Jump to content
Rawrcat

2013-2014 Topic

Recommended Posts

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

 

How does everyone feel about this topic? I personally was really hoping the military tech topic would win. It seems like a throwback to the military topic 2010-2011 and had better access to foreign policy than this. Plus economic topics are boring. Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

 

How does everyone feel about this topic? I personally was really hoping the military tech topic would win. It seems like a throwback to the military topic 2010-2011 and had better access to foreign policy than this. Plus economic topics are boring. Thoughts?

 

I REALLY like this topic - its what I hoped would win.

 

Affs

-Lift Cuban Embargo

-Mexican Immigration?

-Venezuelan oil trade

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern is that the phrase "economic engagement" might be too broad. The word "toward" exacerbates this. (Why "toward" and not "with"?) But export controls seemed even worse for limits, so I'm glad overall.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the only t argument that will be ligit is economic engagement. For the most part i see alot of dedev and cap k coming

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This screams K affs with easy t arguments.

 

Everything is freaking engagement. It is a term of art--but I don't remember a topic which allowed the K aff such a direct access to the resolution.

 

In some ways this isn't particularly relevant--as K affs don't seem to worry so much about topicality....but anyway.

 

Capitalism. Capitalism everywhere.

 

This is capitalism on steroids in some sense. I think you get to claim how we manipulate people in trade deals more directly.

 

The question though, is trade protectionism & trade blocks worse than free trade/capitalism/neoliberalism.

 

Or does the alternative solve BOTH of those back.

 

I'm curious how IMF or WTO might relate to the topic--on either side.

 

Can we MFN any of these nations? Does Mexico already have what is basically MFN?

 

A couple other random arguments:

• Relations Good (Terrorism, War on Drugs, Free trade for Latin America, etc..)

• Nationalist/Sub-nationalist group backlash (disad in most cases, but could be claimed as an advantage too). Neo-liberalism backlash or Westernization backlash. Particularly with an elections story....but it could be a stand alone disad too (ie takeover, coup, backlash, civil war, etc..)

• What is US relations key to (besides oil, trade, WoD, WoT, ???--mexico & venezuela are both oil producers I believe )

• Tourism bad disad (us warming up means we go in.....and pollute or whatever). Also MNC's bad disad and various other versions of the growth disad debate.

• Multilateral trade agreements good disad--this damages or improves them (there is an upcoming talk about....x, y, z...)

• Growth solves immigration bad impacts in the US (but I think that the growth in most cases will be in BOTH places...so probably no net effect. Not sure how that works in practice).

• Foreign direct investment good/bad

• State department tradeoff disads (focus on latin america trades-off with middle east)

 

Cuba seems to have the most opportunity for big things to happen....given that we don't have very good relations with the embargo.

• There are lots of mini-disads based on specific products we could lift based on. (ie it might be cigars or something like that....just look at the list of products it covers).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only concern is that the phrase "economic engagement" might be too broad. The word "toward" exacerbates this. (Why "toward" and not "with"?) But export controls seemed even worse for limits, so I'm glad overall.

 

You raise a really good point with the usage of toward, I see strange T debates ahead. I also would like to point out the omission of the Oxford comma...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise a really good point with the usage of toward, I see strange T debates ahead. I also would like to point out the omission of the Oxford comma...

 

i'll die if there's oxford comma violations. Like, "Cuba, and either mexico or venezuela" types of interps. egh.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give money to Raul Castro

give money to Huge Chavez so he can get better and implement more socialist reforms

end the war on drugs in Mexico

allow illegal immigration from Mexico

build cross strait stuff with mexico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borders CP ftw.

 

What's the potential of this perm argument: resolution's wording means aff doesn't have to acknowledge static borders, only that there are general areas that can be thought of as sorta Mexicanish, Venezuelish, etc? I think there's literature about fuzzy borders that would go well with this.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least two international backlash/relations disads:

  • China Relations/Chinese Nationalism/Circle of Influence
  • Russia Relations/Russian Nationalism/Circle of Influence

 

Apparently property rights (ie copyright is a form of economic engagement). And it seems you may be able to threaten to cut certain ties in order to achieve others--and that may be considered engagement.

Note: thats based on 60 seconds of reading. And I'm pretty sure there are counter-interps both ways.

 

Of course:

  • Democracy Promo Good/bad
  • Human rights good/bad (???)
  • US Soft power good/bad
  • Shunning K (don't have relations with evil countries--ie those that violate human rights, because thats evil)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the potential of this perm argument: resolution's wording means aff doesn't have to acknowledge static borders, only that there are general areas that can be thought of as sorta Mexicanish, Venezuelish, etc? I think there's literature about fuzzy borders that would go well with this.

 

Well I guess it could be argued, but most Borders CPs are also Ks of the "USfg"- so if the CP claims to dissolve the aff's actor entirely, I don't think the perm could function.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly hate this topic. The idea of listing countries and leads to really bad T and bad aff's. Also engagement is a really bad word choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise a really good point with the usage of toward, I see strange T debates ahead. I also would like to point out the omission of the Oxford comma...

 

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma...

 

Edit: Glad I got two downvotes!!!

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma...

 

HAVE YOU FUCKING SEEN DEBATERS?

 

Chaos at the beginning of the infrastructure topic: "I liek distorting framers intent"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAVE YOU FUCKING SEEN DEBATERS?

 

Chaos at the beginning of the infrastructure topic: "I liek distorting framers intent"

 

Framers intent is stupid

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framers intent is stupid

 

Point was that debaters will find the most absurd arguments if it is relevant. Not saying that's bad :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new topic seems a little narrow. Only three countries seems fairly limiting. Why can't we do all of Central and South America, and have an obscure Paraguay aff?

 

Of course, that could be too broad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...