The US should make new funds for the Water For The Poor Act to solve for the African water crisis.

I'll just make a little reference table to start: 1. - Ethnic Spillovers 2. - Food and Water needed to solve 3. - Funding A - Can't help America and Africa both B - They should be on their own until they are peaceful 4. - Corruption A - Infrastructure 5. - Justify US action All right, I'm pretty sure that is all the points, or just about all the points, but before going further I think I should address my opinion on evidence. First let me make it clear I was a debater in high school and college. Therefore my views on evidence may be a bit skewed, but hopefully other feel the same way. Secondly, I would like to commend you so far on the debate. I have done extensive research on this topic, and I believe that you have done an admirable job keeping up with a topic that is a little off the main stream. That being said, it is my belief that a first account is not a actual piece of evidence, and should be evaluated within a reasonable framework. While I do not insult your integrity or honesty, I believe that a unbiased source of evidence should be held in higher regard than a first account, namely because the unbiased source has no interests in the outcome of the debate. Hopefully, you took your stance not to play devil's advocate, but rather to promote your views of the WFTPA. This means the obviously, you would like to win this debate, and therefore your views, regardless of how hard you try, may be biased. Thus, actual literature from credible unbiased sources, should in a debate, trump first-person accounts from a debater. The other argument you make is that your logic is evidence. I completely agree. However, when I disagree with your logic, one of the ways to prove your logic is with evidence. That being said, I have disagreed on several points, and asked for clarification, and supporting evidence. I think the clarification has been adequate (with the exception of a view points i may address later), but I argue that your evidence has either been missing, or second-rate. I hope this clarifies what I believe should happen. (Debate points, at least in the competitive circuit, are proven thru going step-by-step in a logical manner, or thru evidence. Evidence is not needed to be explained, because it is an unbiased source) Point 1 – Ethnic Spillovers My attack on this wasn't to deny that they are happening. On the contrary, they are. But you must prove that they actually stop the WFTPA from solving. I'll give an example. My computer chair is creaking, however it doesn't stop me from sitting in it. It may be best to stop the creaking, but unless it relates to me sitting in it, then there is no reason for me to stop it. This is important, because unless ethnic conflicts stop the WFTPA from solving, there is no reason to bring them up. Also, I think I should bring up a source. This is from Geoffrey D. Dabelko, the director of Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on June 29, 2005. He, and this is paraphrasing, says that water management creates participation that minimizes risks developing over other issues (i.e. ethnic wars) (www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/testimonyHR1973.doc). This means that should an ethnic war pop up, the WFTPA could solve. Not only that, but many ethnic conflicts have roots in water. A great example is the Darfur genocide. I think the link will suffice: http://www.cfr.org... Point 2 – First off, I'd like to clarify a little. This debate is about how to solve for the Water crisis, this attack only says that the WFTPA cannot solve for all problems in Africa. I'll go ahead and try to logically respond to it. Now I don't have the actual figures, but I would wager that a great many people lose work hours to work farms or their jobs, due to being sick. Disease is solved by the WFTPA, and therefore, indirectly of course, the food problems are solved by the WFTPA. Now this may be wrong, but I'm just guessing at what the cause is of Food problems in Africa. If they aren't due to lack of production, than obviously this point is moot, however the WFTPA still solves for the water problems. Point 3 – This point (funding) is probably the most significant argument in the debate. You've put the most time into it, and if you were correct, would be a major proponent that stops the WFTPA from solving. Your first point in this basically says that you wouldn't be willing to fund this, and therefore nobody else will. Two responses. First off, the funding is taken from a pool of money, and therefore not paying taxes on this, would mean stopping foreign aid. Basically, the way this works is there is a set amount of money, and taxes get it by the end of the year. Also by the end of the year, it is all spent (or generally is all spent). I have no idea where it goes if it isn't spent, but if it isn't spent, then why not on this plan? You actually admit that we could fund projects in Africa and the US, but that it would be expensive. Well I hardly think w can put a price on lives, and I also think that if a price doesn't hurt us economically, then it isn't too much to ask for. I believe if America can do something, it should. It all goes back to America's moral obligation to help those without basic rights (clean water for instance) achieve them. As for the Subpoint B, the plan stops wars, and so therefore would help that. I think it is empirically proven that they cannot stop all wars unless they solve for corruption on their own, which is highly unlikely. Point 4 – As I have stated before, corruption holds no real barrier to the WFTPA. The WFTPA basically doesn't use governments in SSA at the least. It uses local level efforts and builds the necessary facilities. The WFTPA goes in, builds, provides infrastructure (non-road kind), and gets out. Nowhere does it deal at all with governments. Also from Mary Shirley, president of the Ronald Coase Institute, water is essential to life, and therefore governments will not co-opt things that provide it. Governments need clean water because without it, people die, and therefore they have no one to govern. Responding to the Infrastructure point, I still do not see how lack of roads impedes upon irrigation systems distributing out the water. These irrigation systems do not use roads; they just spread the water out among communities. Roads may be needed for food delivery, but water is a whole other ballgame. Point 5 - Basically this point argues that the U.S. should not be the actor in the WFTPA. Well this is a moot point, because of several things. First and foremost, no other programs have solved. This is evident by the suffering of people in Africa today. This means that only the WFTPA can solve (as reasons I listed throughout the debate). Now, to my knowledge, no other country has the WFTPA or the things it needs to work (such as: USAID, technological know-how, etc etc). This means that the US is the ONLY country that could possibly solve for the problem, and thus makes it instrumental. However, you could say that this doesn't mean that the U.S. should work alone. Now it is important to note that the U.S. shouldn't neccesarily work alone. However, I will prove that the U.S. is the only one who would want to work on this, specifically because of the advantage specifically relating to America, that is Soft Power. Why would another country want to help us solve for our lack of Soft Power? Because this is a distinct advantage, not many other countries would be willing to help. However, there may still be a few others who would want to help, but the real question is: Are they able to help and contribute significantly? Why would we want to share the credit when we can adequately solve on our own? There is no reason. For these and other reasons, I urge a Pro vote today. Not only that, but I have provided preferential evidence, which I have proved is better than his arguments.