Germany is more powerful than France, as of now.

This debate was framed around two specific types of power.

Pro is arguing that in terms of economic power, Germany is more powerful. Con argues that both diplomatically, militarily, and culturallyFrance is more powerful.

On most points, both sides agree on most of the others points.

Cons rebuttal starts of conceding that France is stronger militarily, and then goes on to show that it isn’t stronger militarily. Con argues Germany could build nukes (the resolution is “as of now”), that the war would be devestating to both sides, and the military is not as good due to being full of reservists.

Con argues that the power of trade and food self sufficiency. And that money supersedes cultural power - using China as an example.

Pro points out con conceded the soft power issue, and largely takes down the military aspects, pointing out that there is no evidence that Frances army is not as well trained, and that Germany is treaty bound not to build nukes and limited in its military. On food self sufficiency con points out of that there is a large advantage for France; and on trade con goes on to argue that leverage with BMWs is harder than leverage with food.

While short, in this debate pro establishes that Germany has a stronger economy. Con on the other hand I feel establishes that France as a stronger military, stronger cultural influence, stronger soft diplomatic power.

Given that these things are all what is typically associated with power, and I feel that economic power is only really established as such if it translates to soft power: this debate must go to con.

Interpreting the resolution:
On average of power dimensions to be listed, X>Y

Gist:
Both agree money isn’t the only type of power, and Y was shown to excel at more dimensions of power (even if a greater number in any doesn’t prove they would utilize it better).

1. Money: Pro
“1.2 trillion dollars richer by nominal GDP” or “7 thousand dollars richer per person”
Con counters with an example of rich people having power not determined proportionally to their money (oddly the Israel example from pro furthers this).

2. Might: Con
More or less conceded anyway, but the “as of now” qualifier undermines pro’s own arguments that X could overtake Y if they wanted to.
That they would be ruined by a conflict does not change this, rather it seems to question the weight of economic power in comparison to what could easily destroy that.
Some credit to pro for the Israel reference (size isn’t everything).

3. Soft-Power: Con
I momentarily considered dismissing this as per the description of the debate, but that would equally apply to non-military might such as money. Culture is as much a power as money if leveraged.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. With a tad more data I could run a math program, but there would still be the subjective elements of either assuming they are all equal or trying to assign weighted averages... With none proven to be superior or to override the others, it is unlikely to create a different result than just lumping them all into the three dimensions and counting them.

Sources:
Sourcing could have been done better, but both sides seemed to put the effort in (if there’s an issue I don’t mind reviewing the sources, I am just a little sleepy right now, and they look like they’ll fall somewhere near the mean).