On Ddt Legalization
NEG-Legalize DDT
Table of Contents
***Strategy Notes*** 2
***Flows*** 3 Flow - Gartner/Salter 4
***Frontlines*** 5 Frontline - Inherency: DDT Permitted in Developing Countries 6 Frontline - Inherency: Exemptions in Stockholm Convention 7 Frontline - Inherency: US using DDT currently 8 Frontline - A2: No Alternatives 9 B. WHO 09 - Alternatives to DDT in multiple countries 9 Frontline - A2: Malaria Resurgence 10 Frontline - A2: West Nile 11 Frontline - A2: Use current Stockholm Convention enforcement 12 Frontline - A2: Stopped Malaria in US 13 Frontline - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance 14 Frontline - Solvency: DDT is a pain to store and transport 15 Frontline - DA: DDT is poorly regulated 16 Frontline - DA: Human Health Crisis 17 Frontline - DA: Environmental Damage 18 Frontline - CP Links: Legalize under Stockholm Protection 19
***Extension*** 20 Extension - DDT Allowed for Developing Countries 21 Extension - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance 22 Extension - CP: Legalize under Stockholm protections 23
***Strategy Notes***
So this case is a throw back from environment year… I hate repeat cases -_- Anyways, the basic idea of the case is to legalize DDT. DDT is a chemical mosquito repellent that is dumped in nations in order to stop malaria. DDT was banned by the UN under the Stockholm convention, and signed onto by nearly every nation. Now the basic idea of the case is that DDT is the most effective way to fight malaria, however we cant use it because of the ban. I believe the case can be attacked straight up, without a counterplan, but include multiple cards for support of a CP if you want to go that route. Here is the run down of what arguments I would run…. A. Topicality (Not fully included in brief) , it can be hard to sell, but run just to annoy the aff team into dropping their untopical case. B. Inherency, DDT is currently allowed in developing countries
Table of Contents
***Strategy Notes*** 2
***Flows*** 3 Flow - Gartner/Salter 4
***Frontlines*** 5 Frontline - Inherency: DDT Permitted in Developing Countries 6 Frontline - Inherency: Exemptions in Stockholm Convention 7 Frontline - Inherency: US using DDT currently 8 Frontline - A2: No Alternatives 9 B. WHO 09 - Alternatives to DDT in multiple countries 9 Frontline - A2: Malaria Resurgence 10 Frontline - A2: West Nile 11 Frontline - A2: Use current Stockholm Convention enforcement 12 Frontline - A2: Stopped Malaria in US 13 Frontline - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance 14 Frontline - Solvency: DDT is a pain to store and transport 15 Frontline - DA: DDT is poorly regulated 16 Frontline - DA: Human Health Crisis 17 Frontline - DA: Environmental Damage 18 Frontline - CP Links: Legalize under Stockholm Protection 19
***Extension*** 20 Extension - DDT Allowed for Developing Countries 21 Extension - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance 22 Extension - CP: Legalize under Stockholm protections 23
***Strategy Notes***
So this case is a throw back from environment year… I hate repeat cases -_- Anyways, the basic idea of the case is to legalize DDT. DDT is a chemical mosquito repellent that is dumped in nations in order to stop malaria. DDT was banned by the UN under the Stockholm convention, and signed onto by nearly every nation. Now the basic idea of the case is that DDT is the most effective way to fight malaria, however we cant use it because of the ban. I believe the case can be attacked straight up, without a counterplan, but include multiple cards for support of a CP if you want to go that route. Here is the run down of what arguments I would run…. A. Topicality (Not fully included in brief) , it can be hard to sell, but run just to annoy the aff team into dropping their untopical case. B. Inherency, DDT is currently allowed in developing countries
Links: Plan: Bring back DDT by January 1, 2014.