Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DarkDude

Looking for a good, generic CP

Recommended Posts

ummm... its perm do both... why is that suspicious?

Doesn't solve the perception link because it won't be seen as acting together.

and zero sum trade off is dumb - 1- its not part of the thesis of soft power.... and 2- even if you win that, perm do both means that BOTH countries increase soft power, which means that there is really no change... the US looks good but so does China, so really we just increase africas standards but no one comes out a winner... this means there is no shift in the U so no link to the case...

Zero-sum influence in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think repeating the phrase "zero-sum" constitutes an arguement...

 

The perm seems to solve the risk of the disadvantage. Seriously, what's the warrant for China flipping out?

 

Unless the US gets more soft power for the same action, there's no tradeoff to cause troubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't solve the perception link because it won't be seen as acting together.

 

Zero-sum influence in Africa.

 

what? 1 - how can you assert that... if they have the same policies they will have to work together or at least alongside each other... like they are doing the same plan... and 2- even if not, china is still right there 24-7 with teh americans, they can supervise us and spy on us and everything and not look bad bc they are just there to help with PH, this means taht their perception of us is what we do, and only that...

 

and you really have no warrant for this 0 sum thing, and please read my above post on why even if its 0 sum there is no da story with the perm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't solve the perception link because it won't be seen as acting together.

No need to act together. It would just be two separate actions each country gets credit for. If China's soft power can withstand decades of US influence in Africa, it can overcome plan. There would be an equal and opposite reaction by China to the plan; negating any gain in influence spheres that US might get. Also, if China's rise is peaceful like your link literature assumes, then it's not a hostile zero-sum competition and would never escalate to great power war such as your impact body of literature indicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think repeating the phrase "zero-sum" constitutes an arguement...

 

The perm seems to solve the risk of the disadvantage. Seriously, what's the warrant for China flipping out?

 

Unless the US gets more soft power for the same action, there's no tradeoff to cause troubles.

My internal links assume China sees Africa in terms of a zero-sum competition for energy security; it's slightly different than most disads that are being run and it's my fault for not elaborating further.

what? 1 - how can you assert that... if they have the same policies they will have to work together or at least alongside each other... like they are doing the same plan...

Sure.

and 2- even if not, china is still right there 24-7 with teh americans, they can supervise us and spy on us and everything and not look bad bc they are just there to help with PH, this means taht their perception of us is what we do, and only that...

That means EVERY SINGLE China disad doesn't link.

and you really have no warrant for this 0 sum thing, and please read my above post on why even if its 0 sum there is no da story with the perm

Above.

No need to act together. It would just be two separate actions each country gets credit for. If China's soft power can withstand decades of US influence in Africa, it can overcome plan.

Also means no China disad would link.

There would be an equal and opposite reaction by China to the plan; negating any gain in influence spheres that US might get.

This is probably one of the better answers to it. Depends on how the perception link debate plays out.

Also, if China's rise is peaceful like your link literature assumes, then it's not a hostile zero-sum competition and would never escalate to great power war such as your impact body of literature indicates.

Above and of course, most disads argue that somehow plan breaks his peaceful rise somehow. That's one of the reasons why the better impacts are based off of Sino/U.S. relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really arguing whether or not the China disad is legit or not (or links or not), but why it's a net-benefit to the counterplan that the perm can't really access.

 

It was really in response to this:

but dont run teh china CP with a china DA, thats just dumb.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um... but you havent disprooven why the perm would solve all of the links to the DA... thats why i said that...

 

and your evidence says energy security, great... so.....how does that link to the plan...? perception? so that means, once again, that the perm solves the link...this was above....

 

now, if you didnt run the CP, then there is no way for the Aff to perm the CP to solve the DA... that is why the CP/DA combo is a bad idea, the perm solves all of the offense of both flows... you are now down 2 arguments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perm is intrinsic. The plan has U.S. action, counterplan has China action. In neither the plan nor the counterplan does China or the U.S. cooperate. The links to the China disad assume that China sees U.S. action in Africa is bad.

 

The argument that "they will have to work together or at least alongside each other... like they are doing the same plan..." is ridiculous especially when the links assume both China and the U.S. are vying for influence/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perm is intrinsic if fiats co-operation. The whole point is that they don't work together and there's an equal gain in influence for both.

 

Yes, China disads link but the perm solves the link = why you don't run both the soft power da/cp

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perm is not intrinsic if you A- read ev that says they cooperate when stuff like that happens or B- just say that presence solves everything back anyway (it does...)

