Jump to content
ankitsachdeva

Taiwan Grand Bargain Layout?

Recommended Posts

Ok. I am running Taiwan Grand Bargain - (Taiwan Grand Bargain Affirmative - HSS 2016)

 

My contentions are as follows:

 

  1. Nuclear War Adv.
  2. US - China Relations Adv.
  3. Chinese Opacity Adv. (also solvency)

 

I know its not a lot but I am novice and only going to Leigh tournaments.

 

Question:

How should I organize my speech. I was planning on reading Nuke War. Adv. then plan text is that ok?

Any ideas about what to do w my case would also be awesome. 

 

Plan text:

The United States federal government should negotiate a grand bargain with China by offering to end its commitment to defend Taiwan. In return for China peacefully resolving its disputes in the South China and East China Seas and officially accepting the United States’ long-term military security role in East Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There shouldn't be a period in the middle of the plan text.

 

My personal preference is to read the plan at the very start of the speech, then solvency, then advantages, but there are those that disagree.

 

I think your advantages are fine - I would be ready to answer the "alt causes" (other things you don't solve) that weaken U.S.-China relations now.

 

Make sure you can leverage the relations argument to turn DAs and such.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you reading scenarios for both sides of the bargain? That is, arguing that unless the US abandons its commitment to Taiwan extinction will occur, while simultaneously arguing that unless China abandons its aggressive posture in the South China Sea extinction will occur? That would be ideal.

Are you prepared for the credibility DA? Something like this would make Japan and South Korea extremely edgy.

You might want to say "offering to acknowledge the PRC as the legitimate government of both Taiwan and Chinese mainland" rather than "offering to end its commitment to defend Taiwan". The second phrasing means that China would not be invited to invade, and leave open the possibility of China diplomatically or economically strong-arming Taiwan into unification. This would be less messy. And China would prefer the second phrasing because what they want is legitimacy, not just territory. Ultimately,  given their important political differences, Taiwan will probably have to remain a semi-autonomous region within China, sort of like Hong Kong. You can potentially sell putting them under the banner of the Chinese government as chiefly symbolic.

You might want to argue that unification is inevitable in the long run if war is avoided due to economic integration, but promoting it now through a deal allows the US to extract concessions while deescalating current tensions. "X is inevitable but we do it safely" is a good pattern for arguments to fit, remember it on future resolutions. If unification is inevitable, this deal is less the US abandoning an ally and more the US engineering a smooth transition. OTOH, this argument might hurt some of your offense, because if high economic integration and eventual unification is inevitable then maybe a deal is unnecessary. Unclear, just a possibility. Depends on the wording of whichever cards you might find. Edit: never mind, just noticed you're a novice. Don't worry about this paragraph.

You don't want a period before "In return". That should all be one sentence.

What's the opacity advantage going to look like? I haven't heard of that before.

What's stopping China from agreeing to the deal, waiting for the US to publicly announce that China has their go ahead, invading, and then pressing their claims to the South China Sea even harder later on? Is there any enforcement mechanism besides trust, here? Also, I'd point out that China doesn't have unilateral power over whether there's war in the South China Sea. They can only make a commitment to exercise self-defense only. But the fact that it's easy to make self-defense of territorial waters look like aggressive invasion of other countries' waters, and vice versa, is why the South China Sea is such a mess in the first place.

Do you have specific "China says yes" evidence for this proposal? I feel like you might be able to find evidence saying that China will back down in the South China Sea, and you might be able to find evidence saying that China's willing to accept the US as a permanent military power in the region, but you'll have a hard time finding evidence saying that China's willing to give up both of these things at once. Why do you even have the second half of that? Is there an advantage you're reading that's predicated on the US not being accepted as a long term military power in the region now? I think you're asking too much. This is probably the most important thing you should change.

Not saying this is a bad case, I think the basic idea is actually pretty good. Especially for a novice. Just raising issues you might want to consider if you haven't already.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can private message me for advice about how to run this aff – that way I can answer any specific questions you might have. My school used to run this aff, so I know it fairly well. In addition, I debate in your league (the Coast Forensic League, judging by your school), so I can give you specific advice about shaping the aff to appeal to the league's judges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking, first I'd say go with Nuke War or Relations advantage + Opacity advantage but don't have all three if you have a lay critic. It's better to have a clearer story because they don't flow that much. Also, put the plan under the nuke war or relations advantage and then have solvency and the opacity advantage under the plan. This works because you clearly present a problem your solution, how it works, and why it will work. 

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...