Instigator / Pro
31
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2779
On Net Balance, EU Joining BRI Would be Beneficial
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
20
1706
rating
561
debates
68.09%
won
Description
A trickier version of the "EU should join BRI" debate. Pro will argue that benefits outweigh harms if EU chooses to join the BRI. Con argues harm outweighs benefits.
Burden of Proof is shared.
Beneficial for who? The general public. The world. Beneficial in what way? We will argue what impacts are the most important and why they matter.
Explanation: With the original premise, there's many problems that EU fails to resolve by joining BRI. However, this premise assumes a world where EU joins regardless, and does not care about non-unique harms (Ex: Uighers being oppressed either way) and thus may be trickier to argue for Con.
Round 1
Thanks Madman.
EU = European Union
BRI = Belt and Road Imitative
1. International Standing
The BRI on the surface seems nothing more than selfish gain, but reality has shown different results. A Professor of history explains in NY Times that BRI enforces China's claim to be a friendly international leader. He asserts that China is beginning to uphold the ideas of prosperity and harmony: "China is also now loudly speaking the language of international development; it has announced that itis stepping up to be a global good citizen concerned about the economic well-being of its neighbors" [1]. As they are put under scrutiny by allies and enemies alike, continuing the BRI would enforce stricter requirements on environment, economy, and other ideals. Because BRI is currently under economic troubles, EU joining would bring it back under stability, preventing it from falling and putting another leverage to control China under democratic principles. The geographical closeness of BRI and Europe also allows EU to join easily with very little cost, which helps my point.
Next, China has only helped the countries, rather than economically harming them, demonstrating my claim of altruism. As Fortune.com notes, "Finance Secretary of the Philippines Carlos Dominguez publicly stated that debts owed to Chinaaccounts for only 0.65% of the country’s total debt. And Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku, Sri Lanka’s ambassador toBeijing, dismissed the idea of “debt-trap diplomacy.”" [2] Indeed, nearly no country has actually been stuck in a debt trap due to the BRI. In fact, they have benefited for the most part, with China upgrading the transportation of Kenya as an example.
2. BRI's Economic Influence
Though building the BRI itself may not seem to have big impacts, the results will be tremendous. The speed of trade will be increased by a significant amount. World Bank's blogs admits, "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 tradingtimes, with an increase in their exports above 9 percent" [3]. Of course, these are big numbers. Even Iran alone is 105 million dollars in exports alone [4], not to mention that this amount is multiplied greatly by each additional country benefitted. If this wasn't enough, improving the roads and railways will also greatly reduce trade costs. As Voxeu explains, "implementing all BRI transport infrastructure projects will reduce aggregate tradecosts for the BRI economies by 2.8% on average with the rest of the world, and by 3.5% with other BRIeconomies" [5]. The large trade reductions overall would be worth the cost of the BRI, exceeding it by billions in the long run.
And on the bigger picture, the global boost of trade by 6.5% will lift 32 million people out of poverty. [10] This massive number must be outweighed for Con to even have a chance to win the debate.
3. Energy Infrastructure
The BRI is not only a trading project, it is also an energy related project. Cornell from the Atlantic Council explains that at least 200 million jobs would be created from the project due to surge of electricity grids [6]. Not only so, the project will be environmentally conservative, with "President Xi propos[ing] to establish “a global energy network” to meetglobal 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. This is especially important in the area where China is building the BRI. As they proceed towards Europe, they will also assist developing countries. As a result, "in poor rural environments, theexpansion of power grids is also important for addressing energy access, with its multiplier effects ondevelopment and the provision of information and communications technology (ICT) services foreconomic connectivity" [6].
4. Internet Access
As of now, still 41% of the world has no access to internet, despite it being the pillar of information and connection -- perhaps even an essential right. [7] But BRI will fix this by allowing building of 5G internet through rail lines. As wired explains, "each of the many trans-Eurasian rail linesthat are part of this mammoth project will be accompanied by fiber-optic cables carrying impossiblyhuge 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.
