The Instigator
dragonfire1414
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Justinisthecrazy
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Rise of BRIC nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
dragonfire1414
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,311 times Debate No: 7656
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

dragonfire1414

Pro

Hello, my name is Joseph and I am using my old Public Forum case, which I used when I went to state. Note that since I am using my Public Forum speech, I may not be able to provide direct internet links to my evidence. The number of characters allowed per round is 5,000. I would like to set the grounds for this debate by allowing 3 CX quetions per round 2 and 3.
Here is the full resolution:
>Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.<
If any questions arise considering the resolution, we will use the resolution above.
Here is my opening speech.

For this resolution, the affirmative side is the most logical choice if you consider all of the facts, which is why I stand in strong affirmation of the resolution. In this debate, I will present my evidence as to prove that the effect of the growth of these nations has resulted in a favorable outcome for the United States thus far.
Contention 1: Exports to BRIC have postponed the economic collapse, therefore benefiting the economy. According to Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, without exports to foreign markets, including those of the BRIC nations, U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product would have dropped by the third quarter of 2007, collapsing the economy. Thanks to the growing demand from these countries, our economy was able to survive for a year longer before the financial sector finally collapsed in late 2008 due to poor planning on the part of the corporate management, not because of the rise of foreign markets.
Contention 2: India has benefited the U.S. Example A: George Bush has promoted the U.S.-India economic relationship and the benefits of outsourcing for both countries. Trade between the U.S. and India has increased $27 billion since February, adding more money into the United States economy, which is just what we need in our current economic state. Example B: Over the past decade, the U.S. and India have shared common strategic interests, such as deterring maritime piracy in the Indian Ocean and fighting terrorism, according to The National Interest.
Contention 3: China has benefited the U.S. Example A: Exports to China reduces consumer prices of Americans. The Business Roundtable says that trade with China has reduced consumer prices 0.5% since 2002, reducing the money spent in each household by $1,000 each year, which is a positive impact for the U.S. economy and American citizens. Example B: China is a major economic partner when it comes to exports. Just to name a few examples of the benefits Chinese exports have had on the U.S., exports to China in just the month of December 2008 have gained the U.S. $111.2 billion dollars, and exports to China in January 2009 have gained the U.S. $72.2 billion dollars. Example C: China has not only been a strong economic partner, but a strategic one as well. The Chinese government, Like India, has taken an active role in fighting piracy, protecting our trade ships. Our close relationship with China has undoubtedly had a positive impact on the United States.
Contention 4: Russia has benefited the U.S. Example A: Russia is one of the United States' most strategic allies. According to Current History, as a member of the six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the issue of the Middle East peace efforts, and the operation to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia has supported the U.S. in the discussions. Example B: Russia is a primarily resource based country, its expansions in the field of petroleum recovery have been crucial to today's world market, reducing the overall price of oil across the globe, including the U.S.
Contention 5: Brazil has benefited the U.S. Example A: Brazil has assisted the U.S. with a number of key issues, such as the production of biofuels, fighting malaria, and stabilizing Haiti, according to Current History. By assisting the U.S. with our key interests, Brazil has promoted friendly relations with other countries. Example B: Brazil is a key economic partner. Trade with Brazil has earned the United States $560 billion, according to an article from The Economist. There is no doubt that these favorable circumstances have benefited the United States.
With this evidence, my conclusion is that the resolution is correct. It is obvious that the rise of the BRIC nations have had a positive impact on the United States, based on the arguments I have presented. And for all of the reasons I have stated, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot on today's debate.
Justinisthecrazy

Con

Throughout the twentieth century, the list of the world's great powers was predictable short: the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan and northwestern Europe. The twenty-first century is different. China and India are emerging as economic and political heavyweights. China holds over a trillion dollars in hard currency reserves, India's high-tech sector is growing by leaps and bounds and both countries, already recognized as nuclear powers, are developing blue water naives. This tectonic shift makes the future of these regimes uncomfortably uncertain. My partner and I stand in strong negation of the resolution: That on balance the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.

1)Russia is a military threat not only to the U.S. but our allies
" That's one of the tragedies of this life that the men who are most in need of a beating up are always enormous," says one of the characters in the 1942 Preston Sturges film The Palm Beach Story. The same is true of the new predicament of U.S. foreign policy. Russia seems to be on an increasingly confrontational course, powered by a bristlier conception of its interests than at any time since the end of the Cold War, by domestic political arrangements that appear to feed on international tension, and by an enhanced ability to stand its ground. Neither Russia's power nor Russia's aims should be exaggerated. Its new strength has a narrow, even precarious base, and its new goals may be reconsidered if the cost of pursuing them gets too high. But in the wake of the war in Georgia, a more disturbing outcome seems likely to prevail. Russia's power may actually keep growing and carry the country's ambitions with it.

2) High-tech Indian workers endangered U.S. Security
Senator Spencer Abraham has cast aside, mounting evidence that alleged high-tech worker shortages are spurious. As powerful as the story of the betrayal of the American high-tech worker is, it may yet be upstaged by the possible betrayal of the American Nation. Alarmed at late-breaking reports that India's Nuclear program might benefit from Indian workers who gain sensitive information and know-how while employed in U.S. high-tech industries, Abraham quickly moved to defuse the issue. The legisilation would require the attorney general to deny any petrition for H1-B workers for any employer that has knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the employee is providing material assistance for the development of nuclear weapons in India or any other country. Critics recently raised questions is this regard about the Tata Group, which allegedly has links to the Indian government and that country's Nuclear program. Tata, which provides the U.S. employers with Indian workers, denies any wrongdoing.

