increasing the public health to sub sharan Africa by helping to decrees the number of Malaria cases.

All right. I think it is safe to assume that you are a Policy debater, and thus it wouldn't be unfair to treat this round as such. Therefore, I ask that my opponent and the voters all treat this like a Policy round, and adhere to the rules and structuring of one. That being said, here is the resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. For those non-policy debaters, the resolution is what is being debate over. The Affirmative advocates a plan that has distinct advantages over the status quo (current system). The Negative team (Con) supports the status quo over the plan. Any plans outside this resolution (i.e. a plan giving aid to Germany) are un-topical, and should not be voted for (assuming the Negative brings this up). First off, I would like to ask several things: 1. Provide sources for your Inherency/Harms Evidence. Sources are important specifically on statistics, because they make your claims credible. As of now, your claims have no weight in this round because they are not backed up. 2. Clarify your plan. What exactly are you changing about Bush's Malaria Plan? You say something about DDT, drugs, and bed nets, however the current plan does this already. If the Pro team doesn't change anything, then the Affirmative team is un-topical (violation: increase) because nothing is increasing. Aid is staying the same. 3. Give something that says that your plan can solve. I'll attack the plan on the assumption that it can solve, but I would like to bring into question whether or not it can. 4. Provide Advantages. What this does, is provide reasons the plan is better than the Status Quo. Also, just saying your plan solves for Malaria isn't any advantage. You must prove that there are advantages outside of solving in order to garner any votes in today's debate. Just a heads-up: SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. Alright, now on to my attacks: 1. Topicality: Word: Sub-Saharan Africa. Infraction: Bush's Malaria Plan provides aid to: Angola, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Benin, Ethiopia (Oromia Region), Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, and Zambia. (http://www.fightingmalaria.gov...) Now, these are all Sub-Saharan countries, but the real problem is... there are 33 other countries in SSA. Obviously the Pro is not providing aid to Sub-Saharan Africa if they just give aid to 1/3 of the countries. The Pro's plan text no where says anything about expanding the Malaria Plan's targets for all of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Con must therefore assume that the only countries tackled by the plan are the ones tackled by the current plan. Thusly, the Pro does not give public health assistance to all of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and is un-topical. 2. Justification: "action must be taken" is the phrase I really want to center in on. Assuming Pro wants to stay topical, they advocate the U.S. as the actor. However, because of burden of proof, the Pro is required to justify that U.S. action is superior to either inaction or action by another actor. The Pro stated nothing about how the actual action taken by America would be superior to, say, the European Union... and therefore has not justified the terms of the resolution (specifically "United States Federal Government"). On demand, I can produce evidence showing other actors to be competent and willing to address the malaria issue. 3. Inherency The Pro advocates supporting Bush's Malaria Plan, however isn't clear as to what they are changing. This brings up two problems. First off, they are non-unique, as they're plan is happening. Secondly, if the original plan is solving, than the plan is not needed. http://news.bbc.co.uk... That article talks about how the plan has already 'helped' 11 million people in Africa. Thus, the Pro plan is useless as the Status Quo is handling the problem. 4. Alt/Causes http://www.aaas.org... Basically, this link talks about how development and population movement cause movement of malaria – which in turn, spreads the disease throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, conflict and hunger perpetrate the disease further. Therefore, without solving for each and every one of these things, Pro cannot solve. 5. Solvency Barriers: http://home.att.net... This link talks about how the Climate makes Malaria unsolvable. Just another barrier that prevents the Affirmative from solving. http://home.att.net... This talks about how agricultural development keeps Malaria from being solved. I can bring up more, but I think this will suffice, for now. 6. Solvency Turn: The European Union purchases large amounts of crops from sub-Saharan Africa but bans any such crops from containing DDT. With the plan, either African countries won't accept our DDT and the affirmative can't solve or the African countries will accept and our DDT use will ruin their economies and agricultural system leading to extreme poverty and famine. Pro may argue that misuse of DDT won't happen, however: Misuse of DDT will happen unless the significant lack of infrastructure in the Status Quo is addressed and solved (http://www.aei.org...) 7. No advantages basically make it so there is no reason to vote for the plan. The plan has no advantages over the status quo, and therefore shouldn't be voted for. I look forward to the responses.