This House Would Nuke The Crap Out Of Tibet

Round 4:

Topic: THBT Iran is the key to peace in the Middle East

Carolyn/Thomas were Opp, and thought the round was pretty fair – the Government advocated for support of the Iran deal and an increase in trade between the United States and Iran. Carolyn/Thomas argued that this would isolate US allies and allow Iran to export radicalism to other states in the region, which may or not be offensive? We’re not sure.

Ben/Josh were Gov, and ran a facts case because we’re in Minnesota and sometimes you just need to tell the truth! Arguing that only Iran was in a position to intervene successfully in Syria due to manpower and long-term stability, they also made the fantastic argument that Iranian clerics are a model for Syrian Islam, because there is no division between Shia and Sunni. Their opponents countered that Egypt was key to peace in Syria because of weapons flows, which failed to address some key issues (like what do about weapons in the region?)

At the end of the tournament, Carolyn/Thomas were 2-2 and Ben/Josh were 4-0 and the top seed (a novel experience for both) and broke to quarters.

Quarters topic: This House believes it is time for a military downgrade.

Ben/Josh flipped Gov and argued that the US and Russia should conclude a nuclear disarmament treaty to around 300 total warheads, with all the run-of-the-mill nuclear apocalypse type stuff. Their opponents argued that deterrence is key to reducing North Korean nukes. In response, Ben pointed out that 300 weapons was probably still enough to “nuke the crap” out of North Korea, which may have lacked decorum if not a degree of accuracy. At the end of the round, the hippy peaceniks from Carleton prevailed 3-0 and moved on to the semifinal round.

Sems topic: This House would reevaluate its “One China” policy

In a trend of two, Ben/Josh once again flipped Gov and advocated for a classic cause of the left, suggesting that China should give Tibet the right of self-determination in a referendum. Their opponents were very solid debaters, arguing on multiple fronts: first, that being a part of China is good for Tibet; second, that implementation was difficult; and third, that cost benefit analysis by China requires only costs and benefits to the PRC. Ben and Josh disagreed on all points, but the debate ultimately came down to the question of whether a cost-benefit paradigm can involve China making ethical decisions even if they don’t strictly help China. In a 2-1 decision, Carleton WhYo lost. Sad, but made better by Culvers.

Apparently there were more Vocal Vikings, although Carolyn was 9th and Josh was 7th speaker! Whoooo!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s