Instigator / Con
7
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5576
The United States Federal Government (USFG) should establish a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the European Union (EU)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
publicforumgod
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
For clarification, I am taking the negative stance on the resolution.
Framing: There are two key layers of analysis for how the debate should be framed. The first layer is through consequentialism. Consequentialist framing enhances the evaluation of policy decisions by exemplifying material impacts and their implications. The second layer is through impact terminalization. Ultimately, weighing the round through terminal impacts is key because it looks at the natural conclusions of things (ex. accelerating climate change leads to extinction).
Argumentation:
Observation: Any evidence that the affirmative tries to read in response to decoupling, must be contextual to a world where the BTA has been implemented. I will concede that decoupling likely will not happen in the status quo, however its the affirmative scenario that pushes relations over the brink.
Contention 1: Trade Diversion w/ China leads to Decoupling
Trade is zero-sum especially in the case of the US, EU, and China. In the status quo, these are the globe's largest trading partners. Having a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) with the US and EU would fundamentally divert trade away from China.
ECIPE '24 finds that the initial economic shock between the US and China would be 6.5 billion dollars.
This would ultimately exacerbate the already emerging trend of economic decoupling between the US and China as found by Murray et. al '23.
Sourcing:
Subpoint A: Increased Chinese Influence
Demarais '23 supports the idea that goods shortages and inflation would spike as U.S. firms struggle during decoupling. Decoupling would deepen China’s global influence by forcing countries to shift away from the United States. Cutting ties would diminish key economic interdependences that give Washington leverage over Beijing.
This increased power to China and lack of leverage for the US is key for two key reasons:
1. Increased Chinese global influence allows them to set global standards that greenlight genocide. A key example of this is the current ethnic cleansing and discrimination against Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang.
2. Loss of economic interdependence per the Demarais evidence would open the gate for US-China war that goes nuclear (Mutually Assured Destruction would not apply). Ultimately, this scenario is unique only to the affirmative because when the US loses key leverage power, the risks go up
Sourcing:
Nuclear War --> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/17/china-united-states-nuclear-conflict-danger
Genocide --> https://www.economist.com/special-report/2022/10/10/china-seeks-a-world-order-that-defers-to-states-and-their-rulers/
Subpoint B: US Economic Decline
BCG '20 finds that US companies and the general economy would lose 2.5 trillion dollars from decoupling. Insofar as the affirmative doesn't provide evidence or do warranting on how the US-EU trade relationship will make up for this major loss, its game over for the US.
This economic decline has one key impact:
US industries going under causes economic collapse which increases the likelihood of war. Latici and Lazarou '21 found in an analysis that financial crises and deterioration in peace is highlighted through empirical studies. A lot of this is due to inequality and subsequently social collapse
Sourcing:
Latici and Lazarou --> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690669/EPRS_STU(2021)690669_EN.pdf
Subpoint C: Green Tech
China accounts for half the global supply of lithium which is key in both the US and EU's paths to cleaner energy and climate solvency. Decoupling greatly increases the likelihood that China cuts of green tech supply because evidence indicates they can sustain well in a world where that happens. Ultimately the neg outweighs because climate solvency prevents extinction which outweighs on timeframe and magnitude.
Contention 2: AI Strategic Autonomy
Currently, the EU is moving towards strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy can be simply defined as the ability of a state to pursue its national interests and adopt foreign policy without depending heavily on other states. Voting affirmative undermines EU efforts for strategic autonomy because trade agreements create inherent reliance between countries and have ripple effects across economies.
There is one key detriment to undermining EU strategic autonomy: Lack of AI standards and regulations
An expansive study conducted by Boulanin et al '20 finds that access to tech is a central aspect of strategic autonomy, including the development of AI. The EU is the best actor to create AI standards since they empirically avoid contradictions, are better viewed in the world's eyes, and tend to optimize financial investments. The only path for the EU to carry out effective regulations on AI is a world where the US is not involved, a world with strategic autonomy.
Ultimately, a lack of EU regulated AI (lack of strong standards as found in the Boulanin evidence), will cause extinction. A report conducted by Egan '24 found that unmitigated AI has the potential to destabilize global security. More specifically, there is a 10% chance that AI will lead to human extinction within the next three decades.
Sourcing:
EU moving to Strategic Autonomy --> https://ecipe.org/publications/eu-autonomy-brussels-effect-rise-global-economic-protectionism
Boulanin et. al --> https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/responsible_military_use_of_artificial_intelligence.pdf
Impact Weighing:
Weigh extinction impacts at the highest level. Risk framing is key, and any likelihood of extinction make it try-or-die for the negative.
Thanks for accepting, excited to see the case and reubttal!
Forfeited
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
I agree welcome to dart (depending on whether you are christian or not)
Welcome to DART!
Give me a 500 word summary of your argument in my PM and I will go advertise this debate for you, and link you towards the ad.