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

First on your observation- that only applies to one T. My other standards and voters still apply. It still is unpredictable and strays away from the topic. I also wanted to have a real policy debate, not a debate that has the policy resolution. To topicality- drop to and add the word public. It was a simple typing mistake. My opponent only argues the interpretation. If I win interpretation, I win this debate. He also never argues saying that to means to the people. That is not clash and only says my definition is wrong. Make him prove me wrong. Cross apply my standards- plus my 'public' definition is preferable because it comes from Mark A. Hall, Fred D. Professor of Law, Wake Forest University. His is from dictionary.com. Mine comes from Lawyers that deal with the public daily. Cross apply my voter for Fairness in the resolution (predictability) and limits. RVI- (an RVI? Really? Okay) Laziness- c'mon, really? I want to have a real policy debate. That is what sets us apart from other people on this website. We are a community of intelligent people that know about real debate, not to mention intense knowledge of political science. Why can't we say these things, even if they are online? Plus, even if was lazy, why would I take the time to write that? A lazy person would not write that, not get into this debate, not be on this website, not even know what debate was. That certainly does not make me lazy. Time suck- Do you fail to see the intense irony here? It's online. How much time does it take to read it? A minute? How is that different from writing another argument? Plus, you misinterpret a time suck. A time suck is not for the judge, they will have to listen to 8 minute speeches regardless. A time suck is a time suck for you to have to write about it. And you wrote about every argument, so it seems that is not an issue. Resolved T- It definitley is T. Do you know what the resolution is? Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substaintially increase public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. Most people look past the resolved, like yourself, but that is the resolution. Even if its not T, it's framework. If you don't meet the framework, everything is untopical. That definitley was not provided in the plan text. 'The United States federal government will substantially increase it health care to sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the recommendations of the American Association of Blood Banks' That is not passing a plan. That is adopting recomendations of an Association. It is in PEPFAR, which already is in place. Your plan text does not state you are making an association, not making a plan, not anything, only increasing money to a certain target. I don't know why you even said that. Cross apply voter and standards, which were dropped. Again, if I win interpretation, I win the debate. Substaintial T- "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." ummmmmm... what? Ah, the card says "Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects..." That says that Bush used 11% for international aid. That is a substaintial increase. How is that not a clear definition? It says that number reflects what is needed. That is a perfect definition. Cross apply voter, standards, dropped yada yada from the last line of the last T. I really don't feel like debating Spending, so I'll drop it. We've got so much offense already, it is also uneeded. I have proved to the judges this is untopical. That is procedural and should come first. Counterplan- this is very lazy on the part of the pro. Here's what he said- 1. "However, I failed to read "safe blood" being among them. Ireland can do all the malaria, aids, and TB help it wants to." Ummmm... what was your main advantage? O yeah, AIDS! If you are not helping with any of these diseases, there is really no point in doing your plan. What are you helping with? People looking at 712 million dollars worth of blood?? That is definetly not public health assistance. So definetly Ireland can solve this plan. It says they can solve for AIDS. If they can solve for AIDS, which my opponent admits, they can do the plan. It is also better because it fixes the problems with blood as well as other cases that AIDS is transmitted. 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." CARDS PLEASE!!!! That is not true and somewhat sterotypical. Also, they're doing this because its a good plan. Why can't they do it? They're only taking recomendations, not taking over the plan. Ireland can definetly take suggestions. 3. "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." First, you never say non-unique. So I say, Corruption is Rampant in Africa. There's ya go. Second, it really doesn't have to be case specific. I proved that ALL AID will be stolen. That includes your aid. What makes your plan so special. Third, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT OH MY GAWD I WON THIS DEBATE. You just admitted you don't give to governments, which is untopical. Boo ya. Cross apply government/public T. Wow. That was amazing. All you even had was interpretation, and you lost it. Offense on CP- My opponent never responded saying that Ireland can't solve. He never said the US can solve better. He never even said it was a bad counterplan. Ireland can pwn US at international aid. They are the Keltic Tiger. They went through a technological revolution in their own country, and they can do the same in Africa. Also, Africa hates the US. They have a broken image. Ireland has been on their side since the 1700's. They have the diplomatic inroads. They won't get their money stolen by corrupt governments. Vote neg to save tens of millions of lives. Ireland is amazing, and they can solve this problem. What's the main issue? We all want to save the most lives we can, and Ireland captures that. O yeah, he admitted he was untopical. I dunno why he did that, but I'll take it. Vote Neg.