Debates Handout - UC Homepages



Information on Debates

FALL 2012

Studying theories of international politics should be fun. In order to engage the students and make the class more interactive, I plan to have seven (7) debates on contemporary topics of International Relations (IR) related to various theoretical themes. Each of the debates will last about 55 minutes (1 class period) and will follow the structure of the professional meetings in political science and international relations. Prior to the debate the students will form a panel of two opposing teams of 4-5 students (depending on the class size) and need to prepare in advance for the debate. First, each of the teams will have about 15 minutes to present their argument based on the available literature (total of 30 min). Then we will have about 20-25 minutes discussion with questions and comments from the audience. The instructor will chair the debate and will moderate the discussion.

Every student should sign up and participate once as a panelist in a team. The students will be evaluated based on their performance as panelists, as well as the questions that they raise and comments that they make in the audience. Once the teams for each of the panels are formed, the students need to coordinate among themselves and check in with the instructor about the literature and the structure of the team presentation before the debate. Please note that the teamwork is very important for the overall success of the presentation, so make sure that you organize the team presentation in the best possible way.

Debate 1:

Does Human Nature affect the course of International Relations?

Are people good or bad in their nature and how does that affect the decisions they make in international politics? This first debate reenacts the arguments of classical realists (Carr and Morgenthau) and the idealists (e.g. Inis Claude, Jr). The realists highlight the role of power in international politics and share skepticism about that “good” human nature can change the course of world politics in the long run. Claude argues in favor of collective security through global institutions that can change the course of world politics. Students representing classical realists need to focus on Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in IR, Chapter 7 (“The Realist Critique and the Limitations of Realism”) and Carr’s chapters 10 thru 12. Those representing idealism will present Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in IR, Chapter 30 (“Collective Security as an Approach to Peace”) and Claude’s chapters 3 and 4 (selected sections).

|Team One: Realism (E. H Carr) |Team Two: Idealism (Inis Claude) |

|_______________________ |__________________________ |

|_______________________ |__________________________ |

| | |

Debate 2:

Do international institutions make difference in international politics?

Compare different cases. The first team supports the neo-liberal argument that international institutions facilitate cooperation, they need to show why and how international institutions matter and list examples in support of the argument (check Martin and Keohane, also Celeste Wallander). The second team opposes this argument and claims that international institutions are a refection of the distribution of power in the world. The argument is based primarily on Mearsheimer’s article “The False Promise of International Institutions” and the realist literature.

|Team One: Institutionalist Perspective |Team Two: Realist Perspective |

|____________________ |________________________ |

|____________________ |________________________ |

Debate 3:

Are democratic states more or less likely than non-democratic states to engage in armed conflict with other nations?

The panelists need to establish the case in support or against the relationship between liberal democracies and war, i.e. that liberal democracies do or do not fight with each other. Also, what is the definition of liberal democracy and what is the reason for not fighting with the others. This part is organized around the debate between the DPT proponents (Mike Doyle) vs. DPT opponents Chris Layne and David Spiro.

|Team One: DPT Supporters |Team Two: Realist Critique of DPT |

|______________________ |__________________________ |

|______________________ |__________________________ |

Debate 4:

Do types of political regimes (e.g. democracies and non-democracies) influence the outcome of international conflicts?

Are democracies more likely to win the wars that they engage in? Is democracy a tool for stability? In this debate, the panelists need to present and discuss the exchange in International Security between Michael Desch and David Lake whether democracies tend to win the wars they fight. Team one presents the democratic victory theory (David Lake’s view). Team two represents the opponents of DVT (Michael Desch).

|Team One: DVT Supporters |Team Two: DVT Critique (Desch et al) |

|___________________ |_________________ |

|___________________ |__________________ |

Debate 5:

Are Foreign Policy decision-makers rational?

Discuss rational/ strategic vs. cognitive/ psychological explanations. In this debate the participants are required to compare and contract two opposing viewpoints as to whether IR players act rationally or are being constrained by their cognitive and psychological characteristics. The first group of students will have to discuss James Fearon’s rationalist explanations of war and conflict as a driving force of IR, while the second group will need to focus on Jack Snyder and Robert Jervis’ arguments that various cognitive factors influence the foreign policy making as well.

|Team One: Rationalist Explanations |Team One: Cognitive Explanations |

|_________________________ |_______________________ |

|_________________________ |_______________________ |

Debate 6:

Discuss U.S Hegemony. Is U.S. power beneficial to world politics?

The Future of America’s Hegemony: Can power asymmetry sustain the in the international system and for how long? Is it beneficial for the United States and for the rest of the world? In this debate the two opposing teams need to present the realist as opposed to the liberal view about hegemony. Keohane and Nye, as well as J John Ikenberry represent the liberal view that the hegemon maintains stability and that American hegemony is sustainable because it is liberal and it is embedded in the domestic political and economic system of the United States. Alternatively, the different realist schools have different interpretations about the nature and sustainability of the US hegemony. Christopher Layne in his book “The Peace of Illusions” offers a good review of the different realist approaches.

Team one represents the liberal and new liberal views about the sustainability of America’s hegemony (Keohane and Nye; Ikenberry). Team two presents various views that challenge the neo-liberal assumptions (Mearsheimer, Wohlforth and Layne).

|Team One: Realist Views |Team One: Neo-liberal view |

|____________________ |______________________ |

|____________________ |______________________ |

Debate 7:

U.S. hegemony after the 2008 global financial crisis; what is the future outlook?

What is the future of U.S. leadership in international economic affairs after 2008? How does international political economies and the global financial crisis affect the imbalance in IR?

This debate continues the discussion from the previous one. The main focus is on the transformation of the international political and economic system in the past 20 years, especially after the global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent economic recession. The two teams are provisional: Fareed Zakaria develops an argument of the post-American world; the rise of everyone else and the non-polar world. Alternative arguments focus on the US debt to China (Daniel Drezner, Bad Debts) and possibly the reach of a turning point in American hegemony by the Obama administration discussed by Allan Watson.

|Team One: US leadership will sustain |Team One: US leadership will shrink |

|____________________ |________________________ |

|____________________ |________________________ |

|____________________ |________________________ |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download