Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

RFD for Globalization Debate

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:32:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

Disclaimer: I wrote this over the course of a few days, so it might be a bit choppy. Also, the majority of it was written in a 2 hour period on a red eye flight, so that might have affected my mindset at the time. Nonetheless, I think it captures all or almost all of my thoughts on this debate, which I felt was pretty close.

RFD:

Ugh. Technical debate. I thought I was done with this when I graduated undergrad and left Parliamentary Debate for good. Well, I guess all those years of experience can come in handy somehow, might as well be now.

I'm going to break this up by focusing first on those points that I feel don't factor into the debate, and then shift to the points that might factor.

Irony

I'm just... I'm just not sure what this argument was meant to do. It appears in R2, then gets extended to R3, and disappears in R4. I can't see what it's doing. Is revealing the irony of Pro's stance somehow showing a harm that results from acting in this way? I can see how the Yanomami might be incredulous, might even refuse funds and retreat further from the world as a result of efforts to provide aid if they view it as a means of globalization. Globalization has hurt them, so logically they might refuse outside aid if it looks like one massive concerted effort to encroach on their sovereignty.

...Would have been really nice to see any of that explanation on this point. Instead, the point just shows that they're engaging in globalization to stop a harm of globalization and... that that might cause more harm somehow? It's extremely unclear. This seemed like a bit of a throwaway point from the outset " there's just no take-home message coming through from it, and it seems like the only thing it's managing to do is further explicate the harms globalization has had on the Yanomami, something that's not helping your case.

Disallow International Fiat

I'm just not buying this. Much of the structure for this point is torn down by Pro early, and what's left later is this general idea that it's somehow bad to fiat the actions of multiple nations because it fiats solvency. But I feel like I'm missing something, because Pro didn't fiat his solvency. He clearly provided that solvency, albeit with large holes in the reasoning. The fact that Con didn't exploit those holes doesn't mean that Pro is using the fiated actions of the global community to achieve solvency " it's a first step in a chain of events that must take place.

I just plain don't buy the judicial dichotomy argument. I don't understand it. Why is the judge "meant to act on behalf of a single country and not the entire global community"? What makes acting on behalf of the community faulted, and where's the dichtomy? Just because real world actors may not have the power to decide whether one nation or another should do a policy doesn't mean that fiat can't be used to take that action. It could have been argued that the international community just isn't likely to rally behind this decision and many nations may lash out at the prospect, but that doesn't disallow the fiat, it just challenges the solvency, and it's another point not given in this debate.

OK. Onto the major arguments.

Plan

Let's just get this out of the way first. I think Zaradi knew what he was doing here. Whether he wins on the topicality or not (and, to be clear, I haven't decided on that particular issue), this interpretation of the resolution really stretches both the definitions provided in R1 by Con, and the bounds of reasonable specification. Admittedly, the definitions could have been better explicated by Con from the outset, but seriously, I found this interpretation to be just absurd. Basically treating foreign aid as globalization seems incredibly problematic to me. I'm not factoring my own distaste with the decision into how I'll view the topicality, but I just want to be clear from the outset what my views are on the subject.

I think vagueness needs to be covered first. Generally, I think both sides do a poor job with this.

I'll start with Con. Merely pointing out the vaguenss in Pro's plan isn't going to do much for you. There's a least some vagueness in how the CP functions " presenting a much more specific CP would have given your vagueness more teeth. Its potency also could have increased if you'd done some of the specifying for his case " what it would cost other nations, how that cost would be distributed across nations, what enforcement would look like, how that would affect relations with Brazil, what the long-term outlook is for solvency... seriously, so many pieces " and explained why his case will do tremendous harm. That would have forced him to specify, which would have bit the violation on any vagueness you could have prepped. Merely saying that I "shouldn't vote for a vague plan" isn't getting me much of anywhere. Both of you have vague plans.

