A Combination of Weighing Mechanism and Resolutional Analysis

February 2013 – Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

Key word(s): is

Analysis: While it may seem common sense that this resolution is in the present tense, a useful Resolutional Analysis would be to apply this observation to the round. Because the resolution is in the present tense, one could argue that the only impacts or effects that can be presented in the round are things that have already come into fruition. If the rise of China were expected to cause something to happen in 5 or 10 or 100 years, it would fall outside of the debate. This could help either Pro or Con depending on what arguments each side would like to make. One would have to be careful with this analysis because future impacts could be in the best interest of the U.S., though they have not happened. A possible Framework would prioritize impacts that are currently occurring over ones that will occur on the basis of probability and the timeframe set by the resolution’s wording. “On balance” indicates cost/benefit analysis should happen in the round, which would be addressed through a Weighing Mechanism.

A NOTE ON COUNTERPLANS:

            A counterplan is a policy or action option offered by the team that defends the  status quo or argues against action. This is generally the Con team, unless the resolution is a negative statement. The policy or action is something other than what the resolution advocates. Counterplans are not allowed in Public Forum – you are supposed to argue the resolution as a positive or a negative, not as if the resolution presents a question that you can answer however you choose. The last PF ballot the NFL published October 2012 says the following regarding counterplans: “Neither the pro nor con is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.”Proving better alternatives does not prove the resolution should not be affirmed. If you choose to discuss alternatives, you must still support your burden of proving the resolution false/true on its own. Treat your discussion on alternatives as an argument, not as your advocacy.