As Brookings Institute found, "a 10 percent increase in Internetpenetration in a foreign country is associated with a 1.7 percent increase in exports and a 1.1 percentincrease in imports" [8]. And the investment of internet will empower the countries to export and import even more, fueling a cycle of economic boost. The logic behind this makes sense too. Trading must be conducted with processes and controls. The transaction will be expedited with the addition of the internet. AmericanExpress explains, "With 5G IoT and blockchain, a digital bill of lading could automaticallytransfer to the buyer when a ship reaches port, with the seller automatically receiving the purchaseprice" [9].
With EU joining in on China with the boost of internet, there is no doubt that the greatest invention of the last century will significantly change developing countries' progress.
Conclusion:
- China is about to lose its BRI plan without EU's help, so EU may add additional pressure and enforce the international promises made.
- BRI will help gain billions in revenue worldwide and prevent poverty
- BRI will encourage energy in developing areas and also establish a green energy standard
- BRI will bring internet to hundreds of thousands of developing areas, furthering their boost out of poverty
Since this is a 4, not 3, Round debate, and there is no strict layout/structure in the description of this debate, I will post a Kritik alone and then properly build my case based on Pro's reply (or lack of reply) in Round 2.
My Kritik is as follows:
Beneficial to whom and in what sense?
This resolution says 'net beneficial' but you cannot have winners of making a unison/deal without, at the very least, it being a losing deal for those outside of it. Who in the deal is meant to net-benefit and how are we to judge trade-offs?
I warn that this is not all I have planned in my case, the following will come up regardless of Pro's reply:
- Ethical clauses, including ecological which is responsibility to environment, simply cannot work in unison with a blatantly violating nation like China.
- The whole point if EU is to cement Europe as a power that can stand up to the likes of China (which wants to rule the world as an Imperialist force). Joining the BRI is either a step in the wrong direction or is entirely superficial, meaning it is nearly impossible to benefit either side.
Those 2 points and my Kritik will be the core basis of my case and my rebuttals too. Everything revolves around who wins/loses and in what context 'benefit' is taking place. This debate lacks any framework for Pro to win, in my opinion, thus it merely depends what Pro replies.
Round 2
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.
Pro's entire rebuttal theisis and means of making a case that is to be held supposedly invulnerable to my attacks is the word of Chinese leadership. The words and promises made are to be Pro's sole basis on which entire international agreements and treaties are based. So, let's look a little into how often China lies vs keeps its word.
This is not just recent and Covid-based, the fact this country happened to be responsible for a cover-up that has resulted in the deaths of many around the world is merely the nail in the coffin in terms of its reputation and trustworthiness. Let's look at how expert journalists reported about China in 2012:
Beijing makes no secret of its secrecy. While the government has become much less controlling than it used to be, information that doesn’t suit Beijing’s larger purposes still gets withheld, while information that doesn’t quite suit its purposes is often polished until it does. Only last month, an op-ed in the state-run newspaper Beijing Daily exposed local reporters displaying a shameful inclination towards balanced journalism. “Chinese media interested in negative news have been seduced into wrongdoing by Western concepts,” it fumed.
China’s sensitivity about its control of the bad-news agenda was highlighted once again this week when Beijing publicly chided the U.S. embassy for measuring Beijing’s sometimes “crazy bad” air pollution and publishing the data on Twitter. The damage is limited: although many expats and web savvy Chinese can still access it, Twitter is blocked in China. Nonetheless, the U.S. embassy smog readings are embarrassing for the Chinese government, whose own pollution measures tend to be much more favourable.
But pollution is just one of the items on the propaganda hit list. Anything that might shed some light on policy failures, social ills, or even the personalities of the country’s leaders is liable to be altered or suppressed. Here, then, are six of Beijing’s bad-news taboos.
How about as recent as 2020, does China like to spy on everyone, violate any agreements and promises even at a government and intelligence-agency level of agreement? Absolutely.
