Jump to content
ydavid

Round 1 ODT -- ydavid [A] vs. diantonion [N]

Recommended Posts

Cross-X

 

Plan

In which Multilateral Development Banks will the plan increase Chinese involvement?

 

How much capital will the US invest?

 

In what Asian infrastructure projects will the US invest post plan?\

 

What is the process for jointly approving Asian infrastructure projects? Is it the US and China deciding bilaterally, or are the nations in which the projects are built consulted?

 

Environment

Your Hughes evidence indicates that timber, cement, palm oil, and dams are all driving biodiversity loss in Southeast Asia. How does the plan specifically solve each of these factors?

 

Is the World Bank strengthening or weakening environmental protections now? The chronology of your evidence seems to indicate weakening in the status quo.

 

Where in your evidence do you think it is indicated that your plan would strengthen AIIB environmental standards?

 

More generally, how does your plan solve this advantage?

 

Accommodation

Why is China currently pursuing MDBs outside the “core?”

 

In the context of MDMs, what is the “core?”

 

What are your warrants for China saying yes?

 

Leadership

In which nations does the US see increased leadership?

 

Which nations go to war in the SCS?

 

Status Competition

If China is using the AIIB to increase its status, why would it be willing to downgrade AIIB influence relative to other MDBs?

 

Can you give me a line in your evidence indicating that Chinese military assertiveness is tied to global finance disputes instead of just caused by the same factors?

 

When will the US and China go to war?

 

$$$

Does China want to promote the RMB? If yes, why will they stop post plan?

 

What are the warrants for why the US will go to war over its currency?

 

Other

Will you defend increased Chinese involvement in every MDB in your evidence?

 

How do you know that the theories of international relations posited by your authors are valid descriptions of reality?

Edited by diantonion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-X

 

Plan

In which Multilateral Development Banks will the plan increase Chinese involvement?

We'll defend an increase in Chinese involvement to the core MDB's, which are the 5 largest MDB's in the squo i.e. the World Bank and the ADB. However, the plan also spurs Chinese involvement in all MDB projects. 

How much capital will the US invest?

As much as is necessary to sustainably fund for jointly approved projects 

In what Asian infrastructure projects will the US invest post plan?

Anything jointly approved by the US and PRC, OBOR is a prominent example that comes to mind 

What is the process for jointly approving Asian infrastructure projects? Is it the US and China deciding bilaterally, or are the nations in which the projects are built consulted?

That's a bilateral decision

Environment

Your Hughes evidence indicates that timber, cement, palm oil, and dams are all driving biodiversity loss in Southeast Asia. How does the plan specifically solve each of these factors?

Colford 15 states specifically that, "resources are especially targeted to high risk projects" it's not a far cry to say that these are all high risk projects in Southeast Asia that PRC involvement would remedy 

Is the World Bank strengthening or weakening environmental protections now? The chronology of your evidence seems to indicate weakening in the status quo.

That understanding of the chronology seems a bit disingenuous, the protections are strengthening now, but with fragmentation and AIIB challenging the lack of competition will force them to lower their standards, which causes the harms of the 1AC 

Where in your evidence do you think it is indicated that your plan would strengthen AIIB environmental standards?

We don't defend that, we defend that challenging AIIB dominance is critical to stop the AIIB from undercutting MDB efforts to strengthen their environmental regulations and solve for biod 

More generally, how does your plan solve this advantage?

If this isn't answered you can certainly follow up, but I think the above answers illustrate it pretty well. 

Accommodation

Why is China currently pursuing MDBs outside the “core?”

They are invested in the AIIB, and thus want to undercut MDB stability 

In the context of MDBs, what is the “core?”

The five largest MDB's in relation to US involvement 

What are your warrants for China saying yes?

There are multiple warrants, but I think Morris 16 does the best job of showing that since China views itself as being undercut in the squo it views the plan as an indication in the US is changing its strategy and will then agree, also as He shows, China doesn't like containment 

Leadership

In which nations does the US see increased leadership?

