2AC AT US-China War #1—No US/China War
They say the US and China won’t go to war, but
[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
-
Extend our TIME evidence.
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME]
It’s much better than their Think Progress 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 HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]
Our TIME evidence is from 2016 and their evidence is from 2014. A whole lot can change in two years especially in international politics. We have the most recent evidence on Chinese military policy.
[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]
This matters because:
China may not have wanted war a few years ago, but our evidence is about this year and the future. There will be more accidents and the risk becomes worse in the future. A US-China war would be huge and a reason to vote aff.
Computer simulations show all out Asian war is inevitable without diplomacy The Telegraph, April 2016 [Riccardo Cociani is a second year undergraduate student in war Studies at King's College London and Chair of the KCL Crisis Team “Is war with China inevitable?”April 18, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/is-war-with-china-inevitable/]
The nightmare come true War breaks out between North Korea and Japan, and between China and the US. While China continued the militarisation of their artificial islands in the South China Sea, the US responded by increasing their naval and military presence in the South China Sea, eventually leading to a direct military confrontation between the two countries. While the US was distracted and focused on Chinese military activity, North Korea took the opportunity to conduct false-flag operations in order to attack and destroy Japan. Diplomatic solutions did not even seem close to the horizon. While this was only a crisis simulation, it raises concerns over the current situation. Will war break out between China and the US, or between China and Japan? Will North Korea attack Japan? Our simulation suggests that if China continues to increase their military and naval activities in the South China Sea, without being transparent and communicating the purpose of their activities, misunderstandings and rising tensions could be the spark that starts a war. Over the East China Sea, on the other hand, while the US and China went at it against each other, North Korea took the opportunity to increase their military activities by launching attacks against an ‘abandoned’ Japan, as the US was too ‘distracted’ about China. South Korea found itself in between all this, and had to make difficult decisions over which side to be with. Chaos reigned the waters, and the perfect storm hit. Can war be prevented? Diplomacy unfortunately failed. After numerous discussions and cases made in the United Nations Security Council committee, no decision or action was made to prevent war, let alone decrease military activity in the South China Sea. Bilateral talks only helped to reach limited strategic goals, but not enough to prevent war from occurring. Mistrust and betrayal flowed and rose like waves as the simulation progressed. Therefore, the strongest lesson learnt and recommendation we could offer is to call for an increased diplomatic effort, most importantly, between China and Japan, and between China and the US. The waters and the dragons have risen, and only peaceful, diplomatic discussions can ease the tensions and bring these countries closer. However, the initial challenge is to reach a consensus to firstly meet. Once reached, only time will tell, but an increased diplomatic effort can only take us closer to such point.
2AC AT US-China War #2—China Expansion Solves War
They say China expansion solves war between smaller countries, but
[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]
-
Extend our TIME and Tikhonova evidence.
[PUT IN YOUR AUTHOR’S NAME]
It’s much better than their Li and Yanzhuo 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 HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]
Their evidence says that China needs to lay out a blueprint to make sure other countries back down, but China is not doing this at all. Our TIME and Tikhonova evidence says that these countries are terrified of China and are waiting for US help. Also, China has not made its intentions clear—they just put ships and weapons in the South China Sea.
[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]
This matters because:
Chinese expansion causes war and does not solve it. We still have our large war impact to weigh against the neg.
Tension between the U.S. and China is increasing—conflict is inevitable in the South China Sea
Mendis and Wang, May 2016 [Patrick and Joey, Mendis is a Rajawali senior fellow of the Kennedy School of Government’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University and Wang is a defense analyst and a graduate of the Naval War College, the National Defense University, and the Harvard Kennedy School, “Who Can Contain China When U.S. Policy Fails?”, May 1, http://www.theglobalist.com/who-can-contain-china-when-united-states-policy-fails/]
In the midst of escalating tensions between the United States and China, particularly in the East and South China Seas, serious questions are being raised about the future of peace, security and prosperity in the region. Reflecting on these tensions, we need to return to the founding principles that originally brought wealth and mutual prosperity to both nations. Over the past several decades, much has been written about China’s “peaceful rise.” But with this meteoric rise in economic development, there has been a rise in China’s military modernization and its ever-increasing assertiveness in defense posture. This has raised concerns among China’s neighbors regarding its intentions. The Credibility Issue Beijing, for its part, has not helped to clarify these intentions. Instead, President Xi Jinping muddled the situation. First, he declared that China would not “pursue militarization” of the South China Sea. Then, he proceeded not to fulfill that pledge by installing surface-to-air missile batteries on Woody Island in the Paracels and conducting exercises shooting down unmanned aircraft. This has created not only a credibility issue for him, but also elevated concerns about his ability to control the military. For its part, the United States has responded to China’s rise by blowing the dust off of the old containment playbook of the former Soviet era and modifying it with an element of economic engagement. This “congagement” (containment and engagement) would seek to contain China militarily while continuing to engage China economically. No doubt, China wants peace and prosperity in the region. However, it is doing precisely the opposite of that which would bring about this possibility. Washington, for its part, claims it welcomes China’s peaceful rise. Yet, it treats China like a parvenu or an upstart, who suddenly got rich but doesn’t fit into the American-led world order. If so, Beijing continually needs to be humbled.
Share with your friends: |