The same goes for the various solvency attacks. Merely stating that Pro hasn't shown solvency isn't really helping you when a) you're presenting a CP that tries to get the same solvency through different enforcement, b) you're only questioning his solvency and not attacking his reasoning for where the solvency comes from, and c) you're spending more time attacking his ability to fiat the actions of multiple nations than you are analyzing what that fiat would look like. Arguing that we don't know how much money is going to be spent, what specific actions they're going to take and the uncertain effectiveness of the organizations involved doesn't get you anywhere " it just tells me that you're willing to be even more vague about how it would play out. The vagueness just feels like a giant missed opportunity, and a much easier option for putting your opponent in a double bind as well.

Onto Pro. Yes, the plan is unclear. What it meant for "the international community [to] step in and make them take action" wasn't ever clear until the final round where you made clear that it's via the same means as the CP (i.e. making Yanomami a nationally protected area, restricting mining and prosecuting violators), though it may have been strongly implied that all of these planks existed in R3 when you said "The Counterplan is literally my plan except Brazil is the actor instead of the international community." I think this kind of late specification should have opened you up to some serious vagueness violations, but Con never really exploits it.

What becomes more of a problem is this extension of what the UN can do in the final round. Pro explains that "The UN has already voiced their support for the Yanomami, meaning I don't even need to press the fiat button: they already want to help the Yanomami...The fact that they aren't means that the UN is within their right to step in and impliment the plan themselves." I think this is where the main tension lies on vagueness in the final round. Suddenly, the actor isn't separate entities in the international community, united under the banner of the UN, but rather the UN itself acting to address the problem. I could see where the links would go " the UN could feasibly lead a task force provided by other nations (they'd need them anyway) to Brazil to enforce it, thus making this an international act. However, that's not clear. It should have been clear if Pro was going to make the UN the actor, especially as that would have been responsive to the multiple parties fiat point and gotten you out of a lot of other potentially troublesome arguments. But early on in your arguments, it seems like all the UN is doing is justifying intervention, not intervening itself.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:33:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All the same, Pro really gets away with this. I'd be upset with the moving target point if Pro started using this change to shift out of the arguments made by Con, but he didn't do that. He states these points as impacts that can be compared with Con's CP, and while I'll hold him to the individual actors model, that doesn't make this a moving target, simply an effort to garner more impact than he actually has.

So I'm buying that the plan a) isn't vague enough to dismiss, b) isn't causing sufficient violations as a result of vagueness to be overridden by abuse, and c) retains its solvency due to a lack of rebuttal. So really, what we have left to do is address the CP and the a priori issues.

The CP

This is really just a comparison of positive impacts and negative impacts of each case, so I'll go through each one. Con gives three:

1. The CP doesn't require international fiat
2. The CP doesn't engage in globalization
3. The CP solves for "the root of the problem"

I've already addressed Point 1, and I don't think it has nay potency. I'll get to Point 2 under the Kritik, but just to address it briefly, this is a negative impact. Essentially Con's arguing that he doesn't have the same harm Pro does, but in order to get any real ground here, Con has to show that there's a substantial harm that can be weighed and measured, and specifically attributed to Pro's case, not just pre-fiat. As such, I don't think this point goes very far for Con either. Neither does Point 3, which is too bad because it had the most potential. What is "the root of the problem"? It seems to me that the root is entrenched mindsets that allow continued subjugation of the Yanomami. You're not attacking the root. You're attacking the means by which the root is used to push greivous harms on the Yanomami. If Brazil itself takes a stance against such treatment, Brazil may be far more likely than international intervention to succeed, as they are capable of enforcing it 24/7 without issue. Pro has to keep a continuous presence in Brazil to solve that well, and it's not going to happen. But Con never gives that response.

The CP wasn't quite wiped out, though. Pro argues that Brazil would never take these actions, but that's what Con is banking on. That's why he can fiat them to take these actions and ensure that they do them. It actually would have made more sense for Pro to argue that the Brazilian government IS incompetent, and therefore incapable of enforcing anything to real effect. Pro could also have argued that Con's solvency would be short-term, disappearing quickly as the Brazilian government showed a complete disinterest in enforcement, as they've done before. Either of those would have put the debate on plan vs. CP away for good, but in an effort to just completely remove the CP, Pro misses an opportunity to do basically the same thing by mitigation.

