The United States Federal Govt. should subs. increase PublicHealthAssistance 2 Sub-Saharan Africa

I have found only one or two places where they will be needed, but other than that, this will all be rebutting. .. I thank my opponent for this round. .. . Now let us finish this. .. . "First I would like to point out that the fact that he just says 'RVI' does not prove anything. There is no analysis in this argument. There is no reason why laziness hurts him, and he doesn't even try to prove this. This takes out all of his RVIs. Do not vote on the RVI, there are no pre-fiat implications beyond the fact that 'I'm lazy'. " What? ! There is no analysis in the first paragraph of round three? That entire paragraph was topicality theory and you just pass it off as not being analysis? ! You say that laziness doesnt hurt me, you completely misunderstand what I am saying. .. . T is an abuse issue to make sure YOU arent put at a disadvantage in this round, you only run T when I do something that hurts your ability to debate this issue. You cant be hurt in the debate round when you have the entire internet to use! And three days to use it! Thus, I cant abuse your ground in the debate round almost at all. The only thing I could do is start switching what I am doing mid round. But you aren't hurt at all by not being prepared. That is what that entire paragraph about T theory was about. .. . Also on that note, he completely drops all 3 T's he is running. At the very least I have proved NOT to vote against me in those, and I should also be voted FOR because he dropped them. I throw an RVI (reverse voting issue) on the T's that he runs, and he simply passes them off as 'laziness' is nothing to vote on. He drops the theory on why this is important. I am topical and he should be voted against. .. . The CP. .. .. "Think about it. I want my opponent to think one step deeper. 1. Blood loss is a major cause of AIDS 2. If we can solve for blood loss, we can solve AIDS 3. Ireland Solves AIDS" 1. My opponent doesnt seem to understand. Blood loss does not literally cause AIDS, unsafe blood spreads it. So unless Ireland is doing my plan exactly, they will not be solving the same way I am. Further on this, my opponent keeps repeating that my only benefit in this round is AIDS. .. . he fails to read my harms A. and B. where I tell you that just being short of blood is a bad thing. I also solve for that, so if he is running a CP that only covers AIDS, I have a ton more solvency than him. If he running a CP where Ireland just takes over what I am doing, then I will prove why the US should do it. "The aff has never proven the US can solve better than the US. I have proved that Ireland can solve. It is the duty of the aff to prove me wrong. Until he does, you can only vote neg to save millions of lives, and avoiding extinction. " I dont have to prove that the US can solve better than Ireland (i know what you meant) I have to prove that the US is the only one that should be doing this, and I have/will. Also, it isnt my duty to prove you wrong, I am the aff. .. However, if you were to say my plan causes aliens to attack us, it would be your burden first to prove that aliens would attack upon passage of my plan. It is unfair to expect me to able to prove that aliens won't attack us. This is a huge misconception in debate, but it is the duty of whoever brings up the argument to prove that it will happen. I have provided evidence in my solvency that say that the US can do this plan specific, my opponent comes up with this very vague CP that says Ireland is good at international aid. However, his solvency fails to mention what my plan is doing. .. . and that is safe blood. Until he proves, (remember this is his CP) that Ireland is really good at adopting the recommendations of the AABB, and administering safe blood the way the US health codes regulate it, his CP cannot hold up to my plan. That is what I am saying, I have proven solvency, he doesnt. "And also, how could they possibly 'take over the plan'? That's ridiculous. First, the plan HASN'T EVEN BEEN PASSED YET. How could you steal something that doesn't exist? " I meant that in more of a metaphorical sense, you have to do what my plan text states. .. .. ""I proved that ALL AID will be stolen. " Including Irelands. .. thus their corruption program fails and your CP has NO SOLVENCY or NET BENEFIT. " What? ! My opponent jumps to MASSIVE conclusions. I proved that AMERICAN aid will get stolen. Cross apply Ayodele in 05. I also proved none of Ireland's aid will get stolen" So my opponent starts out saying that ALL AID will be stolen, then it moves to just american. If it is all aid, then irelands will be stolen too, if it is just the US's aid, then my opponent is switching advocasies and should be voted against for that. "First of all, he never even mentioned n-u until that last statment, so just throw that out. Let's attack the no link-" From my second round. .. .. . "this corruption DA lacks Uniqueness, explain above, so this DA is already faulty. " Oops, looks like i called it n-u my second round. .. .. . The DA is non unique, corruption is rampant, too bad it will hit Ireland too (explained above) Also there is no link because I dont give anything to the governments of africa, this is US run! Unless they wage a mini war on some blood donation workers, it is kinda hard to steal from us. I dont give anything to the governments, thus they cant take anything, simple as that. Now reasons to vote aff. .. . 1. The T's went dropped in his last round, he also massively undercovers the RVI, thus I win on the T's and the reserve voters. 2. Ireland has not proven that they can do safe blood, I have solvency cards saying I can. Thus the the CP stands on its net benefits of corruption. 3. I have beaten the corruption the DA by calling it non unique, and proving that the entire thing will be US run, without killing us, it is hard to steal. I dont give money to the governments of africa. Thus, the DA is and the net benefit is gone. The US is the only reliable actor. 4. He drops my case proper, he simply tried to steal it via Ireland, he agrees I can solve and have harms and the plan is legit. With that, I can see nothing but a affirmitive vote.