Jump to content
TheSnowball

China Vdebate -- Rnivium [a] vs. NativeWarlock [n]

Recommended Posts

Solvency:
-who enacts the plan?

-what will you defend as a "energy security policy"?

 

Africa:

-does Chinese aggression negatively effect every African community?

-What makes the U.S. a net better presence in Africa?

 

Russia:

-so for high exports eventually being bad for Russia's econ I don't understand what causes the actually recession? 

 

Iran:

-how does stopping oil purchase stop co-op with Iran? Like Matthews just says co-op happens cause military industrial complexes- why wouldn't China just find another outlet for co-operation?

Edited by NativeWarlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ill judge if you would like.

only preference is that if/when the k gets introduced it helps to have a good weighing mechanism or impact filter and why you win yours, or win under your opponents.

not very many policy debaters impact out the t or theory, (or framework for that matter), levels of the debate so if/when you read it please have the impact be something that matters, not just "voter for fairness," fairness doesnt really have any real inherent value until you justify it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solvency:

-who enacts the plan?

On our end, various actors in the United States federal government as necessary. Primarily the U.S. Department of State working with the Chinese government, which then implements those standards.

-what will you defend as a "energy security policy"?

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.

 

Africa:

-does Chinese aggression negatively effect every African community?

That's not really quantifiable. To some degree, yes, because their influence is widespread.

-What makes the U.S. a net better presence in Africa?

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.

 

Russia:

-so for high exports eventually being bad for Russia's econ I don't understand what causes the actually recession? 

Just a supply/demand thing. When there's a lot of oil, it's cheaper and low prices crush the economy.

Iran:

-how does stopping oil purchase stop co-op with Iran? Like Matthews just says co-op happens cause military industrial complexes- why wouldn't China just find another outlet for co-operation?

China and Iran are huge trading partners - energy is a massive part of that agreement because China can pursue energy interests to shoehorn into other aspects of Iran politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the AC diplomatic, economic, or both

We will defend it is primarily diplomatic and will answer questions of topicality in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not done any policy (except for judging Harvard JV) in over a year, but I'll judge if ya want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not done any policy (except for judging Harvard JV) in over a year, but I'll judge if ya want

If we can get a third, then yeah i'm fine with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can get a third, then yeah i'm fine with that

i volunteer as tribute

 

my paradigm is that I will vote aff by presumption unless 1nc is 8 minutes of speed K

 

good luck

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i volunteer as tribute

 

my paradigm is that I will vote aff by presumption unless 1nc is 8 minutes of speed K

 

good luck

In that case things are looking up :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 off then

solvency, africa, russia, iran- each are organized under scenarios. 

 

Highlighted without tags is 2374- 2ac shouldn't count tags

 

open for cx

Thanks for researching it and running specific arguments. I appreciate it.

 

CX:

T-

1. What Affs are topical?

2. What ground do you lose?

 

DA-

1. Who is involved in an SCS conflict?

2. The Aff hasn't happened, and the squo is making China more aggressive as per your Xu evidence. Why does the squo solve the DA?

 

CP-

1. Status?

2. "minimizing export control lists through a sunset principled review process" <-- what does that mean?

3. Where does Shinn say having the U.S. export more oil solves?

4. Shinn only talks about Sudan - how do you solve our scenarios?

5. Why is the DA a net benefit.

 

K-

1. Status?

2. In what way do we embrace a development mindset?

3. Why is lessening oil extraction exclusive with opposing oil consumption?

4. Where do we suggest dehumanization results in animalization?

5. "pedagogical consciousness" <-- explain

 

Solvency

1. How do we help China's economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for researching it and running specific arguments. I appreciate it.

It was fun despite me knowing nothing about politics of any sort lol

 

CX:

T-

1. What Affs are topical?

-the USfg should fund low fixed-interest microfinance in the Guizhou province (diplomatic or econ)

-the USfg should lift export controls on satellite technology to the People's Republic of China (econ or diplomacy)

-the USfg should recruit a substantial amount of narcotic sniffing mice from the Kunming Institute of Zoology (LOL (econ or science diplomacy)

-the USfg should substantially increase its investment in renewable energy production with the People's Republic of China (mostly econ, maybe some i/L to diplomacy)

We can name a lot more

 

2. What ground do you lose?

Any China specific/relation-type disads cause you spike out by saying China was already on board with the plan in the 1ac- also America-related kritiks about IR- decol, wilderson, hauntology, etc. Also Wu becomes a DA to any CP cause you'll say our fiat isn't in China's best interests.    

 

DA-

1. Who is involved in an SCS conflict?

In our specific scenario, Wittner says the US and China

 

2. The Aff hasn't happened, and the squo is making China more aggressive as per your Xu evidence. Why does the squo solve the DA?

Zhenxing implies China needs more time securing African oil to strengthen market

 

CP-

1. Status?

condo

2. "minimizing export control lists through a sunset principled review process" <-- what does that mean?