Here's the comparison. We have from Pro three reasons to prefer the plan. These have been modified to fit with Pro's case with individual actors:

1. International action has already produced results in stopping illegal ranching that speak to its success
2. The UN has already thrown its support behind such an action
3. The international pressure on Brazil will require them to yield to outside pressures

Point 1 is the strongest of these. Showing that the means for action is effective as a result of international intervention is a big step, and it will definitely factor in comparison. Point 2 not so much. I'm not sure what the UN has done/would be doing beyond condemning the actions of the Brazilian government. They already do that " that's not a result of plan. Point 3 is stronger, arguing that international action would be accepted as a result of... something. Not quite sure what. Is the international community going to sanction Brazil if they don't allow them to act? Is Brazil going to be punished to any extent if they don't cooperate? That's certainly implied, but I need more than implications.

In any case, the plan does outweigh, if only for Pro's Point 1. Solvency is better established on his side, and as such, that's where I'd vote if this was just a case debate.

But of course, it's not. We've got 2 technical arguments left on the flow, and they're doosies.

Topicality

I think this could have been much better handled. The definitions were at least part of the problem " I don't think either of them necessarily exclude aid. I could easily see Zaradi meeting both of these definitions if he'd taken the time to really analyze them and specify his plan a little more. Using a Merriam-Webster definition was just the wrong way to go, as that definition is never going to be complete. Using globalization101.com (which, by the way, was never cited before R4) doesn't help either because the first time you draw from the source is in R4, too late to treat it as an eminent source. It would have made a whole lot more sense just to roll with the definition from Wikipedia, which would have included extra material that could have been presented through the rest of the debate to shore this up. As it stood, Con was reliant on relatively weak and general definitions that allowed easy outs from his topicality.

That being said, don't think Pro exploited these very well. He's incredibly dismissive of the definitions themselves, arguing that he only needs to meet a piece of either one of these definitions in order to put a "I meet" on the topicality. Spending a few more sentences explaining how aid can lead to all of the pieces of the definitions would have probably made me dismis this from the outset (even if many of those reasons could have been considered to only be topical by effect rather than fiat). The pre-defense against the topicality really not helping the situation much.

So what I'm stuck with is the argument by Pro that he only has to meet a small portion of the definition, and the argument by Con that he must meet both. I'll be clear from the outset that I'm not buying that he has to meet definition a). That definition is clearly for a verb rather than a noun, and so it does appear to apply to just "globalize", as Pro stated. So I'm left with b), and the question of whether meeting part of the definition is sufficient. I think it's pretty clear that Pro doesn't meet the full definition. There's no response given on how he's engaging in integration, particularly with regards to companies. Con really should have spent more time on this word than on the words "interaction" (which is a very broad term) and "investment" (which is pretty thoroughly implied by Pro's case " even if it's never explicitly stated that direct involvement by nations in the enforcement of protective measures is also an investment). In fact, integration as a problem only gets mentioned in R2 and then disappears from the flow.

Honestly, I want to buy this topicality. Damn it, I really do. I think the link between aid in enforcement of multiple internationally recognized crimes is demonstrably different from globalization, and I think the reasoning for why they're different required more than was provided. Focusing on integration and presenting some standards and voters for this topicality could have gone a long way. Instead, I'm warring with myself over whether integration being brought up in one round without much depth is enough to float the whole topicality, and I'm just not sure it's sufficient.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 12:33:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Kritik

This is probably the most important thing in this debate because I think it's where Con stands the best chance of taking this. As he points out, Pro drops the vast majority of the Kritik (and, let's face it, the perm was never going to work anyway), so really the only question is whether or not his no link responses are sufficient.

For that answer, it depends what I'm looking at.

