Jump to content
USMessi

Venezuela affs?

Recommended Posts

I've gotten mixed messages about the potential of Venezuela for the topic. Some people tell me it has the most effective cases, whereas others have told me it's almost impossible to run. What's your opinion, and what Venezuelan affs could be successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am sure that there are cases that would work, economic engagement with Venezuela is an essentially unsound proposition right now.

 

For policy affs - 

 

1. "Venezuela says no" is stellar defense that really reduces the amount of solvency you can claim (and therefore the amount of unique risk of an impact you can leverage) against...

 

2. Politics, which, coincidentally, is fantastic against Venezuela affs because Republicans have hated Venezuela since offering Snowden asylum.

 

3. Because Venezuela is one of the most productive anti-imperialist states in Latin America, it has very healthy relationships with a lot of neighboring states which would probably be better actors for the plan that the United States federal government. These CPs probably solve almost all (of the negligible risk of) the aff, so rarely would you be able to even leverage the aff against the politics DA.

 

4. Kritiks like imperialism and neoliberalism are uniquely strong because A. Venezuela is the closest to the neoliberal/not-neoliberal border of any of the three topic countries, B. a plan with any magnitude could conceivably be the tipping point, or it just won't be significant enough to beat politics, and C. socialist policies are working remarkably well in Venezuela. 

 

For K affs -

 

1. Whatever you're doing, you should probably do it with Cuba. Nothing is uniquely beneficial about focusing on Venezuela, to my knowledge, but I invite counter-examples. 

 

2. I think the "Venezuela says no" argument can probably be leveraged as offense in a K debate. The fact that we assume Venezuela to want our shitty condescending [whatever the plan action is] is probably independently imperialist. 

 

3. Out-left is probably strong. I've not seen Venezuela debates because the aff is so infrequent, but there's a lot of real, left infrastructure in Venezuela that could conceivably be the object of a strong negative position against a critical Venezuela aff. For example, advocating for the improvement of existing egalitarian systems in Venezuela that produce a more desirable state of affairs WITHOUT the insertion of "daddy USFG"  probably solves all of the aff with an imperialism net benefit.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one argument I'm most concerned about is "Say no". My circuit isn't big on K's and CP's, and I'm pretty good at answering politics. I was considering developing the Venezuela Counter-narcotics Aff put out by MichiganClassic. Do you think that "Say yes" is winnable with this case? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one argument I'm most concerned about is "Say no". My circuit isn't big on K's and CP's, and I'm pretty good at answering politics. I was considering developing the Venezuela Counter-narcotics Aff put out by MichiganClassic. Do you think that "Say yes" is winnable with this case? 

I think that the politics link would be mitigated with this aff (GOP kinda loves counter-narcotics), but the "say no" argument would probably be even more true in this instance because Maduro won't want a repeat of what happened to Mexico during the war on drugs (I haven't seen the "say no" in regards to this aff, but this seems like what Maduro's take would be given his history).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the counternarcotics aff topical? I'm interested in seeing the evidence on t.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the many T answers that was on the Counter narcotics file that I was looking at

Counternarcotics is economic engagement

 Sabatini 11

“U.S.-South America Relations: Rising Rivalry, Prickly Partnership†Christopher Sabatini; editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly, senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas and associate adjunct professor at Columbia University;  11 Oct 2011 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10300/u-s-south-america-relations-rising-rivalry-prickly-partnership

Focusing on trade and energy across borders to create markets that are greater than the sum of their parts will help in that effort and expand the United States' economic leverage. Placing the economic incentives front and center will also help to re-establish the logic of the U.S. in modern South American politics at a time when U.S. diplomacy and political allure matter less, but remain potent. Ultimately, for all its promise, UNASUR still lacks an organizational base and a diplomatic-normative framework to serve as a long-term alternative forum free of the United States. For this reason, the United States can and must play a strong diplomatic role in the region, prodding South American governments to action; working with them to address issues that affect their and U.S. interests -- including narcotics production, transnational crime, security and potential regional conflicts, to name a few; and, yes, to occasionally serve as a convenient foil for governments that want to raise a sticky issue but would prefer not to take the lead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the many T answers that was on the Counter narcotics file that I was looking at