3) Outsourcing
You lost your job. It's probably one of the most dreaded things you'll ever hear from your boss. Then you find out that your white-collar position moved to the other side of the globe — to India. President Bush says he feels your pain and that education — not trade protectionism — is the answer to deal with the increasing globalized world in which we live and work. Bush discussed the politically sensitive issue in New Delhi on Friday, wrapping up a three-day stay in India. The country's rapid growth has created anxiety among Americans, especially as they have seen call center jobs, back-office administrative work, software programming and other white collar jobs move there. "It's painful for those who lose jobs," Bush said. "But the fundamental question is, how does a government or society react to that. And it's basically one of two ways. One is to say, losing jobs is painful, therefore, let's throw up protectionist walls. And the other is to say, losing jobs is painful, so let's make sure people are educated so they can find and fill the jobs of the 21st century," he said. In 2004, 16,197 workers were laid off because their job was moved overseas. The figures don't capture all layoffs only the bigger ones, the official said. Outsourcing hurts the United States economy therefore the RISE of BRIC is and has been bad.

Conclusion
What used to be considered the developing countries of the Third World are quickly becoming the emerging economies of the next world. BRIC are four markets with unique characteristics, but are nonthless tied together by the potential created after changes in their political systems unleashed the consumer demand of 43% of the world's population. The BRIC powers are using their power, and they are changing the very order of the world for the worse. The Rise of The BRIC nations has had a negative impact on the United States and I strongly negate the resolution.

Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.
Debate Round No. 1
dragonfire1414

Pro

First, I must thank my worthy opponent for accepting this debate. As a guide to my opponent and all those judging, first I will attack my opponent's contentions and then I will ask my CX questions.

CON

1: Russia is a military threat to U.S. and our allies.
My opponent stated that Russia is on a confrontational course and has the ability to stand it's ground. Please look to the resolution. >Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States< These statements do not show that Russia HAS negatively impacted the U.S., therefore they hold no ground in this debate. Considering the war in Georgia, look to the resolution again. We are discussing the impact on the U.S., not our allies, so this must be thrown out of our debate as well. My opponent also stated that Russia's power may keep growing. We are discussing the impact the rise of BRIC HAS HAD on the U.S., and as this statement does not prove that Russia HAS negatively impacted the U.S., it must also be thrown out.

2: Indian workers endanger U.S. security.
I do not completely understand how this has anything to do with our topic. India is making progress in it's nuclear sector. That has not had a negative impact on the U.S. in any way. Con also stated that it endangers U.S. security, but has not shown how this has had a negative impact on the U.S., because suspicion is not a significant negative impact, if it is a negative impact at all.

3: Outsourcing
My opponent states that India outsourcing has created anxiety in some workers, which is not a major issue. My opponent also states that a significant number of jobs have been lost to India, which I can disprove. According to Finance and Development magazine, 0.3% of total employment in the United States has been lost to outsourcing. That is a minuscule number of jobs, and not significant in this debate, so it should be thrown out. Even if my opponent is correct, and 16,197 jobs have been lost in 2004, that is not a significant negative impact, considering there is 300,000,000 Americans in the United States, which is a small, negligible number, if not recoverable. Note that this is an 'on balance' resolution, which means that a very small percentage of jobs lost (less than 1%) is not a major issue and should be completely thrown out of this debate.

I would like to point out that this resolution concerns Brazil, Russia, India, and China. My opponent has not provided any contentions considering Brazil or China, so we must assume that he concedes that Brazil and China has a positive impact on the United States.

Since my opponent has not had an opportunity to attack my contentions, I will not extend them.

CX questions: I do not feel the need for me to ask CX questions in this round.
Justinisthecrazy

Con

Justinisthecrazy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dragonfire1414

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited his round 2, even with a 3-day respond time, my points are unrefuted and my opponents points are irrelevant, based on my rebuttal. I urge an affirmative vote.
Justinisthecrazy

Con

more power to you
Debate Round No. 3
dragonfire1414

Pro

I am guessing my opponent forfeits this debate. I urge an affirmative vote.
Justinisthecrazy

Con

I now realize why I sucked at this topic was because frankly I didnt care
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
omg who would vote for me?
I didn't do anything
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
@nik
Ummmm... no. It is not rise of Britian because Britian is not one of the 4 countries expected to surpass the U.S.'s economy within a few years. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by Nik 8 years ago
Nik
Rise of BRIC? Phfft. Rise of the BRITAIN more like!
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
only 5,000 chars thats a bit short :( I couldn't get like 2 of my contentions in
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
Pshht has and is are completely the same thing you shall see in my definitions
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
WAIT before you put your case together, read the full resolution. I am probably hurting myself by reminding you, but to be fair, i must remind you that this is a past tense resolution, so I would rethink the military "threat"
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
let me put a case together and ill debate you
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
outsourcing, russia military threat, china military threat, rise of brazil kills plant rumored to cure aids pretty much I'm sure i could win lol
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
idk, i was just going to number it 1, 2, 3, and type a question and have the opponent answer it. I could take that part out if you want.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
not sure i quite understand the CX function do explain
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
dragonfire1414JustinisthecrazyTied
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 RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
dragonfire1414JustinisthecrazyTied
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 studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
dragonfire1414JustinisthecrazyTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
dragonfire1414JustinisthecrazyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
dragonfire1414JustinisthecrazyTied
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