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
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
1
5

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
562
debates
68.06%
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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Barney

before anyone forgets, give a vote. opp conceded

-->
@RationalMadman

[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.

-->
@Undefeatable

You could do that but there's some rebuttals that may dismantle that claim. I won't give away any arguments however

-->
@MisterChris

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)

-->
@Undefeatable

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

-->
@MisterChris

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?