Counternarcotics is economic engagement

 Sabatini 11

“U.S.-South America Relations: Rising Rivalry, Prickly Partnership†Christopher Sabatini; editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly, senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas and associate adjunct professor at Columbia University;  11 Oct 2011 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10300/u-s-south-america-relations-rising-rivalry-prickly-partnership

Focusing on trade and energy across borders to create markets that are greater than the sum of their parts will help in that effort and expand the United States' economic leverage. Placing the economic incentives front and center will also help to re-establish the logic of the U.S. in modern South American politics at a time when U.S. diplomacy and political allure matter less, but remain potent. Ultimately, for all its promise, UNASUR still lacks an organizational base and a diplomatic-normative framework to serve as a long-term alternative forum free of the United States. For this reason, the United States can and must play a strong diplomatic role in the region, prodding South American governments to action; working with them to address issues that affect their and U.S. interests -- including narcotics production, transnational crime, security and potential regional conflicts, to name a few; and, yes, to occasionally serve as a convenient foil for governments that want to raise a sticky issue but would prefer not to take the lead.  

That card is horrible for what it's tagged as...

 

It literally says "The United States can and must play a strong DIPLOMATIC rule in the region...narcotics production". If anything, this card says counternarcotics is diplomatic engagement. I'd argue that it's military engagement. It seems like the only way that card would make sense for how it's tagged is by like this:

 

 

Focusing on trade and energy across borders to create markets that are greater than the sum of their parts will help in that effort and expand the United States' economic leverage. Placing the economic incentives front and center will also help to re-establish the logic of the U.S. in modern South American politics at a time when U.S. diplomacy and political allure matter less, but remain potent. Ultimately, for all its promise, UNASUR still lacks an organizational base and a diplomatic-normative framework to serve as a long-term alternative forum free of the United States. For this reason, the United States can and must play a strong diplomatic role in the region, prodding South American governments to action; working with them to address issues that affect their and U.S. interests -- including narcotics productiontransnational crime, security and potential regional conflicts, to name a few; and, yes, to occasionally serve as a convenient foil for governments that want to raise a sticky issue but would prefer not to take the lead.  

 
That is power-tagged SO hard. Dumb topicality evidence is dumb...
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good way to read a Venezuela aff, K or Policy, would be supporting opposition groups in Venezuela. There is some good evidence on that question, and it avoids a lot of the offense against most Venezuela affs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That card is horrible for what it's tagged as...

 

It literally says "The United States can and must play a strong DIPLOMATIC rule in the region...narcotics production". If anything, this card says counternarcotics is diplomatic engagement. I'd argue that it's military engagement. It seems like the only way that card would make sense for how it's tagged is by like this:

 

 

Focusing on trade and energy across borders to create markets that are greater than the sum of their parts will help in that effort and expand the United States' economic leverage. Placing the economic incentives front and center will also help to re-establish the logic of the U.S. in modern South American politics at a time when U.S. diplomacy and political allure matter less, but remain potent. Ultimately, for all its promise, UNASUR still lacks an organizational base and a diplomatic-normative framework to serve as a long-term alternative forum free of the United States. For this reason, the United States can and must play a strong diplomatic role in the region, prodding South American governments to action; working with them to address issues that affect their and U.S. interests -- including narcotics productiontransnational crime, security and potential regional conflicts, to name a few; and, yes, to occasionally serve as a convenient foil for governments that want to raise a sticky issue but would prefer not to take the lead.  

 
That is power-tagged SO hard. Dumb topicality evidence is dumb...

 

Im not saying its good Topicality evidence I am just saying thats the main evidence that was on the file I got.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That card is horrible for what it's tagged as...

 

It literally says "The United States can and must play a strong DIPLOMATIC rule in the region...narcotics production". If anything, this card says counternarcotics is diplomatic engagement. I'd argue that it's military engagement. It seems like the only way that card would make sense for how it's tagged is by like this:

 

 

Focusing on trade and energy across borders to create markets that are greater than the sum of their parts will help in that effort and expand the United States' economic leverage. Placing the economic incentives front and center will also help to re-establish the logic of the U.S. in modern South American politics at a time when U.S. diplomacy and political allure matter less, but remain potent. Ultimately, for all its promise, UNASUR still lacks an organizational base and a diplomatic-normative framework to serve as a long-term alternative forum free of the United States. For this reason, the United States can and must play a strong diplomatic role in the region, prodding South American governments to action; working with them to address issues that affect their and U.S. interests -- including narcotics productiontransnational crime, security and potential regional conflicts, to name a few; and, yes, to occasionally serve as a convenient foil for governments that want to raise a sticky issue but would prefer not to take the lead.  