Mainly countries in East Asian territorial disputes and countries in Southeast Asia 

Which nations go to war in the SCS?

Brunei,China, (Taiwan), Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. As well as the US and any nation drawn in by either alliances or strategic choices.

Status Competition

If China is using the AIIB to increase its status, why would it be willing to downgrade AIIB influence relative to other MDBs?

Because China at the end of the day is only using the AIIB because it feels slighted on the international stage, meaning that in the world of the aff they have the ability to have equal footing with the US without the harms, it's a good idea from their perspective to say yes. 

Can you give me a line in your evidence indicating that Chinese military assertiveness is tied to global finance disputes instead of just caused by the same factors?

"As the US-led global financial governance architecture has not made progress on reforms to the extent deemed necessary by China, Beijing begun to proactively support new international organizations’ emergence on the global financial horizon. The New Development Bank (NDB) BRICS, formally founded in July 2014 and headquartered in Shanghai, is the one cornerstone. Tellingly, the official NDB homepage explicitly highlights that the bank constitutes “an alternative to the existing US-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund” and that unlike in the WB and IMF, “in the New Development Bank each participant country will be assigned one vote, and none of the countries will have veto power” (NDB, 2016). The other cornerstone, which has in fact caused an even greater stir, is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), according to official statements meant to complement and cooperate with the existing multilateral development banks such as the IMF (AIIB, 2016). Upon China’s initiative in October 2014, more than 50 countries joined the AIIB as founding members, among which are all key Western European economies. While this certainly boosted China’s international status, it simultaneously challenged America’s long-held top rank in this area. That is why the United States was initially quite suspicious about the AIIB and has so far shown no intention of participating (Tiezzi, 2015). While the purview and success of the NDB and AIIB are not decided yet, the message is all the more clear: China is able, and willing, to establish governance structures in parallel to the US-dominated system, thereby putting pressure on Washington to recognize Beijing’s status seeking within the established international order. The fact that the United States eventually gave up its obstructive behaviour towards IMF quota share reforms in mid-December 2015 and that the Chinese renminbi was added to the IMF basket of global reserve currencies in October 2016 are positive, but ultimately too little from the Chinese point of view. Key global governance mechanisms, particularly in the economic and financial fields, are generally changing much more slowly than the global power constellations, and US behaviour is a prime reason for this situation. China, meanwhile, is increasingly dissatisfied with this slow rate of change, as it implies that its international status is lagging behind its increasing power resources" It then goes onto say how this specifically leads the provision of "status" which leads to the conflict at hand 

When will the US and China go to war?

 

$$$

Does China want to promote the RMB? If yes, why will they stop post plan?

Yes; they don't want to US to lashout, especially with the uncertainty caused by Trump 

What are the warrants for why the US will go to war over its currency?

1. They want to preserve their heg 2. 0 sum games 3. Lack of deterrence from geostrategic risks

Other

Will you defend increased Chinese involvement in every MDB in your evidence?

Sure

How do you know that the theories of international relations posited by your authors are valid descriptions of reality?

1. They're the only ones yet to be proposed, so I'd default to their truth thus far 2. I think my form of IR best follows both state actions as well as historical precedent. 

Sorry for the wait m8, I'm just drowning in schoolwork 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the wait m8, I'm just drowning in schoolwork 

No problem, take however long you need (within the time constraints, of course).

 

Here's the 1NC. It's 3 off, then case. Word count is a little under 2700. Uploaded at 10:56 PM on 5/16/17.

 

Cool aff, btw.

 

And since I posted this quite late, you can have more than 12 hours for CX if you want.

1NC ODT R1.docx

Edited by diantonion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

The plan is a proposal between the US and China? Why would this violate the interpretation?

 

Why is T a voter?

 

CP 

Status?

 

You use Hughes as a Solvency advocate for the first plank of the CP, quoting a line where she makes a specific policy diagnosis to remedy part of the issue, how does the CP solve the remainder of the warrants on Hughes?

