Jump to content
TheSnowball

China Resolution Vdebate -- Rnivium [a] vs. aram [n]

Recommended Posts

I still need to finish impacting out and highlighting the 1AC, but I'll have it up tonight. Word limits? Judges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we have a lot of judges - cool. We should probably do either 3 or 5. I'm not sure.

 

The 1AC is 1834 - that should fall under a word limit. Want to do 2400/1600 or something? I just finished writing it, so it's not very polished, but that should make for an interesting debate. Open to CX.

Oil Diplomacy 1AC Rough Draft.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What energy security policies will be negotiated?

 

What is strategic balancing?

 

Point me to one line in the Schoeman evidence that mentions anything about US interests in Africa.

 

Why is Chinese influence in Africa neocolonial and US influence isn't?

 

There will be follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What energy security policies will be negotiated?

Most of the plan mechanism is talked about in the Wu evidence - the plan ensures that China has to substantially engage the global market instead of obtaining oil exclusively through trading partners - that's better for international energy security because 1. there's energy security and sustainable prices on the global market and 2. it leaves resources to be traded from major exporters to countries other than China.

What is strategic balancing?

Kind of the same as above - it's the balancing of getting the resources China needs from key exporters (even if they are anti-Western) while not engaging so much as to trigger the kinds of impacts in the 1AC. 

Point me to one line in the Schoeman evidence that mentions anything about US interests in Africa.

"international views, especially in the United States (US), whether scholarly or journalistic, seem to regard China as a 'bad influence', potentially undermining "years of international efforts to link aid to better governance"" Schoeman is talking about the progress that Western nations have made - America is interested in creating better governance, but Chinese neocolonialism is undermining that.

Why is Chinese influence in Africa neocolonial and US influence isn't?

While U.S. influence is focused on fixing governance issues and stopping proliferation, the Tiffen evidence talks about how China locks up commodities for Chinese use, creates mediocre infrastructure that's continually repaired by -- guess who -- China, creates unsustainable trade partnerships, and lobbies politicians through business investment. This is all done in a way that's super environmentally destructive to their own benefit.

There will be follow ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What energy security policies will be negotiated?

Most of the plan mechanism is talked about in the Wu evidence - the plan ensures that China has to substantially engage the global market instead of obtaining oil exclusively through trading partners - that's better for international energy security because 1. there's energy security and sustainable prices on the global market and 2. it leaves resources to be traded from major exporters to countries other than China.

What is strategic balancing?

Kind of the same as above - it's the balancing of getting the resources China needs from key exporters (even if they are anti-Western) while not engaging so much as to trigger the kinds of impacts in the 1AC. 

Point me to one line in the Schoeman evidence that mentions anything about US interests in Africa.

"international views, especially in the United States (US), whether scholarly or journalistic, seem to regard China as a 'bad influence', potentially undermining "years of international efforts to link aid to better governance"" Schoeman is talking about the progress that Western nations have made - America is interested in creating better governance, but Chinese neocolonialism is undermining that.

Wait, where does this say anything about the future of the US and it's desires in Africa?

Why is Chinese influence in Africa neocolonial and US influence isn't?

While U.S. influence is focused on fixing governance issues and stopping proliferation, the Tiffen evidence talks about how China locks up commodities for Chinese use, creates mediocre infrastructure that's continually repaired by -- guess who -- China, creates unsustainable trade partnerships, and lobbies politicians through business investment. This is all done in a way that's super environmentally destructive to their own benefit.

So US policy isn't mired in neocolonialism?

There will be follow ups

 

Your Wu evidence says: "China not only has voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council on the nuclear issue, but also has cut its oil imports from Iran" - what cooperation exists in the status quo?

 

Wu also says that China has already yielded to US pressure, why vote aff?

 

I've had AP testing all week, so I'll probs have 1NC this weekend if not sooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, where does this say anything about the future of the US and it's desires in Africa?

It doesn't explicitly state that in that quote, but it's implied by all of my evidence.

Zhenxing: "China’s oil diplomacy in Africa is challenging U.S. foreign policy" and "China's efforts don't bode well for Washington because, although China's hunt for African resources is not a direct threat to U.S. energy security, it is, however, a threat to other U.S. interests on the continent"

If you need me to, or if this becomes a bigger issue, I'll read evidence in the 2AC about how the U.S. is interested, but we've established that the U.S. has a ton of hegemony, foreign policy, and influence in Africa. The fact that they're interested is a given.

 

 

Your Wu evidence says: "China not only has voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council on the nuclear issue, but also has cut its oil imports from Iran" - what cooperation exists in the status quo?

Iran exports oil to China. That line is talking about how China's willing to cut cooperation if there's pressure from the U.S. -- the line immediately after that quote is "The main explanation for this apparent contradiction is US pressure"

 

Wu also says that China has already yielded to US pressure, why vote aff?