If I want to analyze this debate post-fiat, I'd say there's no question that the Kritik is severely weakened. Pro effectively showed that the link between the Kritik's impacts and the case is somewhere between 0 and almost nothing. Con admits that the focus of the Kritik is on the broader issue of globalism, and never does directly apply these impacts to Pro's case.
If I want to analyze it pre-fiat, it's not quite as clear. The impact is important to some degree here, but that degree is markedly lower. All Con has to do is show that some impact, any impact, exists. He gave the reasons why in his voters, explaining why the impacts of each case were irrelevant by comparison to the issue of what we say/write. Since fiat is imaginary, ideas become most essential. It never gets a response, so I know that the biggest impact, the one that comes before any possible impact of the cases.

I think Con does enough to prove that the impact is not 0. It could (and probably should) have been argued that the definition Con utilizes to link the impacts to the resolution is not actually representative of all of globalization. Rather than simply questioning what a world ordering process was, I could easily have accepted an argument that globalization is often done with destabilization in mind, and that no effect on ordering (or even a negative effect) was far more likely with this plan. I'm surprised Pro didn't just throw Con's own definitions at this " integration, interaction, investment and information technologies could all easily cause more chaos, and that chaos isn't necessarily harmful either.

But those responses don't appear. So I'm forced to accept that Pro must link to this debate to some minimal degree. If I believe world ordering is necessarily a part of globalization, then I have no choice but to accept that, to some degree, Pro's case is an ordering process. I don't know to what degree, but that doesn't matter. Pro's case bites the Kritik, and pre-fiat, those voters don't need to be strong.

I actually thought that there were several locations this Kritik was weak. The immediate problem for me is that the CP bites it, hard. The argument could easily be made that Brazil engaging in these actions is effectively globalization " they're kowtowing to the interests of the international community, effectively creating order on a contentious issue in an attempt to see to what everyone else wants. Even if Brazil is solely engaging in this action because of Con's fiat, it would at least be interpreted as Brazil adhering to international opinion. And this is the problem with a Kritik " unless Con runs only positions that don't bite it, they can be just as easily accused of biting it. And they should know better, since they're presenting the Kritik.

Of course, I can't use any of this. It doesn't appear in the debate, and so the Kritik remains logically sound. There's no responses regarding whether any of the pieces of the Kritik are accurate, and as I've shown, it does still apply to some small degree to the case. So while I'm personally against buying this Kritik, I really have no choice but to do so. As a result, since it's a pre-fiat issue, I'm voting here.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 5:25:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:32:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

Disclaimer: I wrote this over the course of a few days, so it might be a bit choppy. Also, the majority of it was written in a 2 hour period on a red eye flight, so that might have affected my mindset at the time. Nonetheless, I think it captures all or almost all of my thoughts on this debate, which I felt was pretty close.

RFD:

Ugh. Technical debate. I thought I was done with this when I graduated undergrad and left Parliamentary Debate for good. Well, I guess all those years of experience can come in handy somehow, might as well be now.

I'm going to break this up by focusing first on those points that I feel don't factor into the debate, and then shift to the points that might factor.

Irony

I'm just... I'm just not sure what this argument was meant to do. It appears in R2, then gets extended to R3, and disappears in R4. I can't see what it's doing. Is revealing the irony of Pro's stance somehow showing a harm that results from acting in this way? I can see how the Yanomami might be incredulous, might even refuse funds and retreat further from the world as a result of efforts to provide aid if they view it as a means of globalization. Globalization has hurt them, so logically they might refuse outside aid if it looks like one massive concerted effort to encroach on their sovereignty.

...Would have been really nice to see any of that explanation on this point. Instead, the point just shows that they're engaging in globalization to stop a harm of globalization and... that that might cause more harm somehow? It's extremely unclear. This seemed like a bit of a throwaway point from the outset " there's just no take-home message coming through from it, and it seems like the only thing it's managing to do is further explicate the harms globalization has had on the Yanomami, something that's not helping your case.