 

You don't appear to address the status competition argumentation, beyond alt causes, will you concede this is the best way to evaluate East Asian conflicts?

 

Can the CP solve for status competition? If so, how?

 

Explain mutual nuclear vulnerability? 

 

Why exactly should the judge be able to kick your CP?

 

Why can the negative kick planks from the CP?

 

How does the CP resolve the disad?

 

DA

I'm confused, doesn't PTI 15 just exemplify the point risen in Laurence 16, exacerbatating the impetus to vote?

 

Is neoliberalism unique to core MDB's or is it done by the smaller ones as well? 

 

Case 

What method of IR do you think the affirmative uses?

 

Can you expand upon the arguments in the Bernstein card?

 

Will you defend Bremmer or the CP in terms of the SCS impact?

 

Why is Chadran's economic analysis still viable in a changing market?

 

Expound upon the impact in the Hickey card?

 

You reference a dollar heg turn on the CP flow, is that Hickey? I just want to be sure?

 

I doubt there will be any followups.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

The plan is a proposal between the US and China? Why would this violate the interpretation?

Every plan has the US propose something to China. It is what is proposed that is the issue, and your proposal involves engagement with third parties, which is the violation.

 

Why is T a voter?

So debate is fair, which is key to making debate fun and preserving participation, and education, which is why debate is so valuable.

 

CP 

Status?

Conditonal

 

You use Hughes as a Solvency advocate for the first plank of the CP, quoting a line where she makes a specific policy diagnosis to remedy part of the issue, how does the CP solve the remainder of the warrants on Hughes?

I mean, this part talks about preventing species loss in SE Asia, which is all I need to do to solve the advantage.

 

You don't appear to address the status competition argumentation, beyond alt causes, will you concede this is the best way to evaluate East Asian conflicts?

At this point in the debate that appears to be the only method presented. So sure. But I may use Bernstein to argue that there is no way to evaluate them.

 

Can the CP solve for status competition? If so, how?

It solves the impact of the scenario but not the competition itself.

 

Explain mutual nuclear vulnerability? 

We tell China that we aren't able to prevent a retaliatory nuclear strike if we were to nuke them.

 

Why exactly should the judge be able to kick your CP?

Because a logical policymaker can pick from a range of options, so if the status quo is good, they should be able to vote for it.

 

Why can the negative kick planks from the CP?

Similar to above, a logical policymaker can modify their ideas if they realize their previous ideas were wrong.

 

How does the CP resolve the disad?

It allows non-core MDBs to rise on their own.

 

DA

I'm confused, doesn't PTI 15 just exemplify the point risen in Laurence 16, exacerbatating the impetus to vote?

So this will be expanded in the block, but we will be arguing basically two things: 1) MDB competition is actually causing a race to the top in terms of development strategies, and 2) non-corn MDBs are preferable to core MDBs.

 

Is neoliberalism unique to core MDB's or is it done by the smaller ones as well? 

It could potentially be done by smaller ones, but we will defend that the way core MDBs push neoliberalism on developing nations is dramatically more harmful.

 

Case 

What method of IR do you think the affirmative uses?

I don't have an answer in terms of if your aff is defensive realist or whatever, but I will defend that your aff uses mainstream conceptions of how IR works, as I think your accommodation advantage demonstrates.

 

Can you expand upon the arguments in the Bernstein card?

Basically that IR theorizing generally fails because it sets up certain hypotheses about how the international system works, yet doesn't ground them in reality. What ends up happening is that IR ends up using abstract concepts about how states/actors should act, but that isn't how they really do.

 

Will you defend Bremmer or the CP in terms of the SCS impact?

Both. I agree that tensions exist in the region, and the CP can solve those, but they won't escalate, that's Bremmer.

 

Why is Chadran's economic analysis still viable in a changing market?

Well, Chandran isn't citing specific factors at the time but instead pointing out the implausibility of the specific steps needed to boost the RMB ever being taken.

 

Expound upon the impact in the Hickey card?

