Jump to content
kerpen

China or Military Deployment?

Which 2010-2011 finalist topic do you support?  

343 members have voted

  1. 1. Which 2010-2011 finalist topic do you support?

    • China
      132
    • Military Deployment
      211


Recommended Posts

The NHFS announced the final topic choices for 2010-11: China and Military Deployment. Which do you prefer?

 

CHINA

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the People’s Republic of China on one or more of the following issues: trade, economy, environment.

 

MILITARY DEPLOYMENT

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really thought about this much and I think both topics look pretty good, but my gut instinct is that we've debated China enough on a variety of topics in HS & college and that the military deployments topic could be a breath of fresh air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think it should be Military Deployment for a few reasons. The first is China is debated almost every year in some context. Also because part of the resolution is the environment, we will just have RPS with China and electronet as an aff again. It also gives very little room for more alternative affermatives. I have yet to come up with what I would consider interesting affermatives. Also I seems as if there would be a large bias for the negative. The res just screams for Ks as well as lots of DAs on all subjects.

 

Military deployment gives a lot of even ground and there can be some really interesting scenarios that are not usually discussed. How about a Korea DA, with tags like "the North Will fly across the 49th parallel." Or a discussion of US Airbases in Turkey. The res is very wide, but gives a good distribution of arguments to both sides.

 

In sum China is the same as every year and every debate would have happened before, while deployment gives us new debates about new topics as well as a good amount of arguments on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very surprised by how solid these two resolutions look. I think either one would produce a good year of debates. China is always a topic of conversation, but until you have an entire year centered around something you haven't done it justice. However, it was debated in college in the not too distant past (although I am not entirely sure that is a bad thing), so it might cause some stale debates when camps just rehash all those ideas.

 

I really like military deployment, it is nothing like the topics in high school or college recently and you will still get to talk about China in an intricate way. Gut feeling tells me that managing that topic on the neg would be a little rough. Turkey/Iraq and Kuwait/Afghanistan/Japan and South Korea are all in very different regions and being able to tackle the ins and outs of the Caucuses, Middle East, Central Asia and East Asia may prove difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both look like solid topics, I'm liking the China topic a little better though because:

1. No one wants to hear Cuomo and militarism every round

 

2. China debates are always the best. Always the best and most evidence - with a lot of solid CP ground.

 

3. Straight up impact turn debates on China would be quite interesting also.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another thought, the South Korea and Japan portions of the military deployments resolution probably encapsulates a decent amount of the China issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think military deployment offers better ground for criticism (of the non-hypocritical US attacking china's human rights kind). So I obviously picked that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really dissappoined about the removal of the non-US actor topic that was still around last time.

 

How about we challenge ourselves to think beyond the Politics DA. International politics is so much more fun.

 

The debate community exemplifies the selfaborbed americans i detest.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am really dissappoined about the removal of the non-US actor topic that was still around last time.

 

How about we challenge ourselves to think beyond the Politics DA. International politics is so much more fun.

 

The debate community exemplifies the selfaborbed americans i detest.

IM SORAY I THOUGHT THIS WUZ MURRICAAA

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am really dissappoined about the removal of the non-US actor topic that was still around last time.

 

How about we challenge ourselves to think beyond the Politics DA. International politics is so much more fun.

 

The debate community exemplifies the selfaborbed americans i detest.

 

Debaters in America generally are Americans, learning what the UN does about stuff has less of an effect on the education of the policy makers and thinkers that debate creates, since most will continue being American.

 

Also: good luck with your whole anti-Americanism, you U.S. citizen you.

 

To the repper: Yea sure, thats cool, i was just criticizing what this guy was saying. I think every topic looks at different aspects of America. Sorta Changes every year

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IM SORAY I THOUGHT THIS WUZ MURRICAAA

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Incredible Hulk? again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Straight up impact turn debates on China would be quite interesting also.

China War Good=Win

 

 

BUT-- i just changed my mind, thanks to biopower's post

 

revote?

Edited by Checkmate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This decision shouldn't be close. Military Deployment is far better of a topic than China. Few reasons.

 

1) China topic blows for the neg - increase economic engagement? AKA the status quo. If you all thought this year, last year, or the year before were bad in terms of DA thumpers, this one is even worse. Not only do we already have massive economic ties with China and are cooperating in just about every area imaginable, but there is no doubt that Obama is going to ramp up his pro-China rhetoric, and it's unlikely that Congress is going to turn anti-China any time soon, considering the state of the economy. Politics may be the only unique DA, if that, and that's...very boring.