Disallow International Fiat

I'm just not buying this. Much of the structure for this point is torn down by Pro early, and what's left later is this general idea that it's somehow bad to fiat the actions of multiple nations because it fiats solvency. But I feel like I'm missing something, because Pro didn't fiat his solvency. He clearly provided that solvency, albeit with large holes in the reasoning. The fact that Con didn't exploit those holes doesn't mean that Pro is using the fiated actions of the global community to achieve solvency " it's a first step in a chain of events that must take place.

I just plain don't buy the judicial dichotomy argument. I don't understand it. Why is the judge "meant to act on behalf of a single country and not the entire global community"? What makes acting on behalf of the community faulted, and where's the dichtomy? Just because real world actors may not have the power to decide whether one nation or another should do a policy doesn't mean that fiat can't be used to take that action. It could have been argued that the international community just isn't likely to rally behind this decision and many nations may lash out at the prospect, but that doesn't disallow the fiat, it just challenges the solvency, and it's another point not given in this debate.

OK. Onto the major arguments.

Plan

Let's just get this out of the way first. I think Zaradi knew what he was doing here. Whether he wins on the topicality or not (and, to be clear, I haven't decided on that particular issue), this interpretation of the resolution really stretches both the definitions provided in R1 by Con, and the bounds of reasonable specification. Admittedly, the definitions could have been better explicated by Con from the outset, but seriously, I found this interpretation to be just absurd. Basically treating foreign aid as globalization seems incredibly problematic to me. I'm not factoring my own distaste with the decision into how I'll view the topicality, but I just want to be clear from the outset what my views are on the subject.

I think vagueness needs to be covered first. Generally, I think both sides do a poor job with this.

I'll start with Con. Merely pointing out the vaguenss in Pro's plan isn't going to do much for you. There's a least some vagueness in how the CP functions " presenting a much more specific CP would have given your vagueness more teeth. Its potency also could have increased if you'd done some of the specifying for his case " what it would cost other nations, how that cost would be distributed across nations, what enforcement would look like, how that would affect relations with Brazil, what the long-term outlook is for solvency... seriously, so many pieces " and explained why his case will do tremendous harm. That would have forced him to specify, which would have bit the violation on any vagueness you could have prepped. Merely saying that I "shouldn't vote for a vague plan" isn't getting me much of anywhere. Both of you have vague plans.

The same goes for the various solvency attacks. Merely stating that Pro hasn't shown solvency isn't really helping you when a) you're presenting a CP that tries to get the same solvency through different enforcement, b) you're only questioning his solvency and not attacking his reasoning for where the solvency comes from, and c) you're spending more time attacking his ability to fiat the actions of multiple nations than you are analyzing what that fiat would look like. Arguing that we don't know how much money is going to be spent, what specific actions they're going to take and the uncertain effectiveness of the organizations involved doesn't get you anywhere " it just tells me that you're willing to be even more vague about how it would play out. The vagueness just feels like a giant missed opportunity, and a much easier option for putting your opponent in a double bind as well.

Onto Pro. Yes, the plan is unclear. What it meant for "the international community [to] step in and make them take action" wasn't ever clear until the final round where you made clear that it's via the same means as the CP (i.e. making Yanomami a nationally protected area, restricting mining and prosecuting violators), though it may have been strongly implied that all of these planks existed in R3 when you said "The Counterplan is literally my plan except Brazil is the actor instead of the international community." I think this kind of late specification should have opened you up to some serious vagueness violations, but Con never really exploits it.

I really do appreciate your taking the time to truly analyze the debate. I follow your logic here and can cearly see what happened. What I appreciate most is your explaining what can be done better, what arguments can be made to mitigate certain points...ect, so yea, a big thanks from me for a full RFD.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 10:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I really do appreciate your taking the time to truly analyze the debate. I follow your logic here and can cearly see what happened. What I appreciate most is your explaining what can be done better, what arguments can be made to mitigate certain points...ect, so yea, a big thanks from me for a full RFD.

Glad you appreciate it. It would have been simple to just analyze the Kritik by itself, but I felt you guys had put enough work into this to warrant me spending the time to analyze the whole thing.
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 11:02:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 10:39:50 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I really do appreciate your taking the time to truly analyze the debate. I follow your logic here and can cearly see what happened. What I appreciate most is your explaining what can be done better, what arguments can be made to mitigate certain points...ect, so yea, a big thanks from me for a full RFD.

