Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China
NC/1NR US-China War #1--No War Extensions
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Economic ties and war cost deter conflict
- 2NC/1NR US-China War 2—China Expansion Solves War Extension
- 2NC/1NR US-China War 3—No Brink
- Accidents and threats happen all the time and have not caused a war
2NC/1NR US-China War #1--No War ExtensionsThey say There will be a US-China War, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their TIME evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts) (their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true) (their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument) ( ) (their evidence supports our argument) [WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] This matters because: the odds of a US-China war are very low. That means that the judge to look to our impacts first.
Think Progress, 2014 [“Why Everyone Needs To Stop Freaking Out About War With China” http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/07/3222021/china-japan-war/] It’s wrong to talk about incentives to go war in purely military terms. A key component of the Senkaku/Diaoyou is economic: the islands contain a ton of natural resources, particularly oil and gas. But far more valuable are the trade ties between the two countries. China is Japan’s largest export market, so war would hurt Japan more than China, but it’d be pretty painful for both. Proponents of the World War I parallel find a lot to criticize about this point. They like to cite Norman Angell, a pre-World War I international relations theorist famous for arguing that war was becoming economically obsolete. Angell is now often used interchangeably with Dr. Pangloss in international relations talk, a symbol of optimism gone analytically awry. But Angell gets a bad rap. He didn’t actually say war was impossible; he merely claimed that it no longer was worth the cost (if you remember the aftermath of World War I, he was right about that). The real upshot of Angell’s argument is that, unless there’s some other overwhelming reason to go to war, mutually profitable trade ties will serve as a strong deterrent to war. Despite a year of heated rhetoric and economic tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, bilateral trade has been recovering nicely of late. Angell may have been wrong about Europe, but he’s probably right about East Asia. M.G. Koo, a political scientist at Chung-Ang University, surveyed several Senkaku-Diaoyu flareups between 1969 and 2009. He found that economic ties between the two countries played an increasingly large role in defusing tensions as the trade relationship between the two countries deepened. 2NC/1NR US-China War #2—China Expansion Solves War ExtensionThey say China Expansion causes war, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their TIME and Tikhonova evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts) (their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true) (their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument) ( ) (their evidence supports our argument) [WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
They say __________________________________________________, but [GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME] It’s much better than their evidence because: [PUT IN THEIR AUTHOR’S NAME] [CIRCLE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS]: (it’s newer) (the author is more qualified) (it has more facts) (their evidence is not logical/contradicts itself) (history proves it to be true) (their evidence has no facts) (Their author is biased) (it takes into account their argument) ( ) (their evidence supports our argument) [WRITE IN YOUR OWN!]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW] and this reason matters because: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
International Business Times, March 2016 [International news political website, ”US naval fleet enters South China Sea near disputed territories”, March 4, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-naval-fleet-enters-south-china-sea-near-disputed-territories-1547475] An American naval fleet spearheaded by the aircraft carrier, USS John C Stennis, is sailing in the South China Sea closer to disputed territories in an apparent show of force against Beijing. The vessel is accompanied by cruisers Mobile Bay and Antietam, and destroyers USS Stockdale and USS Chung-Hoon, along with thousands of US sailors. US officials have said it is a regular patrol mission in the region, where China has recently racked up tensions by mobilising surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and military radar system. The presence of the US carrier strike group, a relatively small armada, is bound to infuriate Beijing officials. The war of words between China and the US has been intensifying in recent months over increasing activities in the South China Sea region, a breeding ground of bitter geopolitical territorial disputes. "We feel that the US actions in sending vessels and planes near to the Spratly islands and reefs as a show of force are not a good thing. It arouses a feeling of disgust among the Chinese people," Fu Ying, spokesperson of the National People's Congress (NPC) and a former vice-president, told reporters on 4 March. "The US has said it doesn't take a stance on South China Sea territorial disputes but its actions seem to be aimed at agitating tensions, which raise serious questions over its motives." The US has long been accusing Beijing of militarisation of the South China Sea. But Beijing says the deployments are for defence purposes as it unilaterally claims the mineral-rich islands as its sovereign territories. "The accusation [that China is militarising the region] can lead to a miscalculation of the situation. If you take a look at the matter closely, it's the US sending the most advanced aircraft and military vessels to the South China Sea," added Fu. The US has conducted two controversial navigational patrols in the South China Sea since October 2015. During one of the patrols, a US warship sailed 12 nautical miles off a disputed island in a move dubbed provocative by Beijing. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|