Corresponding to the crisis behind Venezuela’s mishaps right now is pretty much more or less quite like an Adam Smith versus Karl Marx debate. It happens because Venezuela’s opposition party possesses a capitalistic idealism economy-wise, as opposed to the current incumbent government who happen to be more socialistic in their approach to economy. Well, the situation described here is actually an understatement, as the real situation out there is much much worse and chaotic.
Anyway, the whole idea that should be contained in this debate is whether funding will benefit Mercosur or not.
Another fair warning from us, Team Negative, never fall to the trap of proposition fiat. As tempting as it may be to say that “we don’t have enough money ourselves, let alone fund Venezuela’s opposition party”, Team Affirmative has all the rights to claim that this motion is perfectly feasible budget-wise.
On to elucidating expected clashes:
- Supposing a scenario in which Venezuela’s opposition party wins the upcoming election, will it benefit Mercosur?
- Okay, yeah, well, of course, but-before-that-will-this-funding-them-guarantee-their-win?
- Supposing a scenario in which Venezuela’s opposition party loses, how heartbroken will the incumbent government be towards Mercosur? You know, considering the fact that Mercosur didn’t help them and chose to help his opponents instead, during the elections (and pre-elections).
- Are ALL of the interests of Venezuela’s opposition party THE SAME with Mercosur’s?
- Supposing if the answer is yes, how much magnitude of change will this funding improve the current.. similarities?
- Supposing if the answer `is no instead, how much change is expected to happen in terms of Venezuela’s opposition party aligning themselves with the interests of Mercosur’s?
- By the way, will a healthy election happen? Or is the expected outcome for a victory of Venezuela’s opposition party and thus governance, via a coup d’état instead?
Those are the main ones that concern the main aspects of this debate. Minor ones will include characterization and analysis of other lesser characters in this debate. Like the citizens and the various components that constitute them (upper-middle-lower-class), for example.
Okay, hope that suffices.
- Because Mercosur needs Venezuela’s opposition party to win
When Venezuela’s opposition party wins, they will be indebted to Mercosur and they will help us in any way they can. Picture this as a relationship between a governor candidate and the political party backing him up: in exchange of ease in administrative process as well as guarantee of certain number of votes secured, there is a take-and-give (call it corruption, or nepotism, any way you wish) in which when the governor’s seat is secured, he will feel indebted and thus find some ways to contribute back to his political party. Usually in terms of securing administrative positions and other possible seats in his regime.
Please also bear in mind the characterization of Venezuela’s opposition party you choose to run for this argument (refer to point ‘d’ in the ‘On to elucidating expected clashes:’ section of this post entry) as it will heavily influence and dictate the tone and wording of how you should bring this argument up. Oh well, that’s for a different section in this post entry, anyway.
- Because the current incumbent government sucks.
There are lots of conflicts happening right now and it is all thanks to the incompetence of the socialist incumbent Venezuelan government. It is in the best interests of Mercosur to have all of its members prospering and have positive trade balance as well as a healthy economy, and that is the reason why Mercosur should help the more competent opposition party of Venezuela winning the upcoming election and evicting the current socialistic incumbent one. Erm.. assuming a healthy election will take place, of course.
But anyway, consider the fact that Paraguay had always had concerns regarding Venezuela’s country management practices, and this draws back for as long as 2013. The culmination of these events actually took place in August-December 2016, where presidents of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, while present in Rio de Janeiro for the Olympic Games (August), met to discuss suspending Venezuela from Mercosur under doubts of human rights violations having already been committed by Venezuela, among other issues. In fact, Venezuela was rejected from assuming the presidency of Mercosur by those three countries, prompting a dispute that continues in full throttle to the end of the year. And it was on 21 November 2016 when Paraguayan Foreign Minister Eladio Loizaga announced that Venezuela would be suspended in December 2016, after the three-month period to reform its laws to abide to Mercosur requirements has passed. Mercosur noted that “rules governing trade, politics, democracy and human rights” needed to be overhauled in Venezuela. 1 December 2016, Venezuela was suspended from Mercosur.
Okay, now we have an extra burden of proof! Venezuela is not even part of Mercosur anymore; why would we (as Mercosur) would want to have anything to do with them (Venezuela). Well, same line of reasoning as what you would use to fortify your arguments in Team Affirmative Argument 1. Go back there. Defend. Shoo.
- Because the proximity that Venezuela possess towards the rest of Mercosur means potential growth. And, also, trouble.