Basically that the US used the primacy of the dollar allows the US to economically coerce other nations into doing things that may harm themselves yet benefit the US.

 

You reference a dollar heg turn on the CP flow, is that Hickey? I just want to be sure?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX

General

Any theoretical reasons to reject the neg?

BioD

Were core MDBs addressing BioD risks in SE Asia before the AIIB came along? If so, what evidence do you have that indicates such a thing to be true?

What is the warrant the MDB coordination solving BioD, and which card(s) make that claim?

How does the aff resolve human pressures on ecosystems in every part of the world?

If your tipping points are invisible, how do YOU know about them?

Leadership

Draw the line between Wethington and Goh for me. What is the type of leadership specifically that you claim both cards is talking about?

$$$

Are you fiating the Trump does the plan or the Trump does the plan and doesn’t do anything else to potentially destabilize the dollar?

CP

Can you clarify your solvency arguments on plank 2?

DA

Do any of your authors other than Laurence 16 make the race to the bottom argument?

Edited by diantonion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question about calculating word counts: I don't count the unread citation information, right?

 

Also, what are rebuttal word counts?

Edited by diantonion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question about calculating word counts: I don't count the unread citation information, right?

Verbatim only counts tags and highlighted words, so cites are ignored entirely

 

Also, what are rebuttal word counts?

1,625

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX

General

Any theoretical reasons to reject the neg?

Nah fam, not yet 

BioD

Were core MDBs addressing BioD risks in SE Asia before the AIIB came along? If so, what evidence do you have that indicates such a thing to be true?

Yes; Colford 15 

What is the warrant the MDB coordination solving BioD, and which card(s) make that claim?

Colford 15 and Laurence 16 both state that biodiversity is in trouble worldwide, and environmental standards as per the World Bank pre-AIIB race to the bottom, are sufficient to remedy global biod challenges 

How does the aff resolve human pressures on ecosystems in every part of the world?

Answered above I think 

If your tipping points are invisible, how do YOU know about them?

We can see the effects of them being crossed in certain ecosystems, as per the 6th mass extinction, we cannot tell where or when they will be crossed, which is why it is key to take the necessary environmental precautions in vulnerable areas. 

Leadership

Draw the line between Wethington and Goh for me. What is the type of leadership specifically that you claim both cards is talking about?

Sure, Wethington explains that the dominant projection of power and leadership in Asia is through preserving liberalism and the international order. This is the specific type of leadership Goh mentions when she talks about US leadership in relation to territorial disputes. 

$$$

Are you fiating the Trump does the plan or the Trump does the plan and doesn’t do anything else to potentially destabilize the dollar?

It's more of a risk of solvency type argument, yes we fiat the Trump administration doing the plan, which would mean that in this specific area, he can't lashout and harm dollar heg, and we say there's a risk he doesn't do anything else to exacerbate a decline in dollar heg 

CP

Can you clarify your solvency arguments on plank 2?

Yeah, we say that you don't solve the root cause of territorial disputes, which means you get no Solvency over territorial disputes 

DA

Do any of your authors other than Laurence 16 make the race to the bottom argument?

Yes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for CX, here's the 2NC.

 

The order is the DA, then the case in the order of BioD, the Say Yes/No debate on the top of accommodation, and $$$.

 

The word count is about 2670 or so.

 

Posted at 10:50 AM.

 

I'll have the 1NR up tonight probably.

2NC ODT R1.docx

Edited by diantonion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just gonna cede my cross-x, there are tornadoes here, and I want to stay safe haha, go on with the 1nr

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just gonna cede my cross-x, there are tornadoes here, and I want to stay safe haha, go on with the 1nr

Really sorry to hear that. I hope everything goes okay on your end.

 

And with that, the 1NR, clocking in at 1550 words, was uploaded at 8:47 PM.

 

The order is the CP, the case O/V stuff, Leadership, Status Competition, then an underview that you can flow on the DA.

1NR ODT R1.docx

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...