Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

What to read against Taiwan Affirmative

taiwan cp da

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 jp3

jp3

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Jackson

Posted 15 February 2017 - 10:04 AM

What should I read against the Taiwan affirmative, my school runs it, but I really want to know some good answers for it.


  • 0

#2 shreyasr711

shreyasr711

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
7
Okay

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:49 PM

QPQ - jk don't


Edited by shreyasr711, 15 February 2017 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

#3 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts
769
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 15 February 2017 - 01:55 PM

Interpretation and Violation: “engagement” is rooted in liberal theory whereas the grand bargain strategy is rooted in realist theory
Friedberg 15 - (Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. His most recent book is Beyond Air-Sea Battle: The Debate Over US Military Strategy in Asia, August 2015, "The Debate Over US China Strategy", https://www.ou.edu/u...China_Strat.pdf, DOA: 1-13-2017) //Snowball
Grand bargain/spheres of influence In contrast to a strategy of ‘enhanced engagement’, which has its roots in liberal theories of international relations, the third approach reflects the harsh logic of geopolitical realism. According to this view, if China’s power continues to grow, the United States will inevitably face a choice between confrontation and accommodation. Given the enormous costs of conflict, the latter course would clearly be preferable. Assuming a continuation of current trends, it would be prudent to seek accommodation sooner, when the relative power relationship between the two countries is more favourable to the United States, rather than later, when it will become steadily less so. The object of American policy therefore should be to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement under which, in the words of Henry Kissinger, ‘both countries pursue their domestic imperatives, cooperating where possible, and adjust their relations to minimize conflict’. Under such an arrangement, ‘neither side endorses all of the aims of the other or presumes a total identity of interests, but both sides seek to identify and develop complementary interests’.16

Policy Education - in the context of Taiwan policy, liberal theory is far superior
Columbia University no date - (Columbia University, "Confronting the Rise of China: An analysis of Realist and Liberal approaches", http://www.columbia..../Question_3.pdf, DOA: 1-13-2017) //Snowball
In dealing with the issue of China’s rise, a consideration of China’s worldview is appropriate. The Chinese have an acute sense of their own history and are very aware that for centuries, they were the world’s foremost power. The Chinese feel humiliated by their relative weakness in modern history and view themselves as victims of imperialist domination. As a result, China has developed a fundamental mistrust of the West and is convinced that western states are intent on suppressing it as it seeks to regain its status as a world power. Given such an understanding, a liberal foreign policy would be the most productive approach to China. By deepening its economic and political ties to China and taking a less aggressive stance, the United States mitigates the potential for misunderstanding and plays to Chinese sensitivities. The Chinese would be far more willing to cooperate with the United States on strategic issues if it feels it is included in regional security agreements and receives the respect it feels it is due. Economically, the forces of growth will slowly but surely liberalize political institutions. The Chinese so desperately wish to regain respect as a world power, they will permit gradual liberalization as they realize the reform of current institutions is necessary to maintain fast-paced economic growth. Conversely, the aggressive approach of the realists serves to antagonize China and confirm suspicions that the West will suppress its rise to power. China lacks the military strength to remotely rival the United States. However, treating China as our enemy will go further to push China to respond in kind. It will have no choice but to build its military to threaten US military presence in Asia while seeking alliances with other states dissatisfied with American hegemony. Ultimately, China’s strategic aims are limited. China is methodically working to regain its status as a global power and sees the annexation of Taiwan as fundamental to restoring national dignity. But China doesn’t wish to fundamentally alter the system of international relations and can be reigned in as a productive member of the world security community. Liberal foreign policy will go further towards achieving this end. When the day comes that China can shake the world, it will hopefully do so along with, rather than against, the West.

