The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

Resolved, that on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 6930
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Resolved, that on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States. My partner and I can only see a negative ballot for 2 reasons. The rise of BRIC has been detrimental to the U.S. economy. The rise of BRIC is not a suitable replacement for U.S. leadership. To start, in order for pro to win this round they must prove that (A.) each country has had a positive impact. (B.) The pros outweigh the cons.
Contention 1
BRIC has had a negative impact on the U.S. economy. All the four BRIC countries: a) are among the top seven largest countries in land area, b) among the top eight most populous countries (accounting for about 40 percent of the world population), c) among the ten biggest economies in terms of GDP purchasing power parity and d) are among the top fourteen biggest economies in terms of nominal GDP. Russia and China are also part of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the two of them, along with India, possess nuclear capabilities. America owes China 585 billion dollars, Brazil 141.9 billion dollars, Russia 69.7 billion and India 14.2 billions in debt. This is 5% of our GDP. In the times of the great depression our debt was 3.4% of our GDP. Trade has also been risky. We have had a $275.7 billion trade deficit with BRIC in 2008. We are trading, but we are paying more for what we get. This in return causes a deficit. BRIC gets the surplus and we get the deficit. How is that fair trade? According to the Washington Post, 7.5 million jobs have been lost in 2008 due to trade deficits with BRIC. Leading economist, Raymond L. Richman, the leading cause of our recession is our trade deficits. BRIC is the leader in trade deficits to the U.S. Trade with BRIC has been a horrible option for the U.S. Outsourcing has also been a negative affect. Outsourcing of our best-paying jobs, both globally and domestically, has contributed to a general decline in worker living standards. In the past year, 80% of working families saw a drop in real wages despite healthy gains in worker productivity. Job-loss has also been identified as a huge cause of the recession. Since 1986, 15 million high-paying manufacturing jobs have left the US and American workers.
Contention 2
The rise of BRIC is not a suitable replacement for U.S. leadership. We have to see that BRIC's rise is causing our leadership to weaken. From 2004 to 2008 BRIC has grown 15%, meanwhile the U.S. shrunk 15% according to Business Weekly. These countries are not a suitable replacement for power. The fact is that a multi-polar world has been rising due to BRIC's rise. A multi-polar is negative because that is what caused the cold war. In the history of time multi-polar worlds lead to brutal wars. World war 2 nearly destroyed Europe. This was caused by nations who increased their hegemony to become better, then other nations also increased leading to a war. As you can see a multi-polar war has destroyed our American fabric in the cold war. BRIC'S rise is leading to the exclusion of the US.

Sub-point A
According to The Economists, in 2007, Brazil assembled 33 countries from across the Americas to discuss a host of issues ranging from defense to the economic slowdown. The two‐day gathering, at a resort near the northeastern city of Salvador, marked the first time that every country in Latin America and the Caribbean had met without the presence of the United States or Europeans. The message: it is Brazil, with a growing economy and a popular president in Luiz In�cio Lula da Silva, and not the United States that is now the leading power in the region. We can see that Brazil's rise is harming our foreign relations.
Sub-point B
An unnamed Russian Defense Ministry official was quoted by Itar-Tass detailing Russian contracts of anti-aircraft weapon systems to Syria and Iran — worth more than $1.3 billion — are being filled on schedule. Leaders of Hamas, Egypt, Syria, and others have been establishing warm relations with Russia during recent visits to Moscow. A very troubling sign of things to come is that Russia's stated foreign policy being driven by its "deep dislike of the U.S." is being applauded by state-sponsored terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria and by allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Sub-Point C
China would not be a suitable replacement for our leadership. Moreover, though growth in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in recent decades have closely followed U.S. trends, China has run completely against the grain, surging as America has slowed and slumping as America has boomed. Because China has thus become an independent source of global growth, its imports will likely be an independent growth stimulus for others, securing its own long‐term trade expansion and overall sustainable growth. Also China and Russia have signed a peace treaty leaving the U.S. out the loop. This treaty included an expansion of trade. It is easy to see that China is harming our leadership.
Sub-point D
India would not be a suitable replacement for our leadership. Their rise has caused strained terms with India, which affects the U.S. We have to give money and weapons to both countries to sustain peace. How are we paying for this? Our tax dollars. Also India and Iran are causing problems. The U.S. and Iran are not on good terms considering the continuation of Iran's nuclear program. Ever since the United States and India started to transform their ties by changing the global nuclear order to accommodate India, Iran has emerged as a litmus test that India has had to pass from time to time to the satisfaction of US policy makers. India's traditionally close ties with Iran have become a factor influencing an US‐India partnership. India‐Iran ties have been termed variously as an "axis." a "strategic partnership," and even an "alliance". We have to see that India's rise is causing unfriendly nations to rise such as Iran.


I Affirm the Resolution: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States. Before we begin lets look at the resolution; The Resolution is asking us on balance, this means that Is, as Pro need to prove the positives outweigh the negatives and the Con must then prove that the Negatives outweigh the positives. I will show how the Rise of BRIC has had an overall positive impact on the United States in two main ways.
1. BRIC has had a positive effect on the U.S economy
2. BRIC has helped American diplomatic efforts abroad

