our own, liberalism, tends to be pacific. Moreover, I would argue that three post-Cold War developments have made major war even less likely than it was after 1945. One of these is the rise of democracy, for democracies, I believe, tend to be peaceful. RUSSIA 1.Non-unique—their own evidence proves Russia is backlashing against the US so relations low 2. US Russia relations lowBremmer 8 – president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy (Ian, 2/13, Russia's Confidence Ignores Potential Long-Term Woes, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/russias_confidence_ignores_pot.html) The list of issues that have soured Russia's relations with the United States is a long one. Russia's withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, its vow to veto any U.N. resolution that recognizes Kosovo's independence, and the Kremlin's furious reaction to U.S. plans to place missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic are simply the latest conflicts to divide the two governments. 3. Empirically denied—if relations were high, Putin would not be coddling up to Iran’s nukes now 4.Cross apply the turn—we decrease USAID influence with African governments, that’s Reece-Evans—their link is based on perception, so Russia would perceive it as US ceding influence with governments to China 5.Turn—we make USAID less focused on democracy and more on family planning 6.No link— a.we’re not democracy promotion b.USAID does not inherently promote democracy—we use it solely for family planning centers c.their internal link assumes Western election-reform aid TO RUSSIA—we set up health centers in Africa COUNTERPLAN 1.Vote against conditionality— a.Kills stable offense—block makes 2AC time key b.Erodes policy comparison—regression to least-covered option is not real world c.Counter-interpretation dispo solves their offense 2.NGOs say no to Sweden because of gag rule Pantin 1 – WEnews correspondent (Laurence, 02/23/01, Europeans May Match Funds Cut By Global Gag Rule, http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=458) Susan Cohen, assistant director for Policy Development at the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington, D.C. said that, if history is any indication, family planning clinics that counsel their patients about abortion will chose to accept U.S. funds in order to keep their doors open. But the trade-off is clear: They will have to keep their mouths shut about the possibility of terminating unwanted or hazardous pregnancies. "The EU cannot help them with that because by virtue of the definition of the policy," Cohen said, "once a non-governmental organization decides to accept the U.S funds, it cannot work with any European government or any other donor, who might want to replace the funding or continue the funding they may have had for their abortion-related work." 3.Say No is a disad to the counterplan—switching to other donors takes decades and wastes precious resources, that’s Cohen 4.Perm do both a.net benefits are double solvency and Say No disad b. solves perception links because it’s perceived as multilateral aid 5.US key— A.NGO networking—gag rule causes a chilling effect that stifles all pro-choice speech—NGO lobbying of African governments is vital to legalize abortion in Africa, that’s Neier B.Enforcement—only USAID has key experience, training, and monitoring skills to ensure stability and quality of services, that’s Cohen C.Culture—only USAID has been doing this longer than any other country and coordinates effectively with locals to provide culturally sensitive strategies, that’s Shepherd—the impact is that no one will go to their clinics D.Kenya—their government models the gag rule as an excuse to prosecute abortion clinics E.Reproductive health model—the global family planning movement is shifting towards a population control model as a result of the gag rule, that’s Sinding—US leadership is key to overcome the chilling effect and set a model for a reproductive health approach—this sets global precedents against coercive family planning—coercion turns solvency because it fails and only stigmatizes clinics, that’s Spahn 6.Broad RH definition inhibits Swedish aid sustainability PAI 7 (http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Paying_their_Fair_Share/SWEDEN.shtml) Sweden’s financial allocations to population programs are difficult to assess. Reasons for this difficulty include the government’s broad definition of sexual and reproductive health and rights; the devaluation of the Swedish currency relative to the dollar; and a shift in aid mechanisms from more focused projects to sector-wide approaches. 7.Counterplan doesn’t specify NGOs so normal means is UNFPA PAI 7 (http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Paying_their_Fair_Share/SWEDEN.shtml) Over the past decade, Sweden has consistently channeled 40 to 60 percent of its population aid through multilateral organizations. Organizations supported by Sweden include UNFPA, UNAIDS, and the WHO human reproduction research program. However, Sweden’s U.S. dollar contribution to UNFPA fell from $18.4 million in 1993 to $15.1 million in 1997. The Swedish contribution also declined in national currency terms from 1994 and 1997, but then rose slightly in 1998. This small increase, however, is likely to be lost in exchange rate conversion. 8.Counterplan won’t reach NGOS Crane 4 (Barbara B Crane and Jennifer Dusenberry, Reproductive Health Matters, “Power and Politics in International Funding for Reproductive Health: the US Global Gag Rule”, Volume 12, Issue 24, November 2004, Pages 128-137, Science Direct) In some countries, NGOs that lose USAID funding, such as the Family Guidance Association in Ethiopia, eventually find other donors. That too can be problematic in that some bilateral donors who have funded NGOs in the past have changed their funding philosophy, with health funds now channelled to governments under sector-wide approaches or more recently overall budget support. Moreover, donors who have been willing to step in and fill the gap for an NGO in response to the Gag Rule may not be prepared to provide sustained funding. International agencies such as UNFPA cannot be of much help as they mainly direct their funds through governments. 9.No solvency—cross-x proves their card doesn’t exist 10.Fiat should be limited to the USFG — a.Resolutional basis—topic implies judge only has US jurisdiction—what another country could do isn’t a reason to reject US action b.Best decision model—no literature assumes a decision-maker that has choice between US and other nations—this makes literature comparison impossible and creates artificial education c.Infinite regress—thousands of actors overstretch aff research and skews in-depth case discussion
  10. Those seem to be more assertions than evidence-supported warrants but nonetheless, I'll make that arg in the 2AC and the judges can de-side. I just want to know, how does an African government become a "pro-Western government"? Is it by the perception of association with USAID? Yes/No
  11. Which version, homeslice? The link you just posted says Sweden has a different definition of "reproductive health" and then it explains why this is an impediment to Swedish financial assistance. In the way you choose to edit your card it makes it sound like Sweden is somehow superior to the US. I won't ask any more questions on this, I just need to know which card I'm supposed to answer.
  12. This describes current US demo-promo aid to NGOs within Russia. A few questions: First, if your evidence is descriptive of the backlash against status quo demo-promo efforts, then shouldn't US-Russia relations already be low? And if US-Russia relations were high now, then why would Russia be resisting US presence? Second, how many bottles of Vodka would Putin have to drink to perceive USAID assistance to independent family planning NGOs within Africa as equal to US assistance to US demo-promo groups within Russia? What does it mean to "underlimit the topic?" I call bullshit-check on this card. Post a link to original source with this specific wording of the card with no sentences/text ommited. Does this evidence describe African nations and countries? Are things like the UN security council and debt relief something that governments are typically involved in? if we win we're topical, why is any of this a reason to reject the aff? ON LOST: I think you read this disad in the wrong direction. The reason a few GOP members are holding out on LOST is because they fear it would violate US sovereignty. You claim those isolationist GOP members are key and that GOP doesn't like the plan. Where does this say plan would cause GOP backlash? What's the impact to backlash? Do you have evidence saying the isolationist GOP members will vote for lost now absent the plan? If they aren't going to vote for lost now, then why does it matter that they backlash? I think that's enough questions for me.
×
×
  • Create New...