Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate The January PF topic is: Resolved: The United States should end its economic sanctions against Venezuela. Venezuela is in an economic tailspin. Hyperinflation is sinking the economy, there’s a refugee crisis that looks like it will soon overtake Syria as the largest in the world, food and medicine shortages are widespread, famine might be just around the corner, and electricity shortages are routinely plunging the country into darkness. The core controversy of this resolution is can sanctions fix the real problem (ousting Maduro) or are they merely exacerbating the economic crises and killing 40,000 Venezuelans a year? I’ve got five observations about debating this topic: 1. Spend more time prepping for being Con
While getting into the lit alleviated some of my fears about side balance in this resolution, I still think there’s some issues. While the good con ground is pretty limited (Maduro bad), the pro has a diversity of solid options for advantages: humanitarian crisis, oil/refineries, Russia/China SOI (sphere of influence) bad, and US politics, just to name a few. Additionally, the good neg ground (ousting Maduro) is beset with a few problems: First, the aff link turns are both good and diverse: sanctions allow Maduro to scapegoat the US, they weaken Guaidó by associating him with policies Venezuelans perceive to be wreaking havoc on their country, and they fracture the opposition… there’s even multiple articles that say the refugee crisis helps Maduro because it means increased remittances and dissidents leaving the country makes the remaining population easier to control. Second, uniqueness is a problem for Maduro bad arguments- the consensus seems to be that Maduro is holding on to power and that’s unlikely to change. There are of course arguments and articles to the contrary, but on balance the pro uniqueness lit is better. After all, we have a pretty good example of the effects of economic sanctions on Latin American dictators: the 57 years of failure of the embargo to produce change in Cuba. Last, while the Maduro bad ev is good, the “what comes next” ev is not as hot. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of good evidence that a transition, even if successful, might not be stable nor democratic. What’s the takeaway here? It’s not that the con is doomed. It’s that you need to put more time into prepping to be con because there are some structural weaknesses you’re going to have to organize your contentions around answering. Alternatively, you could tread off the beaten path to find some con args that are less predictable. Maybe a counter-intuitive take on oil prices or Russia/China SOI args. I strongly suggest the search terms “silver lining” and “necessary evil.” It might also influence the way you want to flip. Now, 99 out of 100 times in PF you should call 2nd. The advantage of speaking last in PF are overwhelming. Most of the time you think there might be an exception, you should probably still call 2nd. That might still be the case here! If you feel like you have a solid con contention, flip second. Otherwise, flipping for sides might take precedence over flipping for position. 2. Which came first, the crisis or the sanctions? The best answer to the humanitarian crisis contention is that economic crisis preceded sanctions. This argument is just overwhelmingly true. It’s also one of the best tools in the con arsenal- if you find yourself debating just the humanitarian crisis contention, you’re going to have a big, excellent defensive hole to puncture it with. If you’ve written a smart con contention, the defense against humanitarian crisis is going to get you a long ways. My advice for debating this argument (“economic crisis preceded sanctions”) when you are pro is err toward truth. It’s not worth making the argument that sanctions came first. It’s just not true. Rather, you should find your W’s in the nuance. There are good arguments that sanctions turned crisis into catastrophe- that it exacerbated and made the crisis worse. You need to cut sanctions bad evidence that assumes the pre-existing crisis and explains the unique impact of sanctions on top of that (and that ev exists!) There’s also good evidence that even if sanctions didn’t start the crisis that they are preventing a solution. 