Four individuals have recently been charged with visa fraud in connection with a scheme to lie about their status as members of the People’s Republic of China’s military forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), while in the United States conducting research. Three of these individuals have been arrested and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is seeking the fourth who is a fugitive from justice currently being harbored at the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco.
In addition to these arrests, the FBI has recently conducted additional interviews of visa holders suspected of having undeclared affiliation with the Chinese military in more than 25 American cities.
“These members of China’s People Liberation Army applied for research visas while hiding their true affiliation with the PLA,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “This is another part of the Chinese Communist Party’s plan to take advantage of our open society and exploit academic institutions. We will continue to conduct this investigation together with the FBI.”
“The United States welcomes students, academics, and researchers from across the globe. Today’s announcement shows the extreme lengths to which the Chinese government has gone to infiltrate and exploit America’s benevolence," said John Brown, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch. “In interviews with members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in over 25 cities across the U.S., the FBI uncovered a concerted effort to hide their true affiliation to take advantage of the United States and the American people.”
Each defendant has been charged with visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). If convicted, each faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The allegations against each are as follows:
The Government of China is engaged in espionage overseas, directed through diverse methods via the Ministry of State Security, the United Front Work Department, and People's Liberation Army as well as their numerous front organizations and state-owned enterprises. It is employs a variety of tactics including cyber spying to gain access to sensitive information remotely, signals intelligence, and human intelligence. China is also engaged in industrial espionage aimed at gathering information to bolster its economy, as well as monitoring dissidents abroad such as supporters of the Tibetan independence movement and Uyghurs as well as the Taiwan independence movement, the Hong Kong independence movement, Falun Gong, pro-democracy activists, and other critics of the Chinese Communist Party.[
- "Decoding MSS: Ministry of State Security – China". Asian Warrior. 5 September 2016. Archived from the original on 13 September 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
- ^ Drohan, Brig. Gen. USAF, Ret., Dr. Thomas A. (14 October 2019). "China's All-Effects All-Domain Strategy in an All-Encompassing Information Environment". Small Wars Journal. Archived from the original on 22 October 2019. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Perlroth, Nicole; Conger, Kate; Mozur, Paul (22 October 2019). "China Sharpens Hacking to Hound Its Minorities, Far and Wide". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 22 October 2019. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
This nation is the one that Pro says we should take the word of when assessing whether the entire EU should engage in an alliance that is essentially a front for China ruling over South Korea and other such nations involved in BRI. Rather than invade them and claim them as its territory, China engaged in BRI, a passive-aggressive means of determining tariffs and economy-based policies of 139 nations (140th is China). North Africa was probabilistically going to be what the EU may expand to ally under a new name (E is 'europe' it may add an A for African, for instance). So, China thought far ahead and began BRI, which requires less of nations in terms of how democratic they are and environmentally concerned they are, instead it went further and beyond agreements, it lended to nations to give them an 'offer they cannot refuse' so to speak. In exchange for being indebted to China, China got first dibs on any natural resource, business endeavour, so on and so forth. BRI is not remotely comparable to the EU, it is simply China owning many nations, it's not actually a mutual agreement of any genuine kind.
In fact, 18 countries of BRI are also in the EU,
To understand what BRI really is and the nature of 'agreements' and 'treaties' with China, we must look at what precisely the Silk Road Initiative was and what this new name 'BRI' signifies (or covers up).
The original Silk Road arose during the westward expansion of China’s Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), which forged trade networks throughout what are today the Central Asian countries of Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as modern-day India and Pakistan to the south. Those routes extended more than four thousand miles to Europe.Central Asia was thus the epicenter of one of the first waves of globalization, connecting eastern and western markets, spurring immense wealth, and intermixing cultural and religious traditions. Valuable Chinese silk, spices, jade, and other goods moved west while China received gold and other precious metals, ivory, and glass products. Use of the route peaked during the first millennium, under the leadership of first the Roman and then Byzantine Empires, and the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) in China.But the Crusades, as well as advances by the Mongols in Central Asia, dampened trade, and today Central Asian countries are economically isolated from each other, with intra-regional trade making up just 6.2 percent of all cross-border commerce. They are also heavily dependent on Russia, particularly for remittances—they make up one-third of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. By 2018, remittances had dipped from their 2013 highs due to Russia’s economic woes.
