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

OK, so there are SEVERAL things wrong with these topicalities...... I am going to start with the biggest reason not to vote on ANY OF THEM! This is a standard of LAZINESS! I realize that we are policy debating, however we are policy debating ONLINE! HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A RESEARCH BURDEN WHEN YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO USE?! IT ISNT LIKE YOU CAN BE UNPREPARED. NO MATTER WHAT I THROW AT YOU, YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE INTERNET TO RESEARCH, WITH THREE DAYS TO POST YOUR NEXT ARGUMENT! So don't vote on these because my opponent was too lazy to use the entire internet to look stuff up. T is an abuse issue, not a so called "rules of the game" (which dont exist).... There is no abuse in this round. So dont vote on it. With that, lets go into each T specific..... Starting off with to.... What we need to see about his definition is that it is NOT a definition of the word "To." I am going to have to assume that "You must give to the governments to sub-saharan africa." is his definition for "to." This is absolutely ludicrous that someone would define the word "to" as that. My opponent is clearly misrepresenting his evidence. With that, I shall provide a counter definition of the word "to" From dictionary.com TO:"used for expressing motion or direction toward a point, person, place, or thing approached and reached, as opposed to from" reasons to prefer: 1. is an actual definition of the word "to" 2. limits- does not unfairly limit the res as the neg does 3. common definition- common definitions are the best because everyone knows what they mean. 4. Framers intent- The framers did not intend for the innocent word "to", to be twisted in such horrible fashion. This is a common everyday word, and that is how it is meant to be. I meet my definition because my aid goes to the place, sub saharan africa. Reverse voters 1. Laziness(explained above) 2. Time suck. My opponent is wasting the time of the judges having to read this, and my time of having to respond. He is hoping that I will over cover these T's and miss the rest of what he said, dont let him get away with this. If you agree that I am indeed topical, vote against him for this abuse. On to "resolved".... Several problems with this.... 1. You cant run a T, on something that isnt IN the resolution. The resolution is RESOLVED. That means that this is what we are debating about. Again from dictionary.com.... Resolved:"firm in purpose or intent; determined." We are firm in purpose that this is what we are debating about. You cant run a T on something not in resolution. 2. Not only that, but the legislature is passing this. The judges are "Congress" and "The president".... So when they vote aff, they are voting to pass a plan. The plan I provided in plan text. I'm sorry that my opponent doesnt understand that. Even if this was a T, I meet his definition. Also extend my laziness and abuse arguements from the earlier T. Onto "substantial"..... Again, several problems with this... 1. The biggest problem is when we look to his definition... "Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects the presidents conviction that robust diplomacy and a commitment to solving global problems is the right thing to do." It says that substantial is 11%. However, it does not say that it has be at least 11%. It could be 10, it could to 2, it could be .000000000000000001%. We dont know, all we know is that 11% is included. Until this definition says that it cannot be lower than 11%, it cannot stand. Thus, again I will provide a counter definition. Again from dictionary.com Substantial-"of real worth, value, or effect" I meet that definition by the value of the millions of lives the plan saves from unsafe blood. reverse voters 1. Pull laziness 2. pull time suck and no abuse With that, let us move on to the fiscal discipline DA.... For those of you that dont know, a DA needs 3 things, Uniqueness- this DA can only happen with the passage of the aff plan, it cannot happen status quo. Link- how the aff team links to this DA. and Impacts- the bad things that happen as a result of the passage of plan. Now note that if any of these 3 things fall, the entire DA falls. I will go on to disprove the Uniqueness and Link. Now his piece of evidence states that fiscal discipline has been happening since June 22, 2007. If I can find 1 piece of evidence that states that we have not been maintaining fd post that date, the DA falls. This has to stand for him to win the DA. The reason it will fall is that he is arguing that any spending beyond June 22 that is fiscally responsible will cause this DA. If i can prove that once, we spent irresponsibly, the DA is empirically denied. This is from John McCain. Dated yesterday... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... "He made the same accusation about his GOP colleagues' fiscal failings in addressing his supporters, saying, "We let spending get completely out of control, we Republicans." He vowed that if elected, he would veto every spending bill containing a congressional earmark." McCain says that yesterday, the US is not maintaining fd, this DA is empirically denied, we should have seen these impacts already. With that, lets move onto the link. "n a study of 77 countries that have received U.S. development assistance for at least 35 years, Johnson concluded that 39 were no better off, in terms of economic growth, than they were before they began receiving the aid. "Of those 39 countries, fully half actually are worse off." Johnson says." That is his link card. This DA is a US specific economy DA. Nowhere in this card does it say that the US giving money to other countries causes a horrible economic collapse for the US. It says that it hurts other countries yes, but this is a US DA, not any other country. So we must assume that passing plan will not hurt the US in any way. Let us also mention that this DA has NO THRESHOLD. When is too much money? a dollar? 5? 1020? We have no idea where this threshold is. With the DA taken care of, let us move on to the Ireland CP.... Again, several problems.... 1. Look at his solvency. He states that Ireland can help with a few things.... However, I failed to read "safe blood" being among them. Ireland can do all the malaria, aids, and TB help it wants to. But until I read that Ireland is BETTER than the US in safe blood, we will stick with the US giving the aid. 2. Why would IRELAND adopt the recommendations of the AMERICAN Association of Blood Banks? This has to be an American funded operation. Ireland does not have the same medical practices and laws as does the US. 3. With the DA gone, the only the net benefit he has remaining is corruption DA.... Ignoring the fact that Ireland is in the west, let us go ahead and attack this point too. this corruption DA lacks Uniqueness, explain above, so this DA is already faulty. It is also not case specific at all. And my final point on this is that we are not giving any money to the governments or people of africa. This will all be US run, With US people, supplies, and everything. It will not happen to this plan. With that, the Ireland CP is out, as is the DA and T. You can totally vote aff in todays debate to save millions of lives. :)