Germany is more powerful than France, as of now.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 2,700
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
As I said power, freedoms will not count. Germany is a stronger, more powerful nation than France, in my opinion.
2700 CPA= pls forgive shortcuts & abbrs.
- 26% bigger military budget
- 14% more active duty soldiers
- 24% more tanks
- 37% bigger AF
- 70% bigger Navy, incl only non-US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
- Has only restored sovereignty since 1990
- Military capacity is delimited by FR & Allied powers
- DE is forbidden nukes & WMD (note: PRO argued that DE nukes “wouldn’t be a challenge” but that’s false- FR forces DE to never build nukes)
- Named #1 on "Soft Power 30" 2017
- Most multilateral & diplomatic & cultural membership of any country
- is the official language of 29 countries globally. German is not spoken much outside of EU.
- is the #1 tourist destination in the world
- surpasses DE in UNESCO heritage sites, museums, restaurants, attractions
- surpasses DE in music, art, film, sport
- DE-FR WAR would destroy both economies (irrelevant to relative power)
- DE would build nukes (NATO+RUS at least would be treaty bound to stop such development)
- DE would break Treaty of Versailles (DE 1936 Rhineland invasion ended Treaty of Versailles)
- DE army better trained (what evidence supports this claim?)
- PRO argues WW2 is no longer relevant (the consequences of that war are central to questions of hard power: the numbers of soldiers, tanks, planes, nukes, etc is dictated to DE by a coalition that includes FR. FR actually tells DE how much military DE can have- that is the definition of power.)
- DE is close to food self-sufficiency at 80%. (The difference between 111% of daily nutritional req & 80% adds up pretty quickly. Also superior FR diplomacy, Navy, geography mean far better export/import prospects during any anti-trade event. )
- DE's superior exports equals more leverage in conflict (that depends on the export. In a crisis, which sells better: food or BMWs?)
- DE $$$ better than culture (culture is $$$. Every time an Intl' conglomerate meets in Paris because the kids want to go to EuroDisney or the Husband wants to tour wine country- FR improves in $$$ and influence at DE's expense)
- China gains UN influence by bribing African leaders (Since PRO mentions UN we should note that FR has a permanent seat on UN Security Council (and hence, a veto in security proceedings. DE has no veto at the UN. FR > DE again)
- DE is growing faster. (PRO's resolution states "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).
Thanks for voting. And thanks again to Trent. I really like that super short format and the straightforward, international politics topic. I look forward to more debates with you in future.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Udit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: pro win
>Reason for Decision: Jenekriuhhhhhhfrgu
Reason for Mod Action> Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, the vote is clearly insufficient. Please review the voting guidelines as outlined in the CoC.
*******************************************************************
bump
thx, Trent!
GG M8
I agree, but a nations economy should be weighted more than military in my opinion. None of the top 44 economies have fought since WW2.
Economically, Germany is stronger. Military, France is stronger.
I prefer Germany as the nuances of it as a social democracy are superior to what France is as a social democracy. In fact I would say France is like a Republic that basically takes Democracy as a necessary means to an end (yes, like America but of course more left wing) while Germany, especially due to escaping its past, is a genuine social democracy.
" Germany exports more, produces nearly 3 times more oil, and holds the second largest gold reserves ranking just below America."
Actually, Germany relies more on oil from Russia than France, making them less powerful and relying on a foreign power.
dang, Oromagi got it, I know a lot about foreign militaries