The BRI has 0% respect for or even equivalent of agreements regarding the environment and treatment of poor citizens of a nation.
The EU nations joining it have done so out of fear of high tariffs against them, there's no genuine approach to fusing EU with BRI ever and the nations in EU that are resisting (other than France) are doing so wisely, out of principles and understanding of BRI merely being China's means of controlling many nations at once and escaping pushes to improve their human rights or ecological policies.
The European Union is committed to supporting democracy and human rights in its external relations, in accordance with its founding principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The EU seeks to mainstream human rights concerns into all its policies and programmes and has different human rights policy instruments for specific actions — including financing specific projects through its financing instruments.
China and most nations in BRI have 0% intention of respecting these founding principles.
Round 3
Firstly, Con opens up with an article in 2012 about China's secrecy, but does not care to knock down my international pressure which may encourage China to be more transparent and abide with the person's desires. Remember: China is under pressure here, not the EU. Almost a decade has passed, and the BRI has gotten a lot of money invested into it, making China's desperation a crux to depend on and force China to reveal its information.
Con comes up with a seemingly good example of violation of agreements, but the opening of the article states, "Four individuals have recently been charged with visa fraud in connection with a scheme to lie about their status as members of the People’s Republic of China’s military forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), while in the United States conducting research. Three of these individuals have been arrested and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is seeking the fourth who is a fugitive from justice currently being harbored at the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco." Are these individuals and PLA related to BRI at all? How does this connect to the road work project? Does the four individuals' "taking advantage of US" outweigh the billion dollar gain and the saving of lives out of poverty? This news declaration is simply too vague to hold any real weight. Negated.
Next, Con uses a red herring fallacy (or perhaps composition fallacy -- merely because some of China's plans are bad, he thinks all of them are horrible). He lists the cyber security attacks on the US which are completely irrelevant to the schema of BRI. If anything, we can use BRI further as a foothold to hold China in place, preventing these offensive maneuvers from China's side. I do not understand how EU joining the BRI has anything to do with China's current cyber warfare. Voters should dismiss this argument due to lack of clear link.
Con claims that "In exchange for being indebted to China, China got first dibs on any natural resource, business endeavour, so on and so forth. BRI is not remotely comparable to the EU, it is simply China owning many nations, it's not actually a mutual agreement of any genuine kind." But his source is remarkably weak with telling us precisely what problems our countries fall into. The sole actual impact is "But the Crusades, as well as advances by the Mongols in Central Asia, dampened trade, and today Central Asian countries are economically isolated from each other, with intra-regional trade making up just 6.2 percent of all cross-border commerce. They are also heavily dependent on Russia, particularly for remittances—they make up one-third of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan." How bad is "reduction of intra-regional trade"? Con doesn't tell us. How much money do they lose? Con doesn't tell us. Even if we accept that we lose out on some trade, the bigger picture still massively outweighs.
Recall:
- "Aggregate results suggest that BRI infrastructure improvements could increase total trade among BRI economies by 4.1 percent. 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" [3].
- Of course, these are big numbers. Even Iran alone is 105 million dollars in exports alone [4], not to mention that this amount is multiplied greatly by each additional country benefitted. If this wasn't enough, improving the roads and railways will also greatly reduce trade costs.
- As Voxeu explains, "implementing all BRI transport infrastructure projects will reduce aggregate trade costs for the BRI economies by 2.8% on average with the rest of the world, and by 3.5% with other BRI economies" [5]. The large trade reductions overall would be worth the cost of the BRI, exceeding it by billions in the long run.