 
That is power-tagged SO hard. Dumb topicality evidence is dumb...

 

 

I don't even see the word "Economic Engagement" in this card at all... :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Quid Pro Quo aff about Venezuelan cooperation with Iran is cool, and the "say yes" evidence is specific and pretty interesting. Counternarcotics has some cool advantages, but still has the issue of say "no" and topicality. On the wiki, Marquette has a cool kritikal aff about student initiatives in the country. I'm really trying hard to find something about cooperation with Venezuela on Amazonian ecology, but to no avail :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MisterTDebater posted his evidence files for free, I strongly suggest checking those out. He has an impressive evidence block for venezuela aff's. Mostly oil, but also some Cobaltan aff stuff. A LOT of general venezuela mechanics.

 

I've done some research towards Venezuela says yes, I do have some decent cards that would work for an aff. As far as T, it depends on your plan and how it deals with narcotics in Venezuela honestly.

 

As far as Venezuela aff's, I judged a novice round a month or so ago, it was just venezuela oil. I haven't seen debated any on the varsity circuit. I've heard rumors of a Venezuela women's rights case... I believe it's undefeated this semester. I also saw a Venezuela ports aff go undefeated at a tournament. They said all they hit was Maduro bad and says no, and they had blocks to both those arguments. I've heard about a US invest and repair Venezuela's cyber-grid. It's also undefeated but some of the mechanics are questionable.

 

I personally say, run Venezuela. I've talked with teams in my area and their file on it is a tenth of what they have for the other countries.

If you can create a file and research Venezuela and you're specific case thoroughly, you'll have the upper hand in every debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a Venezuela Aff which requires government coop working in a round where the teams are anywhere near equal. The Maduro says no evidence is too strong. Virtually all the 'says yes' evidence is from April-June, maybe July if you're lucky, and most of it is Western commentators imagining opinions into Maduro's mouth because it makes sense to them. Then September happened, and Maduro began a long parade of fail with US relations. This really is a case where reality is one way, and anyone arguing against it had better hope their opponents are incompetent and the judge has been living in a closet for 6 months. Anyone who can win 'Maduro says yes' should be running a real case instead - its like winning on aspec with no in-round abuse. The last few days has been the first evidence *in four months* that the US and VZ might start *talking* again, but its a far cry from that to VZ acquiescing to a US demand to do something (and I can only find the story at Venezuelanalysis, which isn't promising).

 

I've voted for a VZ Aff once all year, and its mostly because their opponents weren't very effective (and hadn't done any research). I've repeatedly told teams running VZ cases that they need to switch cases, and that I'll have a very hard time voting for their case if their opponents are competent. Half-way decent teams in my area have gone to reading 10+ 'Maduro says no' cards, including ones from a day or two before the tournament, because that's enough to win on presumption against most VZ cases. And everyone can learn to say 'prefer our cards, they post-date'. The latest piece from Venezuelanalysis doesn't really change that metric, since it doesn't say nearly enough, and there's piles of evidence from the last four months about how he approaches running VZ. I can't see acquiescing to pro-Capitalist policies as making his list of things to do.

 

The VZ oil case is especially egregious for a number of reasons, not least because VZ is one of the OPEC members most in favor of keeping oil prices high, and because privatizing would gut government revenue and economic control. (But the China-US-Taiwan relations advantage I've heard is also complete nonsense, so much so that explaining exactly why is a serious chore).

 

Despite all those issues, for some reason VZ oil keeps breaking some teams in my area. At least from what I've seen ran against it, it really surprises me. Maduro says no is easy to win and a complete solvency take-out.

 

Now, I haven't seen a VZ Aff that doesn't require Maduro to cooperate. I'm sure those could be amazing. I'm not sure how much literature support they have though.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...