Because as per the rest of the 1AC China still has strong ties with Russia, Africa, and - to some degree - Iran. The cutting of Iran imports proves the solvency of the Aff.

 

I've had AP testing all week, so I'll probs have 1NC this weekend if not sooner

Cool - good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a cool aff, only thing that comes to mind to change (and this could be just something in my region) is to clearly demarcate what gets its own flow, having a flow for each scenario seems overboard, but trying to fit all three of the china or rus scenarios on one flow could be a night mare.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait, where does this say anything about the future of the US and it's desires in Africa?

It doesn't explicitly state that in that quote, but it's implied by all of my evidence.

Zhenxing: "China’s oil diplomacy in Africa is challenging U.S. foreign policy" and "China's efforts don't bode well for Washington because, although China's hunt for African resources is not a direct threat to U.S. energy security, it is, however, a threat to other U.S. interests on the continent"

If you need me to, or if this becomes a bigger issue, I'll read evidence in the 2AC about how the U.S. is interested, but we've established that the U.S. has a ton of hegemony, foreign policy, and influence in Africa. The fact that they're interested is a given.

 

 

Your Wu evidence says: "China not only has voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council on the nuclear issue, but also has cut its oil imports from Iran" - what cooperation exists in the status quo?

Iran exports oil to China. That line is talking about how China's willing to cut cooperation if there's pressure from the U.S. -- the line immediately after that quote is "The main explanation for this apparent contradiction is US pressure"

Woah woah, hold up.. the Wu evidence says China has already cut its imports from Iran, why is the plan necessary?

 

Wu also says that China has already yielded to US pressure, why vote aff?

Because as per the rest of the 1AC China still has strong ties with Russia, Africa, and - to some degree - Iran. The cutting of Iran imports proves the solvency of the Aff.

 

 

I've had AP testing all week, so I'll probs have 1NC this weekend if not sooner

Cool - good luck!

Thanks m8

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a cool aff, only thing that comes to mind to change (and this could be just something in my region) is to clearly demarcate what gets its own flow, having a flow for each scenario seems overboard, but trying to fit all three of the china or rus scenarios on one flow could be a night mare.

Yeah, I was more throwing in a bunch of mini-advantages to see what would work best to run as more lengthy arguments. Then, if I run this, I can swap out advantages based off who I'm hitting. For example, if a team likes to run security/heg bad stuff, I can run Africa human rights and neocolonialism. Against a more big stick impacts team I can run weapons prolif and Sino-Russian alliance. Now I'm just experimenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that last question, I'm not sure how substantial the cuts on Iran are, because our evidence still points to cooperation, it's not enough. That's just proof of solvency on a small scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order will be 1 off aspec

Ah, but they didn't spec which actor I was supposed to spec, so it's reciprocal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wait, where does this say anything about the future of the US and it's desires in Africa?

It doesn't explicitly state that in that quote, but it's implied by all of my evidence.

Zhenxing: "China’s oil diplomacy in Africa is challenging U.S. foreign policy" and "China's efforts don't bode well for Washington because, although China's hunt for African resources is not a direct threat to U.S. energy security, it is, however, a threat to other U.S. interests on the continent"

If you need me to, or if this becomes a bigger issue, I'll read evidence in the 2AC about how the U.S. is interested, but we've established that the U.S. has a ton of hegemony, foreign policy, and influence in Africa. The fact that they're interested is a given.

 

 

Your Wu evidence says: "China not only has voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council on the nuclear issue, but also has cut its oil imports from Iran" - what cooperation exists in the status quo?

Iran exports oil to China. That line is talking about how China's willing to cut cooperation if there's pressure from the U.S. -- the line immediately after that quote is "The main explanation for this apparent contradiction is US pressure"

 

Wu also says that China has already yielded to US pressure, why vote aff?

Because as per the rest of the 1AC China still has strong ties with Russia, Africa, and - to some degree - Iran. The cutting of Iran imports proves the solvency of the Aff.

 

I've had AP testing all week, so I'll probs have 1NC this weekend if not sooner

Cool - good luck!

 

I won't care if you post a 1NC like 3 weeks from now, so don't stress over getting it done ASAP. Hope all is well on your end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is dead i'd be down to go neg

 

But no pressure if you're sick of me loll idc

How could I ever get sick of broad topicality arguments, violence-based Ks, and occasionally an /almost/ policy argument?

 

In seriousness, sure, I'd love to. Can I post a forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could I ever get sick of broad topicality arguments, violence-based Ks, and occasionally an /almost/ policy argument?

 

In seriousness, sure, I'd love to. Can I post a forum?

Yeah sounds great

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...