Policy round

Thank you for responding. I'll be clearing up some misconceptions about my case. A. I would ask that Con would show why we don't have solvency. Just because he says so doesn't mean it's true. But I will respond to what he will most likely say. 1. Fiat power. As the affirmative team, I have fiat power. Of course, this only works when you vote for me, which is why I request your vote. Because of fiat power, we ensure that USAID will not misspend the money. 2. GAO. Our enforcement is the Government Accountability office, or GAO. This enforcement ensures that our fiat power is properly applied, and that USAID will be accountable and will not misspend money. B. Orphans. 1. My opponent conceded we should help the orphans. In other words, if I can prove that this case will help orphans, I win by default. 2. I'm not about to give each orphan three dollars. That's not how it works. As our USAID evidence stated, this assistance helps get them adopted by a family. That means they no longer need to get money because they are being cared for by a family. 3. I'm not trying to solve the complete problem. It would be insane to try and track every single orphan down to give them a home. Since our criterion is net benefits, though, if I help just one orphan, I win. (Unless of course there's a serious disadvantage to this case). My evidence shows that USAID helped 80,000 children in Russia with 60 million dollars. Do the math, USAID could help about a million. Of course, there aren't even 1 million orphans. This plan definitely will help. C. National Security 1. How is my evidence vague? It clearly states that 90 percent of active duty and retired officers agree that Foreign Aid helps national security. My opponent has provided absolutely no reason to believe that this is not so. 2. Specifically about Russia: CTR is one form of aid. CTR means national security because that lessens the threat of loose nukes, or the kind of bombs that could really harm the US. This point does not stand. D. Solvency card. 1. My opponent must be confused on this. This card is referring to Russia alone. It is showing how Russia is failing with the orphan system. That in no way proves that USAID fails. USAID does not equal Russia. 2. Our evidence under Advantage 1 shows that it WILL help. This point does not stand as it was a logical fallacy: applying evidence to something it doesn't say. E. USAID inevitable to be cut. 1. This means my opponent concedes that yes, Foreign Aid will be cut. 2. This Foreign Aid will NOT be cut. Only the Foreign Aid that comes from normal means. You see, congress will be cutting regular Foreign Aid, not this modified one that comes from Ethanol Subsidies. F. No warrant How is there no warrant? There's a clear statistic: 80,000 children. My opponent needs to provide evidence that this plan will not help children. Of course, that's impossible. In summary, I've addressed each of my opponent's arguments. Many of them were based on misconceptions about the case. Now, let's clear some things up about the case as well. 1. You're probably sitting there reading this and thinking "Why do I care about Russian orphans"? I have several reasons. A. It increases our National Security. So that is helping you, not just Russia. B. There's no reason not to. I will explain this in my next point, Ethanol. 2. Ethanol. Ethanol causes inflation on any corn product. Most food items contain corn. That means ethanol is what makes a lot of the things you buy every day expensive. (. http://www.thenewamerican.com...) Ethanol also increases our dependancy on foreign oil suppliers. It is estimated that the cost outweighs the benefits by 3 billion each year. In other words, it would be beneficial to throw this money off a cliff rather than spend it on ethanol. (. http://oilprice.com...) Of course, because of this, if the plan helped just one child with this plan, or increased our national security by a tiny bit, or helped one HIV/AIDS victim, then you should vote for me. But as our evidence has shown, we will save thousands of lives, not just a few. 3. Debt The other thought probably circulating your mind right now is "But we're in debt! " You're right, we are. We're sunk deep in debt. But this plan doesn't increase our debt or our spending. The reason is that with Con's position, or the Status Quo, this billion is being spent on Ethanol subsidies. But with this plan, the money is diverted to a better cause. No extra debt, but extra national security, and saved lives.