Glad you appreciate it. It would have been simple to just analyze the Kritik by itself, but I felt you guys had put enough work into this to warrant me spending the time to analyze the whole thing.

How clear was the K, as in, do you feel you got an grasp of its concepts pretty easily? What do you think I could have done better on?
0-10? 0 equals worst
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 1:54:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 11:02:01 PM, TheJuniorVarsityNovice wrote:
At 8/3/2015 10:39:50 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I really do appreciate your taking the time to truly analyze the debate. I follow your logic here and can cearly see what happened. What I appreciate most is your explaining what can be done better, what arguments can be made to mitigate certain points...ect, so yea, a big thanks from me for a full RFD.

Glad you appreciate it. It would have been simple to just analyze the Kritik by itself, but I felt you guys had put enough work into this to warrant me spending the time to analyze the whole thing.

How clear was the K, as in, do you feel you got an grasp of its concepts pretty easily? What do you think I could have done better on?
0-10? 0 equals worst

The K was somewhat clear. I think spending time on the ordering process, what it is (with examples), what it means, and why even small ordering processes that are viewed as aid end up linking well to the K would have helped. I don't think any of these are particularly complex, and I can understand the K without them, but it's important to be as clear as possible. I think that uncertainty could lead some to misunderstand it.

The link to the case, in particular, would have helped quite a bit for 2 reasons. First, it would have ensured that you were prepared to handle the no link responses and shored up the weakest point in the argument. Second, it would have better informed your choice to run the CP. As I pointed out, your CP was actually your most vulnerable argument because it could easily have erased your K from the flow, and the reason for that was that the Kritik precluded any case that could, to any degree, involve globalization. You seemed to recognize this need with your alternatives, but not with the CP itself, and the link structure would have made that clear by showing how the CP would also link to it (or not link, perhaps).
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 1:55:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, and you wanted a rating. In terms of how it fit into your arguments as a whole, I'd give it a 5. Taken by itself, I'd say a 7.
vrj
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2015 3:08:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 12:32:06 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Here's the link: http://www.debate.org...

Disclaimer: I wrote this over the course of a few days, so it might be a bit choppy. Also, the majority of it was written in a 2 hour period on a red eye flight, so that might have affected my mindset at the time. Nonetheless, I think it captures all or almost all of my thoughts on this debate, which I felt was pretty close.

RFD:

Ugh. Technical debate. I thought I was done with this when I graduated undergrad and left Parliamentary Debate for good. Well, I guess all those years of experience can come in handy somehow, might as well be now.

I'm going to break this up by focusing first on those points that I feel don't factor into the debate, and then shift to the points that might factor.

Irony

I'm just... I'm just not sure what this argument was meant to do. It appears in R2, then gets extended to R3, and disappears in R4. I can't see what it's doing. Is revealing the irony of Pro's stance somehow showing a harm that results from acting in this way? I can see how the Yanomami might be incredulous, might even refuse funds and retreat further from the world as a result of efforts to provide aid if they view it as a means of globalization. Globalization has hurt them, so logically they might refuse outside aid if it looks like one massive concerted effort to encroach on their sovereignty.

...Would have been really nice to see any of that explanation on this point. Instead, the point just shows that they're engaging in globalization to stop a harm of globalization and... that that might cause more harm somehow? It's extremely unclear. This seemed like a bit of a throwaway point from the outset " there's just no take-home message coming through from it, and it seems like the only thing it's managing to do is further explicate the harms globalization has had on the Yanomami, something that's not helping your case.

Disallow International Fiat

I'm just not buying this. Much of the structure for this point is torn down by Pro early, and what's left later is this general idea that it's somehow bad to fiat the actions of multiple nations because it fiats solvency. But I feel like I'm missing something, because Pro didn't fiat his solvency. He clearly provided that solvency, albeit with large holes in the reasoning. The fact that Con didn't exploit those holes doesn't mean that Pro is using the fiated actions of the global community to achieve solvency " it's a first step in a chain of events that must take place.