- And on the bigger picture, the global boost of trade by 6.5% will lift 32 million people out of poverty. [10]
As you can see, though the countries may suffer a small amount with inter-trading relations, their exports will vastly increase, ultimately allowing the costs to be reduced, and encourage the trade to go back up. The current statistic is merely a small hinderance, and it will go back up with time. Con has not provided any reasoning behind why his impacts are long term, in contrast to my infrastructure inherently making trading transport easier to manage.
Next, he claims that, given China's cyber offense that they do not respect democracy and our rights to freedom. But I find that comparing China's aggression against US being completely irrelevant to the debate. The relations have been strained for quite a long time, and US is nowhere close to using BRI as leverage against China. By contrast, the BRI was started as a mutually beneficial relationship. It differs from China's belief in the self-defense and the difficulty to determine who was the true aggressor and who is the real problem. Cyber offense is an entirely different debate, but let me assure you that China's cyber offensive tactics are weak and US holds a considerable advantage. If anything, China is only desperate to try to protect itself, with no significant impacts on the US citizens.
Dropped arguments
As Fortune.com notes, "Finance Secretary of the Philippines Carlos Dominguez publicly stated that debts owed to China accounts for only 0.65% of the country’s total debt. And Dr. Karunasena Kodituwakku, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Beijing, dismissed the idea of “debt-trap diplomacy.”" [2] Indeed, nearly no country has actually been stuck in a debt trap due to the BRI. In fact, they have benefited for the most part, with China upgrading the transportation of Kenya as an example.Energy InfrastructureThe BRI is not only a trading project, it is also an energy related project. Cornell from the Atlantic Council explains that at least 200 million jobs would be created from the project due to surge of electricity grids [6]. Not only so, the project will be environmentally conservative, with "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. This is especially important in the area where China is building the BRI. As they proceed towards Europe, they will also assist developing countries. As a result, "in poor rural environments, the expansion of power grids is also important for addressing energy access, with its multiplier effects on development and the provision of information and communications technology (ICT) services for economic connectivity" [6].Internet AccessAs of now, still 41% of the world has no access to internet, despite it being the pillar of information and connection -- perhaps even an essential right. [7] But BRI will fix this by allowing building of 5G internet through rail lines. As wired explains, "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.As Brookings Institute found, "a 10 percent increase in Internet penetration in a foreign country is associated with a 1.7 percent increase in exports and a 1.1 percent increase in imports" [8]. And the investment of internet will empower the countries to export and import even more, fueling a cycle of economic boost. The logic behind this makes sense too. Trading must be conducted with processes and controls. The transaction will be expedited with the addition of the internet. AmericanExpress explains, "With 5G IoT and blockchain, a digital bill of lading could automatically transfer to the buyer when a ship reaches port, with the seller automatically receiving the purchase price" [9].With EU joining in on China with the boost of internet, there is no doubt that the greatest invention of the last century will significantly change developing countries' progress.Health CareOne 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]
We will save thousands, if not millions of lives by delivering vaccines and cures on time to desperate developing countries.
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?
Now back to Con.
I have thought about this debate from many angles and eother we tie or I lose, if I try my absolute best from this point on.
I think Con is unwinnable position because there is no way to prove the net drawbacks of China bulldozing their way to world domination will be a reality, in a 10k per round debate vs an opponent on Pro side who is consistently trying and capable.
I concede to save effort. I firmly believe this isn't winnable as Con and don't regret accepting it because this taught me something valuable about 'net beneficial treaty' type debates where Con has to prove theoretical drawbacks vs Pro proving tangible (but pseudo and short-lived) benefits.
Round 4
I thank Con for his concession and urge voters to give conduct point to him, while giving arguments to me.
(This debate is not unwinnable for Con. Though he may not provide any more arguments due to his concession, I will provide evidence in the comments for further improvement and information to help Con in his future endeavors.)
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?