Venezuela is close to Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. The fact that her location is close enough to the rest of these Mercosur members already gives us good enough of a reason to ensure its stability and safety. The explanation that answers why proximity is a good enough reason to pose potential whatever whatchamacallit is due to the fact that the more closer a certain party is, the more intense economical transaction exchanges, but it does not stop there. Not only are goods and services experiencing more frequency in exchange, but so do the people experiencing interaction. The current problems under the status quo, Venezuela experiencing massive shortage of supplies, have already incited chaos within the society, lootings run rampant everywhere. It would be nice if there are lots of human beings murdered in the process of these lootings, but if not, and there still are some human beings surviving, and then the whole country has run out of water and food to loot, guess the next target where they are going to loot will be.
- Because we don’t want to create any kind of potential hatred towards us.
As much chaotic as situation might be in Venezuela, as much corrupt the government as the media might portray them be, we cannot deny the fact that there still are certain Chávez loyalists or other socialists/Marxists/communists remaining on that country, holding firm to and staying strong with the belief of socialism-Marxism-communism. A form of intervention from us siding with the rebels, so to speak, although will likely to guarantee a win, either from a forced election or via a coup d’état, is not guaranteed yet.
So this argument will stem from two different possible outcomes. Remember, always play with your worst-case scenario first. Your opponent’s best-case scenario.
So, concede and assume that yes, the Venezuela’s opposition party will win the.. whatever it is. Harms of course won’t come from the Venezuela’s opposition party (we helped them, duh), but there is a looming danger posed by the existence of the now-overthrown incumbent socialist-Marxist-communist party, the Chávez loyalists. They will remain at large, and there is quite the number of them (no, you can’t simply eradicate their existence – you can’t commit this form of crime against humanity via genocide, man). The chances are things are not going to be suddenly smooth after the transition of governance. The Venezuela’s opposition party won via a healthy election, the now-overthrown incumbent will challenge how healthy the election was. We from Mercosur tampered with the election, indirectly, didn’t we? Via outside funding? The Venezuela’s opposition party won via a coup, there will still be a challenge from the now-overthrown incumbent, and it is usually worse under this kind of scenario, because the tug-of-war over power is still intense, and.. now the Chávez loyalists have their angry eyes set on us Mercosur as well, not only the Venezuela’s opposition party.
So, what should we do? Better mind our own business, right? And besides, it’s not time to take any action yet considering how unstable and unclear is, which party is in control of Venezuela. Those are precedents for Team Negative Argument 2 and 3, actually. Heheh.
- It is not time yet.
Timeframe challenge! Yeay! Timeframes refer to the time contexts and biases in which this motion would be applicable—preferable. Time challenge, is a prerogative right in the possession of negative teams. Team Affirmative has the burden of always having to interpret the proposal motion as “going to do it straightaway” whilst Team Negative on the other hand can interpret the proposal motion as either “won’t do it no matter what how or when or where” or “okay we agree to do that but wait”. So, what to do for Team Negative next, is to prove how the social condition and phenomenon is not ready yet, not conducive, for an outside intervention of Mercosur penetrating Venezuela’s intra-politics. Anyway, burdens of proof for this point include the different “readiness” the Venezuelans might possess according to varying levels of chaos they might be undergoing. But explaining this point is not that complicated after all. It is pretty much a no-brainer to knock on your neighbor’s door when they are calm, instead of when you hear fighting shouting and cursing coming from their house.
- Because it’s none of our business.
This.. point will likely be quite an interesting clash. Team Affirmative Argument 3 versus Team Negative Argument 3. Hmm, interesting.
The point is that Team Affirmative asserts that they want to anticipate whatever disastrous condition might spread from Venezuela to other Mercosur countries, whilst you deem that that would unlikely happen. Or, should you choose to concede, how funding on Venezuela’s opposition party is not quite a good example of wise investment. Because the expected results to yield will be far less than what we lose on investing.
So, pick your poison. Reject and rebut? Or concede and justify?
If you reject and rebut, you should jump straight ahead to the practicalities, if possible even straight ahead to the distances from Venezuela to all Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay in kilometers and miles, then characterize how tiring a travel distance of that length is that it is more likely for looters to die first in the travel process than reaching neighboring countries then loot. Or some sort of other explanations with that tone.
If you choose to concede and justify, start comparing with how much you are likely to lose by ignoring this phenomenon and letting them loot whatever they want, but it is economically cheaper than the potential cost (as well as the risk) from investing to a party that does not yet have any guarantee to win, let alone yield any positive or lucrative results -> to be linked back to your Argument 1.
Oh, and, contradiction alert. With your Team Negative Argument 1. Tread carefully.