3. Leveraging smart arguments to catch up while Con The Maduro bad contention may have its issues (see above), but it’s still the heart of the controversy. Ousting Maduro is the reason we put the sanctions into place. Because of that it’s going to have the most literature backing it of any possible neg contention. The possible answers outlined above shouldn’t scare you away from reading it, it should make you aware you need to write blocks to those answers. The best debaters win by engaging the controversy, not running from it. Just because there’s a goalie doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the shot. To help you with that, I’ve got two ideas for meta arguments / impact calc to help you win the Maduro bad debate. If you can win the uniqueness and link (winning sanctions lead to a peaceful transition of power) the impact debate is a slam dunk for the neg. Winning sanctions leads to a peaceful transition of power is a tall order. It’s going to take a lot of preparation, nuance, and tech. But if you can do it, the payoff is enormous. Here’s the two impact args that slay the aff if you win the Maduro contention: First, Maduro = the root cause. I said before the aff is better off acknowledging that the crisis predates sanctions. I believe that’s true, but it creates a huge opening for the neg: the argument that Maduro is the root cause of everything going wrong in Venezuela. Maduro’s regime is anti-democratic, corrupt, and violent. Removing sanctions doesn’t change any of that and it doesn’t prevent future economic mismanagement from producing new crises. Maduro bad is a giant link turn to humanitarian crises. Second, transition solves sanctions bad. If Maduro were ousted and Guaidó or someone similar came to power, the US would end sanctions. No Maduro = no sanctions. That solves all the aff, it’s an instant game over. This is the Infinity +1 Sword of debate arguments. It might take a lot of work to win, but if you get there, you got ‘em. 4. “Socialism” is a red-herring Unless you know your judge bleeds the stars and stripes and is 100% sure Venezuela is a socialist bogeyman, I’d stay away from the S-word. The problem with Venezuela isn’t that it’s socialist (it’s not), it’s economic mismanagement. In Venezuela, the workers do not own the means of production. It’s just a dictatorship with Dutch Disease. In the past it successfully distributed oil-based rents to buy off a sufficient portion of the population, but that’s bread and circuses, not socialism. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc all do the same thing- just better. Venezuela is no more socialist because it calls itself socialist than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic. 5. US Politics US politics arguments tend to be dismissed in PF outside of the national circuit, but it’s worth noting that the 2020 evidence about Venezuela is out-of-this-world good. There’s a reason for that too. Trump’s sanctions policy is almost certainly entirely motived out of political self-interest: winning Florida in 2020. Venezuelan-Americans and more importantly politically Cuban-Americans are not fond of leftist Latin American dictatorships and quickly got on board with Trump’s sanctions policy. The ability to craft a 2020 argument and reduce it to one state with a real argument about why that singular state is key (29 electoral votes!)… this is a mighty fine debate to be had! I’ve seen articles that say the Venezuela crisis overwhelms Trump’s immigration policies in terms of importance for the Hispanic vote, I’ve seen articles that say it’s a unifying issue for all Latinx folks not just Venezuelans and Cubans, and I’ve seen articles that say Venezuela policy gets ingrained in and sticks in people’s minds (AT Too Soon). And of course the Florida / Hispanic vote key cards are wildly, wildly good. There’s great answers too – there’s a lot of lit – which I love. I know pushing this arg is likely to earn me some consternation, but, nearly every debate on this topic will analyze the effect of sanctions on Venezuelan politics. Maybe it’s worth doing the same for US politics, especially given it’s the sanctions likely raison d'être. Here’s a reading list to get you started: cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/research/revisiting-the-evidence-impact-of-the-2017-sanctions-on-venezuela/ https://www.csis.org/analysis/are-sanctions-working-venezuela https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/05/22/chavismo-is-the-worst-of-all-sanctions-the-evidence-behind-the-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-venezuela https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Venezuelan-oil-sanctions-to-hit-Gulf-Coast-13558459.php https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/four-signs-trumps-venezuela-strategy-backfiring https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-why-trumps-venezuela-embargo-wont-end-the-maduro-regime-121538 https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article233711717 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/09/venezuela-sanctions-embargo-caracas-trump-maduro-guaido forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/05/03/no-u-s-sanctions-are-not-killing-venezuela-maduro-is That’s all my thoughts on Venezuela for now! Almost done with Venezuela? Hang tight! Our thoughts on February's UBI are coming soon. Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|