Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

WODC: General Topic Outlines and advantages

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:58:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I understand that many people don't really get the resolutions and neither do I, so in spite of the mods who don't want to tell each other anything, I figure I would just lay out the meaning from each resolution and the most probable (dis)advantages to them. I figure it helps spread the idea for those competitors who want to know more and gives the debates we go into more depth being that this might give us a generic argument platform.

This House believes governments should favor green mercantilism over World Trade Organization rules.

What it is:
"Fueled by the potential for economic growth and job creation, countries are aggressively trying to build competitive advantage in the development and production of low-carbon technologies. But this fierce competition is being undermined by countries that don't want to play by the rules of global trade. These Green Mercantilists are adopting policies that give them and their domestic firms an unfair advantage, which not only harms the United States, but also limits global clean energy innovation....Green mercantilist policies are no different than mercantilism in other high-wage, innovation-based traded sectors and include the use of unfair trade practices like import tariffs, forced technology transfer, IP theft, currency manipulation, export dumping, unfair subsidies and barriers to foreign investment."[1]

Disadvantages to green mercantilism:
1.) less incentive to innovate cheaper and better technologies because larger market share is guaranteed by government policy and not technological merit.
2.) It inhibits the clean energy innovations that are vital to making low-carbon alternatives affordable so they can deployed globally.

Advantages to Green mercantilism:
1.)Many U.S. clean energy advocates contend there is no problem with green mercantilism since it simply brings down the cost of new products. Any response, like tariffs, would simply raise prices and hurt an industry making rapid gains.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This House believes the United States should nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC.

The nationalisation of oil supplies refers to the process of confiscation of oil production operations and private property, generally in the purpose of obtaining more revenue from oil for oil producing countries' governments.

disads to nationalization:
1.) violation of existing agreed-upon legal property contracts.
2.) Oil becomes more of a foreign policy tool
3.) ITS COMMUNISM!
4.) Higher oil prices

Adv to nationalization:
1.) Breaks vertical integration (assumes vertical integration is bad)
2.) Proponents of nationalization asserted that the original contracts held between an oil producing country and an oil company were unfair to the producing country.
3.) Lower and more stable oil prices
4.) Oil becomes a foreign policy tool
5.) bring innovation and creative investment into the energy sector

[2] http://www.zerohedge.com...
[3] http://windowanddoor.com...
[4] http://web.stanford.edu...

This is probably the only topic thats not super biased one way, Most of us will probably chose this one being that there is just more research on it and its something we're all a bit more familiar with, idk that's just my hypothesis here...

This House believes that the World Bank should discontinue the funding of energy infrastructure in developing countries.

diads to stopping investment:
1.) loss of security in the middle east and other nations

adv to staying the course
1.) morals
2.) we make allies
3.) promote democracy

Too lazy to do this one well, here are some links though

[5] http://www.forbes.com...
[6]http://www.westernjournalism.com...

Feel free to ad stuff you find
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:58:01 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
I understand that many people don't really get the resolutions and neither do I, so in spite of the mods who don't want to tell each other anything, I figure I would just lay out the meaning from each resolution and the most probable (dis)advantages to them. I figure it helps spread the idea for those competitors who want to know more and gives the debates we go into more depth being that this might give us a generic argument platform.




This House believes governments should favor green mercantilism over World Trade Organization rules.

What it is:
"Fueled by the potential for economic growth and job creation, countries are aggressively trying to build competitive advantage in the development and production of low-carbon technologies. But this fierce competition is being undermined by countries that don't want to play by the rules of global trade. These Green Mercantilists are adopting policies that give them and their domestic firms an unfair advantage, which not only harms the United States, but also limits global clean energy innovation....Green mercantilist policies are no different than mercantilism in other high-wage, innovation-based traded sectors and include the use of unfair trade practices like import tariffs, forced technology transfer, IP theft, currency manipulation, export dumping, unfair subsidies and barriers to foreign investment."[1]

Disadvantages to green mercantilism:
1.) less incentive to innovate cheaper and better technologies because larger market share is guaranteed by government policy and not technological merit.
2.) It inhibits the clean energy innovations that are vital to making low-carbon alternatives affordable so they can deployed globally.