I just plain don't buy the judicial dichotomy argument. I don't understand it. Why is the judge "meant to act on behalf of a single country and not the entire global community"? What makes acting on behalf of the community faulted, and where's the dichtomy? Just because real world actors may not have the power to decide whether one nation or another should do a policy doesn't mean that fiat can't be used to take that action. It could have been argued that the international community just isn't likely to rally behind this decision and many nations may lash out at the prospect, but that doesn't disallow the fiat, it just challenges the solvency, and it's another point not given in this debate.

OK. Onto the major arguments.

Plan

Let's just get this out of the way first. I think Zaradi knew what he was doing here. Whether he wins on the topicality or not (and, to be clear, I haven't decided on that particular issue), this interpretation of the resolution really stretches both the definitions provided in R1 by Con, and the bounds of reasonable specification. Admittedly, the definitions could have been better explicated by Con from the outset, but seriously, I found this interpretation to be just absurd. Basically treating foreign aid as globalization seems incredibly problematic to me. I'm not factoring my own distaste with the decision into how I'll view the topicality, but I just want to be clear from the outset what my views are on the subject.

I think vagueness needs to be covered first. Generally, I think both sides do a poor job with this.

I'll start with Con. Merely pointing out the vaguenss in Pro's plan isn't going to do much for you. There's a least some vagueness in how the CP functions " presenting a much more specific CP would have given your vagueness more teeth. Its potency also could have increased if you'd done some of the specifying for his case " what it would cost other nations, how that cost would be distributed across nations, what enforcement would look like, how that would affect relations with Brazil, what the long-term outlook is for solvency... seriously, so many pieces " and explained why his case will do tremendous harm. That would have forced him to specify, which would have bit the violation on any vagueness you could have prepped. Merely saying that I "shouldn't vote for a vague plan" isn't getting me much of anywhere. Both of you have vague plans.

The same goes for the various solvency attacks. Merely stating that Pro hasn't shown solvency isn't really helping you when a) you're presenting a CP that tries to get the same solvency through different enforcement, b) you're only questioning his solvency and not attacking his reasoning for where the solvency comes from, and c) you're spending more time attacking his ability to fiat the actions of multiple nations than you are analyzing what that fiat would look like. Arguing that we don't know how much money is going to be spent, what specific actions they're going to take and the uncertain effectiveness of the organizations involved doesn't get you anywhere " it just tells me that you're willing to be even more vague about how it would play out. The vagueness just feels like a giant missed opportunity, and a much easier option for putting your opponent in a double bind as well.

Onto Pro. Yes, the plan is unclear. What it meant for "the international community [to] step in and make them take action" wasn't ever clear until the final round where you made clear that it's via the same means as the CP (i.e. making Yanomami a nationally protected area, restricting mining and prosecuting violators), though it may have been strongly implied that all of these planks existed in R3 when you said "The Counterplan is literally my plan except Brazil is the actor instead of the international community." I think this kind of late specification should have opened you up to some serious vagueness violations, but Con never really exploits it.

What becomes more of a problem is this extension of what the UN can do in the final round. Pro explains that "The UN has already voiced their support for the Yanomami, meaning I don't even need to press the fiat button: they already want to help the Yanomami...The fact that they aren't means that the UN is within their right to step in and impliment the plan themselves." I think this is where the main tension lies on vagueness in the final round. Suddenly, the actor isn't separate entities in the international community, united under the banner of the UN, but rather the UN itself acting to address the problem. I could see where the links would go " the UN could feasibly lead a task force provided by other nations (they'd need them anyway) to Brazil to enforce it, thus making this an international act. However, that's not clear. It should have been clear if Pro was going to make the UN the actor, especially as that would have been responsive to the multiple parties fiat point and gotten you out of a lot of other potentially troublesome arguments. But early on in your arguments, it seems like all the UN is doing is justifying intervention, not intervening itself.

rdf support