 

2) No one has good heg debates at all anymore. The fact that heg has been a prominent advantage on topics like Africa shows how truly shallow the debates have become over the costs and benefits of American troop deployments globally. A ton of debaters these days like getting into heg debates on both sides, reading cards against each other that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Affs in question or really the kind of "leadership" their authors are talking about. This topic would really allow debaters to get into the nitty gritty parts of that literature and actually learn what people like Layne and Thayer are advocating, making this topic potentially much more interesting and educational than China.

 

3) The impacts are MUCH bigger, much more diverse, and encompass literally every geographical area of the globe. China - not so much. Middle East, maybe Chavez, is as far as that topic gets away from China. Military people would be able to discuss every security umbrella we have, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Europe, Central Asia, and potentially the Middle East, which is particularly interesting given the situation with Afghanistan. I guess Africa too, but I won't pretend like that aff will be remotely fun to debate.

 

4) Kritiks will be much more specific, making for much better kritik debates. China topic has mostly generic Ks of economics and geopolitics like Cap and Global/Local, which have gotten boring. Military has specific K's on the Aff and Neg, IE superpower syndrome, and also will have much more specific debates over security-type Ks.

 

5) Reiterating what Jason said - in reality, a lot of the Japan and Taiwan affs would be able to access a lot of the impacts, and even some of the mechanisms, of the China topic by affecting our relationship with China and maybe even our economic trade relations with China. So really, there isn't a good reason why you would want to eliminate all the other great debates of the Military topic and constrict yourself to just China, especially considering how boring the China topic would get.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This decision shouldn't be close. Military Deployment is far better of a topic than China. Few reasons.

 

1) China topic blows for the neg - increase economic engagement? AKA the status quo. If you all thought this year, last year, or the year before were bad in terms of DA thumpers, this one is even worse. Not only do we already have massive economic ties with China and are cooperating in just about every area imaginable, but there is no doubt that Obama is going to ramp up his pro-China rhetoric, and it's unlikely that Congress is going to turn anti-China any time soon, considering the state of the economy. Politics may be the only unique DA, if that, and that's...very boring.

 

2) No one has good heg debates at all anymore. The fact that heg has been a prominent advantage on topics like Africa shows how truly shallow the debates have become over the costs and benefits of American troop deployments globally. A ton of debaters these days like getting into heg debates on both sides, reading cards against each other that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Affs in question or really the kind of "leadership" their authors are talking about. This topic would really allow debaters to get into the nitty gritty parts of that literature and actually learn what people like Layne and Thayer are advocating, making this topic potentially much more interesting and educational than China.

 

3) The impacts are MUCH bigger, much more diverse, and encompass literally every geographical area of the globe. China - not so much. Middle East, maybe Chavez, is as far as that topic gets away from China. Military people would be able to discuss every security umbrella we have, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Europe, Central Asia, and potentially the Middle East, which is particularly interesting given the situation with Afghanistan. I guess Africa too, but I won't pretend like that aff will be remotely fun to debate.

 

4) Kritiks will be much more specific, making for much better kritik debates. China topic has mostly generic Ks of economics and geopolitics like Cap and Global/Local, which have gotten boring. Military has specific K's on the Aff and Neg, IE superpower syndrome, and also will have much more specific debates over security-type Ks.

 

5) Reiterating what Jason said - in reality, a lot of the Japan and Taiwan affs would be able to access a lot of the impacts, and even some of the mechanisms, of the China topic by affecting our relationship with China and maybe even our economic trade relations with China. So really, there isn't a good reason why you would want to eliminate all the other great debates of the Military topic and constrict yourself to just China, especially considering how boring the China topic would get.

i would like to change my vote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Military Deployment is far better of a topic than China

 

I agree with Carlotti. Besides, there will always be some way for China to be an issue on the Military Deployment topic. Seeing that there have been China DA's on these last two domestic topics, there's no way it will be kept out of this international resolution. It's the best medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I don't agree though, because something tells me, it would devolve into largely JUST a hegemony topic.. which I don't want to experience, more so personally but whatever.

 

And if we're talking about accessing the other topics impacts, I think the China topic would engage a hegemony debate better than military deployment. Considering the largest threat to American Dominance is the squo is the rise of China means that the literature would be more conducive to true American dominance. And I don't think removing our military from Afghanistan would really help our hegemony much anyway...

 

And what in the world is a police force too, ya know? Does that mean like surveillance of the area too? That's just a question I ask myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See I don't agree though, because something tells me, it would devolve into largely JUST a hegemony topic.. which I don't want to experience, more so personally but whatever.

 

And if we're talking about accessing the other topics impacts, I think the China topic would engage a hegemony debate better than military deployment. Considering the largest threat to American Dominance is the squo is the rise of China means that the literature would be more conducive to true American dominance. And I don't think removing our military from Afghanistan would really help our hegemony much anyway...

