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

Ok, sorry for my delayed response.... So I hate to have to do this in the 3rd round, but I feel this must be expanded upon. To those that don't know policy debate, (and some that do) there are very few rules as to how things have to go. Time limits is about the only real rule, the rest of how policy debate is structured is theory. That means that basically this is just how debate evolved, but there are no rules guiding this. Thus topicality, is simply a theory. In real policy debate, T is used to prevent abuse. It is used to make sure that the neg is not put at a disadvantage in the round because the aff presented something that the neg was not prepared to debate. They came into the round with all of their evidence that they cannot research in round, and have to make due. But if the neg were say to run a T, then have cards on the aff case, in theory the T should not have been run because the neg was prepared that case. Thus, if the neg IS NOT AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE ROUND, T SHOULD NOT BE RUN. I realize that my opponent wanted to get as close to real policy debate as possible. However, on an internet debate sight where one has 3 days to research ANYTHING with the entire internet to use, there is no way possible to make this truly like a policy debate. And because my opponent was simply too lazy to actually use the entire internet, you should not vote on the T's. He had 3 days and the entire internet to find anything on this case (and trust me, there is a lot out there, the neg file on safe blood is not small) and he chose not to do it. Do not punish the aff because the neg was too lazy to research. That is what the reserve voter of laziness was. With that.... Each T specific again.... Ok, so now that this "to" T has become a "public" T, I guess we shall deal with it as that. Let us look at his definition of public. "In the legal arena, public does not simply mean "widespread." It invokes a special set of justifications for government intervention and coercion." Now my opponent argues that "public" means I have to give the aid to the governments of SSA. Please point out ANYWHERE in those 2 lines where it says that! It doesn't. My opponent is misrepresenting his own evidence. It says that there have to be special justifications for the US to go into another country. However, my opponent fails to put in the part of what the special set of justifications are. This definition is incredibly vague and thus I provide a counter definition. From dictionary.com... Public-"of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole" reasons to prefer: 1. Although he provides a definition from a professional, he does not include enough of what that professional thinks "public" means. He left out what the special set of justifications are, thus his definition is incomplete. You should take mine over his because my definition is actually complete. 2. More common. When we think of the word "public" we don't sit here and nitpick that definition so only very certain things mean public. It obviously means the population as a whole. I meet my definition because ANYONE in SSA has the opportunity for safe blood under my plan. (This also covers his me admitting I'm untopical thing.) RVI: 1. Laziness- Explained above. 2. Forget time suck, the laziness is good enough to prove that T should never have been run in this debate, thus it takes out his standards of fairness and limits. Resolved T..... Ok, so although I still completely disagree with this point, I will let the word 'resolved' be a T. I am not going to waste my time arguing that it isnt when my opponent completely dropped my definition. Thus he agrees with me that Resolved means "firm in purpose or intent; determined." What I said about this is that the framers put that word in the resolution to show that we are firm in purpose that this is what we are debating about and nothing more. He agreed that it doesnt mean that the leg will pass it. (even though I meet that definition too) Now to show how I do let the leg pass it.... First of all, this went completely dropped..... "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." Thus, again he agrees that you, the judges are congress and the Pres, and when you vote aff, you pass my plan. He also states that it isnt anywhere in my plan text, however, he keeps only posting one part of plan text. Let me post, and capitalize where the leg pass it..... PLAN- 3.) THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM CLAIMS THE RIGHTS OF FIAT, LEGISLATIVE INTENT, and Clarification. It was in plan text, thank you. RVI: 1. Laziness. On to substantial.... Let us look once more at my opponent's definition.... "Bush's spending play for the Fiscal Year 2007 includes 11% for IA. This substaintial increase reflects..." Now my opponent doesn't seem to understand what I am arguing here. The word substantial has to start at a certain level, and go up from there. He is trying to say that it starts at 11%, and goes up. However, again my opponent misrepresents his own evidence, when someone provides a number for the definition of substantial, it needs an "at least" in it so we know where the minimum of where susbstantial starts. My opponent's def lacks the "at least". It says that 11% is included in what substantial is, however, it could very well start at .0000000000001%. In my opponents definition, only 11% itself would be substantial, nothing more or less, however we know that it doesn't work like that, thus you can still use my definition as being better. RVI: 1. Laziness. On to the CP... My opponent argues that because Ireland can solve for AIDS, they can do the plan. However, there are hundreds of ways to fight aids, safe blood is one, and Ireland has not proven they can solve using safe blood. They are good some other way, they have to prove that they can do it with safe blood, thus no Solv. Not true and stereotypical? How so? They are a different country, of course health things will be different! "They're only taking recomendations, not taking over the plan. Ireland can definetly take suggestions." Um, no. You said that Ireland is doing the aff plan, dont switch what they are doing, they have to do my plan, not something similar. "I proved that ALL AID will be stolen." Including Irelands... thus their corruption program fails and your CP has NO SOLVENCY or NET BENEFIT. As my opponent dropped my entire case, he agrees I do have solvency and the US can do this. Thus you should aff to make sure that lives will be saved. He also completely dropped the part where I said that this is US run, and governments cant steal the aid, thus I dont bite the DA anyway. Thus with no DA standing, (non unique, no link), and T, &CP, I win.