Table of Contents
Flow - Gartner/Salter4
Frontline - Inherency: DDT Permitted in Developing Countries6 Frontline - Inherency: Exemptions in Stockholm Convention7 Frontline - Inherency: US using DDT currently8
Frontline - A2: No Alternatives9
B. WHO 09 - Alternatives to DDT in multiple countries9
Frontline - A2: Malaria Resurgence10
Frontline - A2: West Nile11
Frontline - A2: Use current Stockholm Convention enforcement12 Frontline - A2: Stopped Malaria in US13
Frontline - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance14
Frontline - Solvency: DDT is a pain to store and transport15 Frontline - DA: DDT is poorly regulated16
Frontline - DA: Human Health Crisis17
Frontline - DA: Environmental Damage18
Frontline - CP Links: Legalize under Stockholm Protection19
Extension - DDT Allowed for Developing Countries21
Extension - Solvency: Mosquito Resistance22
Extension - CP: Legalize under Stockholm protections23
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 under an exemption (These are the countries in most need. C. Use any A2’s that apply, this will vary by case, but you should be able to destroy most of their claims. D. Solvency, Mosquitos become resistant to DDT, the strongest argument in my opionin. E. Finally I would run the full setup of DA’s, they give you plenty of really strong offense. In conclusion, the case is very very beatable, and should never have been brought back!!
1. No country is forced to stop producing DDT,
2. DDT fails and will not produce any advantages,
3. And DDT produces harmful side effects that warrant keeping the international position of condemnation.
Flow - Gartner/Salter
Harm 1. DDT Banned (David Howortiz, freedom center, March 09)
Plan: Bring back DDT by January 1, 2014.
Justification 1. Decrease in deaths (Discovernetworks.com)
Justification 2. Alternatives are harmful
Frontline - Inherency: DDT Permitted in Developing Countries
A. Prof R. Wigle 08 - DDT use is permitted and allowed by WHO
R. Wigle (Professor at the Department of Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University), 2008, “Economic Benefits of Increased Health through DDT Use in Treating Malaria,” Wilfred Laurier University, http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwsbe/faculty/rwigle/IP611/w09/DDT-briefing.pdf [ZM] “The use of DDT for disease vector control is permitted under the Stockholm Convention and advocated by the WHO. However, any country using DDT as part of its disease control must report their use to regulators empowered through the Stockholm Convention. This reporting process involves a questionnaire that requires countries to disclose how much DDT they are producing, distributing (through international trade), and using. They must also report on the seriousness and extent of malaria in the area that they are using DDT.”
B. Aaron Swartz 07 -...