User:Corvus coronoides/Debate

Water Wars Overview
The affirmative is losing this advantage - we have completely taken it out. Pull through our IPS ’06 card which gives empirical evidence that water wars are FALSE. Wars are not fought strictly over water, so the affirmative can’t solve for them because their funding is only for water. We outweigh the affirmative in all aspects, extend our Hecker ’05 card which states that it is highly unlikely that water wars will result from lack of water because countries will cooperate on the issue of water. The affirmative impacts are minimal, water wars will not escalate, and even if they do escalate, they will not include weapons of mass destruction because it makes no sense to fight over clean water with water polluting weapons. Our DA impacts outweigh [Talk about your DA impacts]. Lastly extend our Wolf ’97 cards which say that there must be other elements to the wars besides water. THEY ARE NOT WATER WARS. The affirmative doesn’t solve because they don't solve for the other causes of war.

Disease Overview
The water-borne disease impacts are even more ridiculous. First of all if the diseases aren’t very lethal, then they will co-evolve to have no lethality at all, which pales in comparison to our impacts. Secondly, if the diseases were lethal then they go through our “Burn Out” cards which state that highly lethal diseases kill too fast to become transmissible. The probability of these diseases killing as much as our DA impacts are very slim. Even if the whole world is infected, there will still be a chunk of people still alive. And even if the disease is capable of killing every single person, vaccines and other treatments available will slow them, and by that time, we will all die from the DA impacts. So therefore the negative outweighs on this advantage on probability, timeframe and magnitude.


 * Take note that you want the affirmative to admit to the lethality of their water-borne disease, most of the diseases have stupid impacts and you should win very easily**

Starvation Overview
The starvation advantage must be the weakest of all the water advantages. Treatment of water doesn’t solve for starvation. Pull through our Business Week Online ’05 card which states that infrastructure has to be improved to solve starvation. Also, cross-apply our infrastructure argument to our Brain Drain DA, even if the affirmative says that Brain Drain doesn’t specifically link to the case, they still admit that Brain Drain is the cause for poor infrastructure, and so if they can’t solve for brain drain, they can’t solve for infrastructure, and if they don’t solve for infrastructure, they can’t solve for starvation. Even if you grant the affirmative 100% solvency, it isn’t worth risking our DA impacts. Starvation has minimal impacts. Even if the whole SSA region dies off from starvation, it won’t effect the rest of the world. Whereas our DA impacts bring about extinction everywhere. The probability of the Affirmative solving for starvation is minimal. Also, their starvation impacts are empirically denied. We have completely negated this advantage.