PlayPump International's PlayPump solves for all major public health problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Look at the first argument. My opponent DROPS the argument about AIDS, and only states this, "when I continuously mentioned women, men were not to be excluded. Women were mentioned the most because they are the ones who go to the rivers to get the water, therefore they are the most susceptible to contracting Malaria. " Yet, my opponent does not extend or even RESPOND IN THIS WHOLE DEBATE the argument about 1/4 of cases are at night in the home. So, as where it is now, she can not solve for either of these two problems, she does not prove her resolution, I win this debate. Moving on: Argument: Cost. My opponent states "When I stated that it only costs about $35 per person for a playpump, that it is an amount that communities leaders pay. " Why I win: Still, that is $35 that they can not afford. My opponent drops the argument that the cost will go down, thus we can determine this the final price. PRO never states that they can afford this, as I have. Please extend my argument about the dollar-a-day salary. You are faced with no choice but to give me the win on this argument. Argument: Location. My opponent states, "The playpumps are first tested in countries, they are not still being tested overall. .. it is a sort of field test for the entire country. Rural communities do not have to know about the playpumps because if the company feels that they are a community in need, they will go to the community. " Why I win: First, my opponent has no evidence as to when these will start getting integrated. Although she claims they are being tested, there is no timeframe in which she states that these will be effective. I have proven that PlayPump works to slow, and history repeats itself. Second, neglecting that the second argument is new in R3, the argument is ridicolous. So, the companies are playing favorites? Whose to say one community needs it over the other? Plus, what about the hypothetical three person family who lives alone in the middle of no where? They could be in need, but it's only three people. Third, again pull my argument THAT IS NEVER RESPONDED TO that local groups get ignored. Argument: Agriculture use. My opponent states, "Playpumps will not be practical to use for agriculture. The storage tank does not hold enough water and the rate at which it comes out (in a simple hand pump) would be to slow of a process for the agricultural community. " Why I win: This argument is new in R3, and should be ignored. The fact is, people will now have a way to take ground water, and they are going to use it if they can hold onto it. It's human nature. Argument: Corruption. My opponent states, "playpumps are not placed in areas of corruption and this is known because playpumps interacts with the governments prior to the placement of the playpumps. Also as I have stated, the people of the village will protect their saving grace. " Why I win: First, this argument is new in R3. She says it isn't, but scroll up to R2. She argues that water isn't corruptable. That's not the same. Please disregared this argument. Second, even if PlayPump works with the government, that does not mean it won't get stolen later. In fact, it may be MORE prone to corruption, since aff is informing the government ABOUT it. Third, the government has WAY too much military power to be stopped by villagers. Fourth, please pull my card and argument about corruption into this round, as it was conceded. Argument: Politicalization. My opponent states, "Water will be a political issue no matter what. Whatever can be made into a political issue, will be. That is simply the way that politics works. The world moves on though, even though politicians do not. .. people do. " Why I win: First, AGAIN THIS IS A NEW ARGUMENT IN R3. It and all other new arguments are abusive, because I only get 8,000 characters to type, and I can not respond to more and more arguments. Second, water doesn't have to be political. If playpump wasn't involved with the government, it wouldn't be. But they are, as she states. Furthermore, this doesn't even argue my case. I said that politicalization was a bad thing, and this wasn't argued. Since we can clearly see that PlayPump is politicalizing water, and they can stop it, my arguement trumps. Argument: Extinction by plan. My opponent states, "The youth of today is the future of tomorrow and they will save us. The future scientists and doctors that are saved by the Playpumps will be able to find solutions to problems in the world that we today can not solve. .. " Why I win: Again, this argument is completly ridicolous. As I mentioned, politicalization makes the PlayPump less effective. Hence, there will be little to no lives saved. Second, I argued that this will happen RAPIDLY, faster than a child can grow up. Third, it is ridicolous to assume that one of the maybe 100 lives aff can save will be smart enough to save humanity. There is no conclusive evidence that states this. All in all, I have disproven all of my opponents arguements and created a lot of offense. I proved that aff does not solve for Malaria and AIDS, the two most major pubic diseases.