Contention 1 is the Economy:
The Rise of BRIC has had a Massive positive impact on the American Economy.
The central and most obvious economic impact is the fact that the United States can now consume more than its natural capacity. Not only does the U.S trade heavily with China but the Bilateral merchandise trade between the U.S and India has grown from $6 billion in 1990 to $33 billion in 2006, and Trade between the U.S and Brazil has reached $46 Billion. Also China is the largest importer of American goods, so without china, there would be a very small market for these goods, which would have created a massive Trade deficit, outweighing the current one. China's Exim Bank reports that "low-priced and good-quality goods and services imported from China have raised the consumer surplus and eased the inflation pressure in the US" Without China as a trade partner the U.S would have no market for its exports and the goods we import would be more expensive, so china actually has helped the Trade Deficit. The U.S government also has been selling military technologies and equipment to India bringing in 11.6 Billion dollars in Profit. As BRIC Rises American Businesses are rapidly gaining money from investments in these countries. According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis "proceeds generated in China by U.S corporations generated $ 20.8 billion in profit accounting for about 8 percent of their global total." Furthermore, Software exports from U.S Businesses into India crossed $28 billion in 2007, and outsourcing revenue hit $8.3 billion in that same year. Not only does trade with the BRIC nations help American Businesses it puts a lot of money into the pocket of the consumers. As of November 2007, US investors had poured in a total of $56 billion into China. These investments have obtained high returns and shared China's economic success. This is an especially large Positive impact to BRIC as the Chinese Economy rose 201%, since 2001. If you factor in this growth rate you will find that American Investment in China has returned 117.6 Billion dollars. Global financial services provider Morgan Stanley reported, "Trade with China has saved American consumers $100 billion and created 4 million new jobs." Furthermore China has invested over 67 Billion Dollars in the United States in an attempt to lift us out of recession. This Influx of money into the American Economy helped to stimulate business and job creation. Thus from an Economic standpoint the Rise of BRIC has had a definite positive impact on the United States.

Contention 2 is Diplomacy
Clare M. Ribando, U.S Analyst in Latin American Affairs writes "Brazil is helping to improve the U.S. image in Latin America and lessen the influence of oil-rich Hugo Ch�vez of Venezuela". Furthermore Brazil also is gaining diplomatic power of Bolivia. Venezuala and Bolivia are two unstable and un-friendly governments in Latin American and Brazil is working hard to make sure neither can gain power and become a threat. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs Wrote "Washington needs a middle-man to mediate its relations with these leaders, and Brazil has stepped into this role, promoting American Interests abroad." Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote for the Washington Post "We've had very good cooperation with Russia on global issues, whether it's terrorism or nuclear nonproliferation or really Iran or North Korea. Russia, Along with China, played a key role in the prevention of acquisition of Nuclear weapons technologies in Both Iran and North Korea, two states that are unfriendly to the United States. The Diplomatic Role of India has also proved substantial in furthering American interests abroad. India played a vital role in pressuring Nepal to reinstate democracy after it was dismantled in February 2005. Additionally, India has invested about $750 million in building infrastructure and training security forces in Afghanistan." This money would otherwise have to be paid by the United States and by extension the taxpayers. So not only did India promote American Interests by working for democracy and helping to stabilize Afghanistan, but it also saved American Money and Soldiers.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent does not attack my case. So I will attack his then extend my points.
Cont. 1
He talks about trade and the economy, but we have had a $275.7 billion trade deficit with BRIC in 2008. This takes away any trade benefit that has come from BRIC. He says that China has helped the trade defecit, but they have the biggest trade defecit to the U.S. BRIC accounts for half of all our trade defecits. According to a leading economist, Raymond L. Richman, if we cut off half of trade defecits our economy will get back on its feet. This means that if BRIC didn't exist our economy would not have declined into a recession.
Cont. 2
My opponents argument about Brazil does not stand because Brazil is ignoring us when it comes to meeting with these countries. They are creating freindly terms with these countries for themselves not the U.S. China is rising which is causing their millitary to rise. My opponent gives no impact to the nuclear counter-terrorism. Russia is giving weapons to terrorists and they have invaded our ally, Georgia. India is strengthening its ties to Iran and investing money in the Iran thus, funding its nuclear program.

For these reasons I can only see a negative ballot.



C1: The Trade deficit is actually not a con to BRIC. The reason for the trade deficit is not infact china but American Consumerism. Without china we would have no foreign market for American goods and those we imported would be more expensive. So while trade deficits are not good, the fact that it is lower than it would be is actually a Pro of BRIC.

C2. China or Russia will never attack us due to the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction. Also it would destroy their respective economies as we are interdependent. Russia is not infact giving Nuclear weapons to terrorists what it is doing is enriching Iranian Uranium. This means that Iran does not have Nuclear Technology and can't make weapons but has acsess to nuclear power for thier cities. Not a Con.


C1: I already addressed Trade deficits, this is not a negative of the rise of bric but a negative of the rise of American Consumerism, and thus, is not unique to BRIC. I also outweigh on All economy points having bigger returns than losses for government, business and the consumer.

C2. The Resolution is asking us HAS HAD. So while American Leadership may have declined what have we seen as a result? we have seen no nuclear wars, because of this this point falls. BRIC has grown U.S has fallen, this really doesn't mean anything. Why have Bric and Us Risen and fallen respectively? that is one important statistic my opponent has failed to give. It could be purely economically, which would make sense seeing as we are in a recession.

A: however if you look at my case you will see that Brazil is actually on good terms with the U.S, and promotes our interests saving us Resources.

B: not only does this not link at all, it has nothing to do with the Rise of BRIC since 2001 but it is entirely fallacious. Russia is selling Military Technology.... great.... what are the effects WE HAVE SEEN SINCE 2001?

C: There is no Past impact to this, it is all. "may happen" "could happen" the resolution asks us what HAS happened. Also China was an effective ally when it came time to put nuclear sanctions on North Korea and to a certain extent Iran.

D: I have one response.... WHAT? this contention doesn't give any impacts, any links to anything, but is just a bunch of floating arguments.... India has Nuclear weapons? great but they are our allies..... and they have not done anything to us.... so where is the impact, why is this bad?
Debate Round No. 2


redsoxfreak010 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by redsoxfreak010 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07