 

And what in the world is a police force too, ya know? Does that mean like surveillance of the area too? That's just a question I ask myself.

 

What says it'll JUST be a heg topic though? I think as much as that question well surely be asked quite a few times, i think more specific situations of regional circumstances in terms of relations, economics, resource competition, stability. There is no doubt that these will be major points in the debates too.

I see how you're making that judgement, but thats like saying every round this year comes down to Gilligan and poverty (which, for the most part, hasn't)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer military deployment because of the theoretical slaughterhouse-five performative aff I was thinking about writing for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer military deployment because of the theoretical slaughterhouse-five performative aff I was thinking about writing for it.

You're going with the wrong book...Ice Nine.

 

Of course, that does leave you open to the Bokonon K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would love, aside from not having to hear another debate about American troops in other countries, is for debaters to truly understand the political, economic, and social threat that China presents to America. In many ways, we are in a no-quarter war and we have already ceded victory to China.

 

Having debated the last China resolution in 95-96 (i think), I can vouch for the fact that it was the best resolution I had debated and come to think of it, it was quite possibly the best resolution since 93 when I started debating.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See I don't agree though, because something tells me, it would devolve into largely JUST a hegemony topic.. which I don't want to experience, more so personally but whatever.

 

And if we're talking about accessing the other topics impacts, I think the China topic would engage a hegemony debate better than military deployment. Considering the largest threat to American Dominance is the squo is the rise of China means that the literature would be more conducive to true American dominance. And I don't think removing our military from Afghanistan would really help our hegemony much anyway...

 

And what in the world is a police force too, ya know? Does that mean like surveillance of the area too? That's just a question I ask myself.

 

I don't understand why the China topic gets into any debates about heg - its about economic cooperation - i think that kinda proves my point about how no one has ever had an actual debate over US primacy/troop deployments and heg debates are quite shallow.

 

Obviously it's a heg topic - the beauty of it is you get to go quite far beyond "Khalilzad 95" and actually have debates about specific regional impacts troop deployments have, how those affect overall grand strategy, and how they affect our relationships with the mentioned countries and the region.

 

Now, the China topic is economic cooperation. can any of you explain to me what UNIQUE da would be available for the neg on this topic? Thus far, Obama has already been calling for trade cooperation with things like the stimulus, green energy cooperation, bilateral nuclear cooperation (already made a commitment to detarget), and China is and has been for some time America's biggest trading partner. THIS TOPIC BLOWS. The aff will read some small ass aff and read 2 minutes of "trade now" in the 1AC or they will just change around current trade stuff that most of the neg link ev for stuff like appeasement, protectionism, etc. (core DAs on that topic) would probably not assume. But guess what? If you like China, there are 2 countries listed in the military topic that would certainly allow for China advantages and, more specifically, certainly impact our trade relations with China which means you ACTUALLY can get the best of that topic, whereas China doesn't even scratch the surface of troop deployment.

 

Let's compare neg ground on topics, shall we?

 

China:

Appeasement DA

Protectionism DA

Econ DA (of some nebulous internal link)

Chinese Politics (maybe only decent DA here)

Politics (yawn)

 

Assortment of conditions/consult CPs

Offsets CP

 

Cap K

 

Military:

Heg/Isolationism DA

Red Spread/Russian Imperialism DA

Allied Prolif (Turkey and Japan) DA

Troop Shift DA (We need troops somewhere, you allow them to go there, that's bad)

RMA Bad DA

Appeasement DA (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) - 3/4 are unique

Assortment of Foreign Politics DAs (Chinese and Russian elections, Japanese agenda politics, etc.)

Diplomatic Capital DA

Politics (still yawn)

 

Conditions/Consult with better ev this time

Negative Security Assurances CP

Much more specific PICs (keep troops in Okinawa, keep some in Seoul, etc.)

 

Militarism K

Security K

Superpower Syndrome K

 

(keep in mind, i mention Ks that will have specific links - obviously security can be read on China, but it would be weak at best)

 

I don't think it's even comparable. Not only are the DAs on the military topic actually unique, but they are actually fun DAs to debate. Aside from "woah China cool man, fun shit" i really don't think there is any decent justification for the China topic.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am really dissappoined about the removal of the non-US actor topic that was still around last time.

 

How about we challenge ourselves to think beyond the Politics DA. International politics is so much more fun.

 

The debate community exemplifies the selfaborbed americans i detest.

The non-US actor res was basically what we were debating this year. It would've sucked to have it again. My vote goes for Military. In my years I haven't had a topic like this and I really think it would be nice to ahve something new.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...