Con has opted for some kind of cross examination instead of posting actual arguments. He should have read from the description that my framework is supposed to be beneficial to the most people possible across the world. I have shown in my evidence that we will benefit most with bringing people in developing countries, as they need the help the most. Any other benefit is just a cherry on top of the cake.
Extend all arguments as they have been dropped by con.
Extend: "China is also now loudly speaking the language of international development; it has announced that it is stepping up to be a global good citizen concerned about the economic well-being of its neighbors"
Extend: "Aggregate results suggest that BRI infrastructure improvements could increase total trade among BRI economies by 4.1percent. Countries such as Uzbekistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Oman and Maldives benefit the most after improvements in trading times, with an increase in their exports above 9 percent"
Extend: "President Xi propos[ing] to establish “a global energy network” to meet global power demand “with clean and green sources." [6]. Adding on the EU will allow the operation to be controlled by multiple countries, enforcing new technology that would save our ecosystems and our people alike.
Extend: "Each of the many trans-Eurasian rail lines that are part of this mammoth project will be accompanied by fiber-optic cables carrying impossibly huge amounts of data across thousands of miles without delay". The impact is significant: a vast proportion of countries would have access to this internet. Doctors and researchers alike could instantly access information and quickly upload files to work together and improve other areas of science. Not only so, the internet innately boosts the productivity and connectivity of people.
Since Con hesitates to refute these arguments, it's clear that he does not have good reasons to directly counter these ideas and instead opts for questioning the resolution instead. Voters should hold less him to be less credible as a result.
Since I have more space, I will stack upon expert sources in case Con tries to defeat me on not having enough authority.
One researcher supports that the BRI will greatly help the public health sector, boosting the developing countries in terms of medical care. "China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers immense opportunities for
partnership and collective actions involving multiple countries to combat globalization-linked infectious and/or chronic diseases, emerging pandemics, and outbreaks of potential threats to both laboratory information management systems and health information management. " [
1] Indeed, the researchers note that connecting the trade routes inherently allow the transportation to be more easily managed, enhancing the prowess of my trade argument. The display of outreach against the Ebola outbreak proves that China's engagement that prevents diseases will save even more lives. So let's repeat: Not only do we save people from starving to death, but they also are prevented from getting fatal diseases and being untreated in time. The EU joining in tandem could even better help bring vaccines and solutions to people in Europe, providing fierce resistance against COVID.
So. Remember that tens to hundreds of thousands of lives are on the line when you are reading Con's case.
Next, Con might try saying that even given all of these data with supporting the countries' economies, this is not enough. But people clearly want out of their poor economic situation. As another expert notes, "existing data set showed the positive responses of local Pakistani citizens toward CPEC projects. The findings of this study will help government officials and the representatives of the CPEC understand the attitudes of the host community and their cooperation for the development of CPEC projects." [2] This links back to the connection of international pressure and cooperation. If China is doing poorly then the other countries may prevent funds or progress any time. China is not the master here. It is only one of the guiding forces to boost forward the citizens' ideals. And in terms of democracy and freedom, what could be more important than what the people desire as a whole? Is it not beneficial to release citizens of their economic despair?
Con mentions environment, but makes no attempt to establish how bad this is and if it outweighs the lives saved and the economic boost to developing countries.
By the contrast, let me show you why China's violation will not go on longer. China's BRI will soon fall apart if we do not do anything. So China is encouraged to make the new Silk Road mutually beneficial. You can have your road and eat your environment cake, too. As another expert's plan lays out, the green energy plan will enforce the environment on the next level. [3] As of now, the European nations on their own have difficulty to work together to establish such a framework like this. But EU is more credible and more powerful. They may have China spread the ideals of environmental importance, which in the long run can make *all* infrastructure plans work out. If we allow China to just fall apart, we encourage countries to be separated and do what they will. Instead of supporting them to do the right thing at a small power sacrifice, we separate human societies and cause an impossible problem.
We assume that China is incredibly selfish such that they will not listen. But we have not even tried to unite together against them. Who knows if EU will further fall apart as China tries to draw in extra people. The current condition is morally ambiguous since China has no environment standard, yet economically boosts the developing countries. More European countries will join and it is too hard to stop them. We must join as a whole to enforce the environment's importance before this drags on and we condemn China for being environmentally detrimental.
Why punish for something negative, instead of encouraging something positive?
Now back to Con.
I would support something like the BRI if America was the head of it. I don't like the idea of communist countries getting power over non communist countries.
before anyone forgets, give a vote. opp conceded
[Voters should ignore this since it's in the comment section, I'm just helping out RM a bit]
For your valiant effort, I will give some information that prove you may have had a chance, and for future improvement.
Even though Fortune has claimed no country has truly ended up in debt, CNBC counter lists four different countries to potentially counter my arguments (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/countries-are-reducing-belt-and-road-investments-over-financing-fears.html).
In addition, the investments have gone down 50% over recent trends so it's hard to say if we can continue supporting their ideals (https://green-bri.org/investment-report-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-2020-covid19/). The combination of debt and lack of growth makes it difficult for EU to potentially support the BRI (https://www.brinknews.com/the-future-of-belt-and-road-debt-and-delays-or-huge-growth/).
Brookings also has a strong counter analysis to my ideals, and claims that China will continue pursuing its own wants. (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FP_20190418_bri_interview.pdf) Remember that, even if my logic seems correct, you can still raise experts to have greater credibility -- perhaps China is not as rational as I proposed.
Furthermore, if you watched Mr. Chris's debate about this, he adds upon the oppressions of the Uighers (https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-final-solution-xinjiang) which will be further supported by the EU, clashing against the ideals of democracy and perhaps finally linking back to your cyber crime case.
Even though I push for a green solution, the current evidence is stacked heavily against BRI, with current impacts being destructive on the environment (https://nexusmedianews.com/chinas-global-infrastructure-initiative-could-be-an-environmental-catastrophe-25a40e2d1000). The irreversible environmental effects could result in far more people dead than people lifted out of poverty on my side. (https://psmag.com/environment/environmental-concerns-over-chinese-infrastructure-projects)
The Pro case is actually slightly harder than the Con case, because you have to pretend China is going to be reasonable and solve the problems presented by Con, despite China's selfishness and being consumed by greed. The current trend seems to infer that China would rather continue damaging the environment, oppressing the developing countries, and being a solo king, rather than listen to the EU and resolve the problems. I'm actually playing devil's advocate here; I don't think China is very likely to actually listen to EU like my pro case proposed.
France only joined BRI out of an urge to trade with China.
You could do that but there's some rebuttals that may dismantle that claim. I won't give away any arguments however
in my opinion, there's also the cost of joining in the first place. If I frame the debate as "the Europe is already in the BRI", it makes it feel like status quo, which is generally easier to work with in my opinion. Maybe it's a weird "frame of mind" kind of thing. I feel like "Should Europe withdraw from BRI?" in this fictional world is harder to argue than "Should Europe join BRI" in our real world.
It takes very little effort to do nothing and not join BRI in our real world.
It takes a lot of commitment and problems to withdraw from BRI, once you have joined.
(I know I'm not arguing against Europe withdrawal in my fictional universe, but I feel like the framework is similar to such)
Ultimately this is the same, just both debaters agreeing to a utilitarian framework (which I was using in my case to begin with). The resolution is actually quite balanced, you'll be fine
how's this? I know "EU should join BRI" is con slanted, however, this presents an interesting premise: EU joins the BRI in my fictional world. Does the benefits outweigh the harms?