Response to the Health Position Paper by the Department for International Development

Response to the Health Position Paper by the Department for International Development

----

The first thing that struck me about this position paper - specifically its structure - is its striking similarity to that of the policy debate cases that I used to write in high school. These cases presented a problem in society, various issues associated if that problem was to persist, and then a detailed outline of a plan, after which we presented an inherency, its advantages, and how it would solve that problem.

There is a specific name to this sort of structured CX or policy case, which also applies to the type of evaluation some judges participate in. These are called 'stock issues', and there are 5 main ones: Inherency, Harms, Advantages, Solvency, and Topicality. Inherency and Topicality are less applicable in the position paper because it is not an essential part of convincing a third party. In addition, this particular paper does not include either; however, topicality (staying within the broad prompt) underlies the entire idea of health and proposing health solutions for a health problem. Inherency acts in a similar manner - it exists to make sure the proposal is not the same exact thing as another.

In this position paper, I noticed emphasis and clearly separated sections of the problem that they are trying to solve, what the organization does and what it does in relation to the solution, the risks of not addressing the issue, and the various components needed to carry it out and why it would work. With my background in CX debate, (although it's been around a year since I've written cases,) this style is familiar to me and should not (and hopefully turns out as such) be a huge-gantic struggle. To be honest, however, motivation issues always exist and they may be the bigger problem.

----