Ground – we lose DAs and Ks of liberalism and engagement

Limits – the scholarly literature and educational focus should be on liberalism as an international relations theory

Predictability – let liberalism define the scope of the topic – makes it easier to prepare generic answers that are often applicable

Fairness is key to even debates and competitive equity

Education is vital to scholarship and skill development

Prefer competing interps – reasonability is subjective and self-serving
  • 2
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#4 shreyasr711

shreyasr711

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
7
Okay

Posted 15 February 2017 - 04:08 PM

Interpretation and Violation: “engagement” is rooted in liberal theory whereas the grand bargain strategy is rooted in realist theory
Friedberg 15 - (Aaron L. Friedberg is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. His most recent book is Beyond Air-Sea Battle: The Debate Over US Military Strategy in Asia, August 2015, "The Debate Over US China Strategy", https://www.ou.edu/u...China_Strat.pdf, DOA: 1-13-2017) //Snowball
Grand bargain/spheres of influence In contrast to a strategy of ‘enhanced engagement’, which has its roots in liberal theories of international relations, the third approach reflects the harsh logic of geopolitical realism. According to this view, if China’s power continues to grow, the United States will inevitably face a choice between confrontation and accommodation. Given the enormous costs of conflict, the latter course would clearly be preferable. Assuming a continuation of current trends, it would be prudent to seek accommodation sooner, when the relative power relationship between the two countries is more favourable to the United States, rather than later, when it will become steadily less so. The object of American policy therefore should be to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement under which, in the words of Henry Kissinger, ‘both countries pursue their domestic imperatives, cooperating where possible, and adjust their relations to minimize conflict’. Under such an arrangement, ‘neither side endorses all of the aims of the other or presumes a total identity of interests, but both sides seek to identify and develop complementary interests’.16

Policy Education - in the context of Taiwan policy, liberal theory is far superior
Columbia University no date - (Columbia University, "Confronting the Rise of China: An analysis of Realist and Liberal approaches", http://www.columbia..../Question_3.pdf, DOA: 1-13-2017) //Snowball
In dealing with the issue of China’s rise, a consideration of China’s worldview is appropriate. The Chinese have an acute sense of their own history and are very aware that for centuries, they were the world’s foremost power. The Chinese feel humiliated by their relative weakness in modern history and view themselves as victims of imperialist domination. As a result, China has developed a fundamental mistrust of the West and is convinced that western states are intent on suppressing it as it seeks to regain its status as a world power. Given such an understanding, a liberal foreign policy would be the most productive approach to China. By deepening its economic and political ties to China and taking a less aggressive stance, the United States mitigates the potential for misunderstanding and plays to Chinese sensitivities. The Chinese would be far more willing to cooperate with the United States on strategic issues if it feels it is included in regional security agreements and receives the respect it feels it is due. Economically, the forces of growth will slowly but surely liberalize political institutions. The Chinese so desperately wish to regain respect as a world power, they will permit gradual liberalization as they realize the reform of current institutions is necessary to maintain fast-paced economic growth. Conversely, the aggressive approach of the realists serves to antagonize China and confirm suspicions that the West will suppress its rise to power. China lacks the military strength to remotely rival the United States. However, treating China as our enemy will go further to push China to respond in kind. It will have no choice but to build its military to threaten US military presence in Asia while seeking alliances with other states dissatisfied with American hegemony. Ultimately, China’s strategic aims are limited. China is methodically working to regain its status as a global power and sees the annexation of Taiwan as fundamental to restoring national dignity. But China doesn’t wish to fundamentally alter the system of international relations and can be reigned in as a productive member of the world security community. Liberal foreign policy will go further towards achieving this end. When the day comes that China can shake the world, it will hopefully do so along with, rather than against, the West.

Ground – we lose DAs and Ks of liberalism and engagement

Limits – the scholarly literature and educational focus should be on liberalism as an international relations theory

Predictability – let liberalism define the scope of the topic – makes it easier to prepare generic answers that are often applicable

Fairness is key to even debates and competitive equity

Education is vital to scholarship and skill development

Prefer competing interps – reasonability is subjective and self-serving

 

snowball I think they run arms sales not GB


  • 1

#5 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts
769
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 15 February 2017 - 04:12 PM

snowball I think they run arms sales not GB


Whoops. Then don't read that obviously. I'll leave it up in case people want it though.
  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#6 jp3

jp3

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Jackson

Posted 15 February 2017 - 05:36 PM

Yes, its arm sales, my bad.

 

I think, that escalation CP, and glaser indicts are strong arguments to make.


  • 0

#7 CoolioBrah

CoolioBrah

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
32
Good
  • Name:Pollo
  • School:AintNobodyGotTimefodat

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:08 AM

I think you should read several case arguments against it.

1. Impact defense

2. Internal link defense

3. Case solvency arguments

These arguments will take out the case


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: taiwan, cp, da

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users