the usfg should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa

A) Interpretation – Increase: Oxford English Dictionary, 2007—the action of increasing, the action, process, or fact of becoming or making greater, to become greater in size, amount, duration, or degree. B) Violation – the affirmative plan does not meet this word in the resolution. They fail to increase anything and only reform the current policy. C) Standards – 1) Limits – the affirmative allows for an infinite number of actions that the United States Federal government could topically do. Limiting the topic down to a reasonable amount of cases allows for both teams to have predictable ground for in-depth argumentation on the topic. 2) Topical Education – the framers intended the resolution to present an in-depth analysis of assistance policy in Africa. Without a clear limit to discussion we fail to learn about the politics and implications of increasing federal assistance to other countries. 3) Effectually-Topical - The plan is not topical in a vacuum. There is no way the negative can predict when the affirmative will cross the line into topicality. We mandate that the plan must be topical before the advantages. This is critical to core negative ground and discourages crazy cases such as - Plan: give Bush a hair-cut, which makes him happy so he decides to protect the environment. Effects topicality is an independent voting issue on predictability and ground. D)Voting - Topicality is an juristictional voting issue on the basis of education and competitive equity. -- 1) The democrats will win the upcoming presidential elections. Current domestic focus is key. Beehner 1-24-08 So much for the great foreign policy campaign of 2008. The importance of global affairs has receded like a bad hairline as the economic recession, immigration, health care, and other topics closer to home take center stage in this presidential campaign. That would appear to favor the Democrats, whose top candidates have virtually zero foreign policy experience between them. Their bread and butter remain pocketbook issues. 2) New foreign policy will destroy democrat presidential chances and push a McCain presidency. Beehner - 08 Remember all it takes is one foreign policy incident -- one errant bullet, one suicide bomb on a subway, one nuclear mishap -- and undecided voters will be sent scurrying over to the Republican side, craving someone with national security know-how, especially if McCain wins the nomination. Although foreign policy at present is not a central issue in the campaign, my guess is if the Democrats do not win the White House in November, foreign policy (and their lack of new ideas on this front) will have something to do with it. 3) A McCain presidency will spark mass relational backlash and destroy U.S. image world wide. Beehner 1-24-08 The knock on John McCain, besides his age and besides his rage, is he tends to care too much about foreign policy at the expense of domestic policy. To be sure, his candidacy was made possible by, besides the incompetence of his Republican competitors, the competency of David Petraeus's "surge" into Iraq. He is a war hero who firmly opposes torture. He sits on several committees devoted to foreign affairs. Let's face it: Unlike his rivals, he is no slouch when it comes to foreign policy. But McCain's global agenda is not something that would be welcome in these troubling times. First, it is muddle-headed. He still insists that Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. This despite the fact that a recent 60 Minutes interview with the FBI agent who spoke most intimately with Saddam before his death confirmed that the Baathist leader had nothing but hatred for global jihad or Osama bin Laden. Senator, as someone with so much foreign policy experience, doesn't it strike you as odd that Iraq is the central front in the GWOT and not, say, oh, I dunno, the Afghan-Pakistani border? Second, McCain would do next to nothing to repair America's image in the world. Far from it. He seems hardly concerned with catering to American voters--something I actually admire about him--let alone the world's denizens who have turned American flag burning into a spectator sport. Why would McCain go out of his way to kiss the butts of foreign dignitaries after he's won the presidency? I fear McCain will step on toes and rub our allies the wrong way. He will stick his foot in his mouth and he will create needless conflicts. Europeans (and most of the world) hate Bush not just for his ignorance on foreign affairs but also his stubbornness. Wait until they meet John McCain. -- Case Debate Defining Africa in "Sub" terms is racist and distorts your view of culture, preventing solvency. Shahadah in 2005 In this respect to discuss Africa from the context of Sub (a word which has links to sub-human, sub-culture, i.e. a very negative word) absolutely distorted view of African cultures north and south of the equator. Viewing culture from these limiting vantages-points poisons the flexibility and deeper appreciate of subtle complexities shared by these unique cultures. In a nutshell it is more obstructive, outside of science and rooted in extreme racist politics. There is more similarity between Mali culture and the culture of the nomadic Berber people than Bantu groups in the Congo . Amhara culture is radically different from say Ghana, and it can be argued to have a deeper relationship with Yemen (which it annexed in antiquity). Trade liberalization brings economic growth, higher incomes and more spending on health. India and China prove. Goodman, President, National Center for Policy Analysis, '07 * Between 1970 and 2000, the number of people living below a standard poverty line in China fell by 250 million; this occurred despite a 400 million person increase in the total population and rising income inequality. * Over the same period of time, the poverty count in India fell by 140 million people. * By contrast, the number of people in poverty rose by 200 million in Sub-Saharan Africa. So what did China and India do that Sub-Saharan Africa didn't do? Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard economist Robert Barro says there are two important differences:[7] 1. China and India adopted market based institutions (substantially substituting capitalism for communism in China and for socialism in India); with a few exceptions, African governments did not become more market oriented. 2. China and India received little, if any, foreign aid - while Africa received an enormous amount of aid, relative to the size of the economies. By making appropriate changes in public policies, China and India have been able to enjoy some of the highest rates of economic growth found anywhere in the world. Other countries that have also had remarkable economic success and enjoyed very high rates of economic growth are Hong Kong, Singapore and Chile. African countries, by contrast, have experienced a much lower rate of growth and, at times, no growth or even negative growth. Trade liberalization is declining in the status quo. More unilateral protectionist policies now would spiral to global trade wars Ikenson, Associate Director, Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, 8-13-07 The era of trade liberalization could get worse still. There is a distinct risk that unilateral, punitive actions on trade could severely damage the trade relationship and lead to a contagious deterioration of respect for the WTO and its decisions. That, ultimately, would take us back to the days when tit-for-tat trade wars were common, and uncertainty in trade prevailed.