Comments on: February 2009 Topic Announced

By: mike

mike — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:13:31 +0000

Ok, first of all, i think we need to be looking at each of the 4 countries, if the resolution intended for us to look at al 4 and classify them as one unit, it would have said so. So we need to look at each individual country and pick them apart in every aspect, not just the economy. If you focus on only one thing, you will get eaten alive. Brazil for example is the largest drug transit country, the main country these drugs are being sent to, the U.S. and Europe, that negative impact, but on the other hand, the U.S. and Brazil have been working together on counter-narcotics and last year siezed an incredible 488 kilos of crack cocain, 13.1 metric tons of cocain and 16 kilos of heroin. So this ends up being a blessing in disguise. because of the problem, we fix it, cleaner streets, and the biggest drug traffiker of the decade was arrested… no drugs=positive impact. dont just look to the economy for an entire case.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:36:29 +0000

for anyone who is still questioning how to do this…i would take each country and describe them and not do bric as a whole since the countries make up bric…then if you want maybe tie them together in the conclusion

By: Alaina

Alaina — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:48:25 +0000

This topic,no so sure about.Im glad the resolutions states”has had” because that narrows it down.What teams need to do is focus equally on the BRIC countries.Show how all combine to prove a positive impact.Con is going to simply hilariously easy.Pro will be the real challenge.

By: A dog and G man

A dog and G man — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:35:36 +0000

This topic is huge ,reseaching this is going to be a pain in the butt and because there is going to be such a huge amount of facts you could walk in and BS and nobody could possible distiguish fact from truth….Cant wait

By: Honor

Honor — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:33:51 +0000

Okay, I see one major flaw with this entire topic is the many components. Brazil, Russia, India and China are four very large and complex countires that have different effects not only on the world economy but on the US economy. The pro could simply argue the postives, but be bombarded with the negatives of one country. Something like this happened to my partner and I with the alternative fuels, we gave the defintion of alternative fuels for the con’s request and this defined all examples, such as biodesil, solar, wind, ect. Anyway the con came with negatives for each and every example, even though my partner and I never advocated any of these examples, we were essientally non-commital. I just worry that something like this will happen alot with this topic.

By: Sunshine Talahaki

Sunshine Talahaki — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:41:34 +0000

i can’t wait to do this topic. :]
i’m going to have fun going both pro and con!
ha, i think it’s possible to argue in 4 minutes…
you just have to do your work and be smart about it!

By: Tammie Peters

Tammie Peters — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:32:15 +0000

I see lots of ground on both sides — assuming both Pro and Con stick with the BRIC topic. The rise of these 4 developing countries means that the US will not be as responsible for funding the developing world through loans and aid; we can share that burden–but we also will share the influence. It also means the US will be confronted with some major competition in terms of trade — competition can spur better products and it can also result in the consequences of poor products (unemployment, outsourcing, etc.). I still have to do some research and thinking, but it could be a good topic. I don’t think it repeats last February because (1) it doesn’t focus solely on Russia–it talks about a new entity and (2) it doesn’t deal with “threats.” It is a topic area I had not heard of, so I am intrigued by it. Plus, there are no specific policies to define.

By: Christian Chessman

Christian Chessman — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:20:14 +0000

If you can use your extra four minutes of analysis to articulate huge impacts from one country (russian oil prices means global stagflation, Indian economic growth makes nuclear pakistani conflict inevitable, etc) then you’ll win the balance. The Neg advantage comes from being able to spend a disproportionate amount of time on giving the analytics for their case.

By: Henry Cao

Henry Cao — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:05:35 +0000

I joined Public Forum this year just waiting for a topic like this.

Less policy, more real puff! Great topic!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:05:00 +0000

Oh , I like the topic, but it just seemed to be close to last years.

By: Alex Loomis

Alex Loomis — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:58:25 +0000

No…b/c it says “on balance”–make any arguments you want about what that applies to, but you won’t get much judge sympathy on the con by doing that

Great topic

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:56:37 +0000

Is it just me, or is this fairly close to alst February’s topic?

By: Christian Chessman

Christian Chessman — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:55:59 +0000

From the start, this topic is skewed like madness.

The affirmative must defend a majority of the impacts ['the rise'] of all four countries. The negative can pick a single country and dedicate ALL FOUR MINUTES to simply slamming Russia/China/Brazil/India. They

By: PFDebate LLC

PFDebate LLC — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:00:02 +0000

Hmm. Is there a difference between:

Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC)
and
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China)

By: Graeme Crews

Graeme Crews — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:26:14 +0000

At first glance the research burden of this topic is massive. However, considering the parenthetical of BRIC, I feel like in order to stay topical you must discuss the economic rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China as a unit and its impact on the US. Otherwise, you risk straying from the intent of the resolution. At its core, I think this topic is a question of US global economic dominance and globalization.

However, I am wary that the economic facets of the research might be slightly restrictive. The great thing about last February’s topic was that it encompassed political, economic, military, and humanitarian issues. This one is more geared towards economic only by nature of its construction. Had the topic committee wanted to expand the topic’s horizons, they should have used only China (since they tend to get the most press). It would produce clearer debates, imho.

But critique aside, my initial research looks promising–much moreso than January…:) …I just wish it was focused on China rather than all 4 of BRIC.

By: Jason Kline

Jason Kline — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:17:51 +0000

Always debate to meet the needs of your judge.

By: secret

secret — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:00:32 +0000

so if the committee happens to stop by could you tell us if you intend on the resolution being discussed as BRIC as an entity or the nations that make up BRIC

By: James

James — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:47:33 +0000

Maybe I’m the only one but I looked at it and loved it. It has clear ground for both sides and foreign policy debates always seem to be engaging and educational. The “and” makes the research burden less of a pain for PRO because they can focus on literature that is BRIC specific, but also gives the CON a solid argument against teams that focus too strongly on one or two countries. Bravo Topic Committee

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:22:20 +0000

So we’ll spend another February debating Russia? Great…

What’s happening to the topic committee??!

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:58:58 +0000

Looking at searches, there is a lot of references to BRIC, but you are right Bob, some folks will necessarily pick apart this topic to the individual countries. Silly… three awful topics in a row…

By: PFDebate LLC

PFDebate LLC — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:57:36 +0000

My concern is that the topic is not just limited to literature that discusses BRIC as a group. Rather, it will likely be the BRIC literature plus the Brazil literature, the Russia literature, the India literature, and the China literature.

My gut says that the research burden on this topic is huge.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:50:05 +0000

If people are trying to make PF into policy, this topic is a very good step towards that goal…

By: Tom Niblock

Tom Niblock — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:45:27 +0000

If anyone from the committee is browsing here, I’m just curious, did the selection of these four countries stem from the Brookings report?