Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China


NC/1NR EU CP AT #1—CP Takes a Long Time



Download 2.62 Mb.
Page115/144
Date18.10.2016
Size2.62 Mb.
#2905
1   ...   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   ...   144

2NC/1NR EU CP AT #1—CP Takes a Long Time

  1. Identical to the Aff—Our EU CP goes through the same process as the Aff so there’s no reason it would take longer for the EU to do it. If there are delays, that would delay the aff the same amount. The barriers to the AFF prove our point.

  2. The EU could do the aff faster than the US because ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________




  1. No impact—there’s no problem with the CP taking a few more months. None of their impacts are going to happen in that period of time. It worth it to have our net benefits to do the CP later if you buy their argument.



2NC/1NR EU CP AT #2 and #3—Perm

Group arguments 2 and 3 or the perm and net-benefit:

  1. Our Disadvantages still link—Even if the EU, China and the US could do the plan, should they? Just because I can drive a car blindfolded doesn’t mean I should. If you vote for the perm, then all of our Disadvantages based on the US will happen. It’s better to do the CP alone.

  2. Turn: US and EU cooperation isolates China and tanks relations between all three countries



Yi, 2013 [Wang, associate research fellow with China Institute of International Studies, “Sino-European-U.S. Relations and the Possibilities of Trilateral Cooperation”, http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2013-08/19/content_6223055_2.htm]
With the China-Europe, China-U.S. and Europe-U.S. strategic dialogue mechanisms established, the third-party factor has become increasingly important in each of their bilateral strategic relations, either serving as a driving force to promote bilateral relations or becoming a backstage manipulator that obstructs and destroys developments in bilateral relations. Because China is politically, economically, institutionally and culturally different from Europe and the United States, and because the rise of China has strongly impacted the vested interests of Europe and the United States and the current global structure, China often has been the “victim” of European-U.S. strategic consultations. In the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, France, Germany and other major EU countries proposed to lift their ban on arms sales to China in order to strengthen the containment of U.S. unilateralism. The heightened intimacy between China and Europe during this period concerned the United States, which feared that it may signal the arrival of a “Sino-European Axis.” The goals of China and Europe in developing a strategic partnership were not originally concerned with the “third party,” but the United States nonetheless became a disturbing factor in Sino-European relations. This was largely due to the United States’ strong opposition in 2005 to the EU lifting its ban on arms sales to China and the Sino-European plan to cooperate on the Galileo satellite navigation system. The European-U.S. dispute surrounding the ban on arms sales to China served two objectives for the United States: it expressed U.S. discontentment over the EU’s improving ties with China and it sought to further strengthen trans-Atlantic relations by launching strategic consultations and dialogues with the EU over global issues. Although European views are not necessarily shared in Washington, Europe has had a more mature position that will help lay a broad basis for the future handling of relations with Beijing.[5]Sino-U.S. dialogues once prompted the EU to resent the formation of a so-called G2, but it then became more concerned with the instability caused by the United States due to its constant meddling in the Asia-Pacific region. Unabated frictions between China and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region essentially provide the adhesive for close cooperation between the EU, which remains trapped in its debt crisis, and China, which is trapped in U.S. “encirclement.” There are several factors that are fueling positive energy in Sino-European relations. First, because the EU’s foreign policy has been frustrated by its debt crisis and it is marginalized in the U.S. global strategy, the EU is not willing to participate in the United States’ strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region. Second, there is no consistent element of strategic antagonism in Sino-European relations; China has always supported the European integration process and the stability of the euro and the euro zone. Third, China has provided support and assistance to Europe within its means, including its continued investment in euro zone debt markets and capital increases in the IMF. In addition, the two sides have enhanced financial cooperation and eased pressures from the European debt crisis. The EU praised China for its propping up of the beleaguered union. As Van Rompuy and President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso remarked in a joint article, China’s remarkable development speed has had an enormous impact on Europe and the rest of the world. The EU and China are prepared to push their bilateral strategic partnership to new heights.[6]

  1. Delay—Agreeing to a treaty between three countries would take forever—the TPP is a perfect example. It would take years to do any part of the plan which means the impacts would happen before the perm could solve them.

  2. No net benefit—The US would get all of the credit and the EU and China would not boost relations. The US is always placing itself at the center of the conversation and will crowd out the EU.

2NC/1NR EU CP AT #4—No Solvency

They say We don’t solve their aff, but

[GIVE :05 SUMMARY OF OPPONENT’S SINGLE ARGUMENT]


  1. Extend our evidence.

[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 HOW YOUR OPTION IS TRUE BELOW]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[EXPLAIN WHY YOUR OPTION MATTERS BELOW]

and this reason matters because: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


  1. [Insert 1-3 pieces of specific solvency evidence depending on the Aff]



Download 2.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   ...   144



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review