Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
THack

China-Fund Cp

Recommended Posts

I've been trying to decide on a reliable PIC to start working on, and I don't want to do States or Privatization. I came across the "have China fund the plan" CP on OpenEvidence and I'm pretty intrigued. NB I'm thinking of is Politics. I wanna know what you guys think of this CP.

 

The main unique arguments against the CP I can think of:

1. China wouldn't do it

2. Perm do CP - China already funds the US debt

 

My answers to the above:

1. Fiat solves and China wants to invest in the US' infrastructure so it has a better trading partner (backed up by 1NC ev)

2. China doesn't fund ALL of the debt and the Perm severs 'Its'

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems pretty non-competitive to me. I think you're going to have a hard time on the perm debate. Also, I think it's going to be pretty hard for you to find a specific solvency advocate for the CP, which brings up a slew of different problems. However, if you want to run it make sure you are convincing. Just make sure you have good solvency evidence and make your perm blocks legit. I think it would also be good to have another specific net-benefit to the CP other than tix. Something specific to why China funding the plan is best, which may be hard. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Hope it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
China doesn't fund ALL of the debt and the Perm severs 'Its'

 

I think what this should say is the perm is extra-topical OR the funding parts violates the words USFG & its due to its funding mechanism.

 

I think China wanting to do some transportation policy in the US doesn't mean it wants to do ALL potential transportation policies in the US. I still think there is a fiat problem--depending on how you frame what the counterplan does. What does the counterplan do if China opts out--funding wise?

 

I think you should give additional warrants as to why China would want to say yes to

1. transportation infrastructure specifically

2. the plan or potential advantages specifically.

 

The advantage part seems to be a problem given that they are mostly framed in terms of:

1. US hegemony

2. US competitiveness

 

I would also look at the types of projects the evidence speaks to--they may be more of the ports or highways variety versus the other parts of the topic which aren't. Ie what are the specific parts of the US infrastructure that China wants to see developed. Presumably they have goals & objectives in mind......they aren't just passing out cash.....otherwise there would be a lot more projects.

 

One other thing--almost whenever money changes hands in international relations.....it comes with strings attached (ie its an exercise of power). What would those strings be? How can that be articulated by the aff or the neg? How can you answer that? What types of Chinese products do we have to buy now that China has given us a load of cash to spend on improving our infrastructure?

 

That control means that the projects will serve Chinese interests more than they will serve US interests. Or at least other objectives and constraints which reflect China's point of view creep in to a greater extent. On the flip side--there MAY be an argument to be had--that our interests are 100% in sync or that we perceive them to be 100% in sync on this issue (ergo win-win).....but thats doubtful, especially versus the variety of affs on the topic (ie China probably doesn't want all the affs enacted....after all, again they have limited funds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked on and ran the China Fund CP at camp. And y'all are right: there are definetly competition issues.

 

We dealt with some of that by having a "conditions" type plan text which then allowed the CP to "compete" off certainty. I.E. "The People’s Republic of China should give the necessary funds to the United States federal government under the condition that the United States federal government ______ with those funds."

 

I haven't really had the "will China do it" debate, but most of the lit says China has already done infrastructure investment in the US, they are good at it, and they will do it again. Some of the China says yes/already funds projects do bolster aff arguments for CP is normal means but there is definetly room for the neg to debate it out.

 

About evidence specific to different projects that nathan_debate brings up, I don't think its a must as the evidence just needs to prove that China can fund the infrastructure not build it. Obviously if the aff has a specific funding mechanism you need evidence on that, but otherwise it shouldn't be a deal breaker.

 

About the heg advantage stuff, unless the aff's link is predicated off destroying Chinese power it shouldn't be a problem. The infrastructure still gets built, still boosts the economy, and heg is still achieved. There are also relations arguments to access heg. If someone reads the "China will be mean and excercise power over the US" turns, then have a defense of China investment and maybe Pan K that shit.

 

Another issue I had was that most of the lit seems to indicate that CP does link to politics, because of nationalist feelings in the political climate. (Think Congress wanting to burn the US Olympic Teams uniforms because they were made in China)

 

Despite all the issues, I still love the China CP. The internal net-benefits are pretty good, it for sure solves case, and politics or china relations nbs have some decent neg ev. To deal with the competition issues, just have a huge a2 "Perm:do the CP" block and you should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good way to deal with the heg debate is just to read heg bad in the 1nc. If you're feeling really ballsy and losing the disadvantage, you could even go for heg bad as the net benefit.

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...