 

if they do the same plan, then they will at least keep tabs on each other... if not co-operate... even if they just keep tabs (and they will if your ev is correct in that CHina fears US soft take over) they will see that the plan = the plan, and the plan =/= mastermind scheme to steal energy reserves...

 

not to mention you are still not addressing the point that myself and synergy are making about how the perm means that both countries get equal influence... solving the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perm is intrinsic if fiats co-operation. The whole point is that they don't work together and there's an equal gain in influence for both.

 

Yes, China disads link but the perm solves the link = why you don't run both the soft power da/cp

If the link is based off of perception of U.S. action it means collapse in relations/whatever regardless.

perm is not intrinsic if you A- read ev that says they cooperate when stuff like that happens

I'm glad if you find evidence that says that instead of evidence that describes past examples of unique instances of cooperation due to specific programs, etc.

or B- just say that presence solves everything back anyway (it does...)

I'm sure China will send its health workers to "supervise us and spy on us" and the U.S. not do a thing about it.

if they do the same plan, then they will at least keep tabs on each other... if not co-operate... even if they just keep tabs (and they will if your ev is correct in that CHina fears US soft take over) they will see that the plan = the plan, and the plan =/= mastermind scheme to steal energy reserves...

What?

not to mention you are still not addressing the point that myself and synergy are making about how the perm means that both countries get equal influence... solving the link

Above and don't take credit for Syn's arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, so this sounds like a new DA - US doing anything in Africa kills relations? where is the literature for this?

Keep up. The links assume it in the context of public health. And it's not like I hadn't mentioned this earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the perm is not intrinisc, there is a huge body of literature to support the idea that china wants to co-operate on health issues. Additionally, all of the links you will read on teh china disad are predicated of plans that siphon away china's energy investments in africa. this is simply not the nature of the plan. Every relations disad that aff is on the side of truth. If china is only interested in resources, and the status quo is draining african economies and leading to wars (which make extracting resources harder) then somthing that would make end that (making resource extraction easier) would be seen as good.

 

 

next.

 

 

and the links to no assume PHA, this is clearly bullshit, show me a card that is not cut out of context that makes the arg that china would hate it if the US improved health in africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the link is based off of perception of U.S. action it means collapse in relations/whatever regardless.

 

I'm glad if you find evidence that says that instead of evidence that describes past examples of unique instances of cooperation due to specific programs, etc.

 

I'm sure China will send its health workers to "supervise us and spy on us" and the U.S. not do a thing about it.

 

What?

 

Above and don't take credit for Syn's coherent arguments.

 

 

ok - 1- this sounds like a new DA, saying that ANY US action in Africa kills relations, this is not the energy/oil DA or the Soft power DA anymore, so stop shifting...

 

 

2- this is an irrelevent point to the debate as a whole as it involves ev. that i know i have but you will never beleive me so w.e

 

3- umm, if the US isnt doing anything wrong, why do we care if their doctors also keep tabs on us? are US doctors now as paranoid as the administration? i dont thnk so...

 

4- sigh... i am saying that the perm means that China knows what we are doing, as they do the SAME THING - this solves all perception links to energy DAs because they all talk about how the Chinese will see US actino in africa as an attempt to take energy reserves, but this is not a link to the FUNCTION of the plan, only to its PERCEPTION - that means in the world of the perm, China can see the function of the plan, thus mooting the link

 

5- wow, i have been arguing that point for a while, the posts are above... but its ok, i have realized that you havent been reading what im saying for a while now so i didnt expect much more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing really new being argued here and the line-by-line is getting tiring.

 

Here's how I think it breaks down:

 

I haven't looked too much into the literature (though skeptical of the "huge body of literature" and amazing pieces of evidence being claimed) but the permutation probably solves part of the disad but I'm sure there are also China soft-power net-benefits intrinsic to the counterplan that could serve as link/internal link boosters and maybe check back the perm.

 

It's getting late and so I think I'll reveal why I think it's not a good idea to run a China counterplan and disad simultaneously:

 

The impacts whether it be U.S./Sino relations or war because major Chinese involvement more or less link as much to the counterplan as the plan as major rise in Chinese soft power collapses relations or (about as likely as the disad) causes America to lash out because it feels its hegemony is being challenged and needs to justify its masculinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the link is based off of perception of U.S. action it means collapse in relations/whatever regardless.

If that is the disad you're claiming, it's horrendously non-unique and imperialicaly denied. "US action" in Africa is the status quo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...