Advantages to Green mercantilism:
1.)Many U.S. clean energy advocates contend there is no problem with green mercantilism since it simply brings down the cost of new products. Any response, like tariffs, would simply raise prices and hurt an industry making rapid gains.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...






This House believes the United States should nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC.

The nationalisation of oil supplies refers to the process of confiscation of oil production operations and private property, generally in the purpose of obtaining more revenue from oil for oil producing countries' governments.

disads to nationalization:
1.) violation of existing agreed-upon legal property contracts.
2.) Oil becomes more of a foreign policy tool
3.) ITS COMMUNISM!
4.) Higher oil prices


Adv to nationalization:
1.) Breaks vertical integration (assumes vertical integration is bad)
2.) Proponents of nationalization asserted that the original contracts held between an oil producing country and an oil company were unfair to the producing country.
3.) Lower and more stable oil prices
4.) Oil becomes a foreign policy tool
5.) bring innovation and creative investment into the energy sector

[2] http://www.zerohedge.com...
[3] http://windowanddoor.com...
[4] http://web.stanford.edu...

This is probably the only topic thats not super biased one way, Most of us will probably chose this one being that there is just more research on it and its something we're all a bit more familiar with, idk that's just my hypothesis here...





This House believes that the World Bank should discontinue the funding of energy infrastructure in developing countries.

diads to stopping investment:
1.) loss of security in the middle east and other nations


adv to staying the course
1.) morals
2.) we make allies
3.) promote democracy

Too lazy to do this one well, here are some links though

[5] http://www.forbes.com...
[6]http://www.westernjournalism.com...


Feel free to ad stuff you find

A large part of this tournament is bringing people outside of their comfort zone to research topics they might otherwise never have touched. It creates opportunities for innovative arguments that make debates like these very interesting to read.

That's why I don't like that you've posted this. You've done most of the background research for debaters at this point. You've pretty much given them the beginnings of their arguments. Some people will ignore this and produce their own, but others will likely add, further homogenizing the debates that are had on any of these subjects.

I appreciate that you've done a lot of research into these subjects, but I don't think that the WODC is benefitted by posts like these.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:09:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:10:32 PM, whiteflame wrote:
A large part of this tournament is bringing people outside of their comfort zone to research topics they might otherwise never have touched. It creates opportunities for innovative arguments that make debates like these very interesting to read.

That's why I don't like that you've posted this. You've done most of the background research for debaters at this point. You've pretty much given them the beginnings of their arguments. Some people will ignore this and produce their own, but others will likely add, further homogenizing the debates that are had on any of these subjects.

I appreciate that you've done a lot of research into these subjects, but I don't think that the WODC is benefitted by posts like these.

Well whiteflame, while I see your point there I'll simply have to disagree, some people don't get the resolutions, I sure would have appreciated something like this before my topic selection last round. A very, very meager base of generic arguments like the one I have provided, I think, can help prepare people for the arguments to come. I'm not meaning to sound argumentative or anything, I just hold the philosophy that debates should also be about depth of understanding, and that we players have the right to completely understand the topics we are made to defend. I apologize if there was any confusion about what the post does. I can always count on you to have the best interest of others in mind, that's one of your most admirable virtues.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:41:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with Whiteflame here also. I consider myself a quick study, and don't want to lose that advantage
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:09:11 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:

Well whiteflame, while I see your point there I'll simply have to disagree, some people don't get the resolutions, I sure would have appreciated something like this before my topic selection last round. A very, very meager base of generic arguments like the one I have provided, I think, can help prepare people for the arguments to come. I'm not meaning to sound argumentative or anything, I just hold the philosophy that debates should also be about depth of understanding, and that we players have the right to completely understand the topics we are made to defend. I apologize if there was any confusion about what the post does. I can always count on you to have the best interest of others in mind, that's one of your most admirable virtues.

I'm kinda in the middle. I hear what both of you are saying.

Maybe rather than provide specific arguments for specific resolutions, it might be a more helpful approach anyway JVN if you share the techniques you used to DO this research. That will probably help other people more in the tournament going forward.

I'm glad our topics made you think.