Pruning export controls by evaluating the items on a continual basis

3. Where does Shinn say having the U.S. export more oil solves?

Not super specific to oil, but specific to shunning other "evil" countries economies via controls. Then China has to engage in things like oil commodities because oil is controlled- that's the Brown evidence.

4. Shinn only talks about Sudan - how do you solve our scenarios?

Russia, Iran, and the like are deemed rowdy by the US so we close off all economic ties with those countries- however, we'll also argue that our engagements with China post counterplan reduces the need to make alliances and whatnot. Countries aside, we can solve American primacy, colonialism, etc in the block. 

5. Why is the DA a net benefit.

It's not a blatant attempt to deny China oil.

 

K-

1. Status?

condo

2. In what way do we embrace a development mindset?

Assuming oil has to utilized at all or in a "better" way.

3. Why is lessening oil extraction exclusive with opposing oil consumption?

Not a matter of reducing how China does it, you only expand folds of global oil market cause it continues post plan in an allegedly better way, and America exploits resources post plan in a lot of your scenarios. 

4. Where do we suggest dehumanization results in animalization?

Human rights scenario- your understanding of violence is in which the non-human is the bottom of a hierarchy in which its always denied agency, ie "we all deserve HUMAN rights" begs the question how your ethical consideration is available to non-humans; it's not.

5. "pedagogical consciousness" <-- explain

We affirm the standpoint of the non-human, a non-anthropocentric starting point of debate. From this standpoint the AFF ought to be rejected in favor of ethical orienting ourselves to the environment.

 

Solvency

1. How do we help China's economy?

How do you help? We argue you don't that's Wall Street ev.

If you're asking in a world without the aff how're we supposed to solve, Wall Street just says China is upping its economy, but doesn't want to announce itself as a large economic power or else risk immense pressure while they already have bigger fish to fry. They're unwilling to break out the champagne and say yes to the AFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more.

 

T-

If we only defend the U.S. cooperating, does T go away?

 

DA-

Where does Zhenxing say they need more time?

 

CP-

Still confused why export controls = shunning.

 

K-

Do you defend that we should stop using non-renewable energy altogether?

 

Do you defend we get rid of human rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple more.

 

T-

If we only defend the U.S. cooperating, does T go away?

Sure

 

DA-

Where does Zhenxing say they need more time?

First, China’s oil companies’ overseas investments in oil fields are actually increasing the world oil supply, helping stabilize the world oil market, mitigating the upward pressure of oil prices, and improving world oil security

 

IncreasING- hasn't solves brink on SCS but it'll eventually smooth over the conflict.

 

CP-

Still confused why export controls = shunning.

We refuse to economically engage what the US perceives as sketchy actors who may be a threat to heg or just doesn't match our desired frame of partnership- ie China wants to advance space industry but we withhold satellite tech; this is an instsnce of shunning other countries.

 

K-

Do you defend that we should stop using non-renewable energy altogether?

Yep

 

Do you defend we get rid of human rights?

"Human" rights yes, but we still think equality and access to agency is good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sorry this is so late. I'd love to continue this now that I'm out of school, but I understand if you don't want to. You said don't count tags so the word count should be good. Open to CX.

Oh.

T

Iran

Africa

Russia

K

CP

DA

2AC NativeWarlock.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sorry this is so late. I'd love to continue this now that I'm out of school, but I understand if you don't want to. You said don't count tags so the word count should be good. Open to CX.

Oh.

T

Iran

Africa

Russia

K

CP

DA

Yeah cx soon!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it just me or did the 2ac seem 1ar-ish on case?

Yeah, more after round. I haven't cut a lot of evidence for the case yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T:

If you only defend the US- how do you prove solvency? Aren't all the say yes arguments defending China's co-op?

 

CP:

Do I just have to win heg as an internal link to solving th Russia scenario as per coalitions?

 

What do you mean textual comp is bad? Like this wasn't a word PIC or even a PIC- why is it shady?

 

And this justifies a perm how?

 

DA:

Webster 15 just says cyberspace maybe but probably isn't in danger- how does this apply to China's energy security?

 

Zhu just says the US can fly over the SCS without starting a war- what about denying their entire status quo oil market though?

Edited by NativeWarlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T:

If you only defend the US- how do you prove solvency?

 

1AC Wu proves they will agree.

 

Aren't all the say yes arguments defending China's co-op?

 

Defending it but not fiating it.

 

CP:

Do I just have to win heg as an internal link to solving th Russia scenario as per coalitions?

 

Specifically presence and primacy in Asia.

 

What do you mean textual comp is bad? Like this wasn't a word PIC or even a PIC- why is it shady?

 

You compete textually and through a net benefit, but the CP uniquely solves the net benefit meaning a perm can limit oil dip without cutting China off. The only competition is textual then which does not make it functionally exclusive.

 

And this justifies a perm how?

 

See above.

 

DA:

Webster 15 just says cyberspace maybe but probably isn't in danger- how does this apply to China's energy security?

 

Webster is talking about the SCS impact.

 

Zhu just says the US can fly over the SCS without starting a war- what about denying their entire status quo oil market?

 

It proves tensions won't escalate.

 

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...