Public Forum - February 2022 - Turkey and NATO

[@elitacilan891]

I encountered this video while I was looking for videos on history of Nato and Turkey as a Turkish person. Admittedly when I clicked the video I thought it would be superficial that would entertain me for a few minutes with bad takes but after watching most of it I have to admit you are actually versed and an excellent debate teacher. I got so used to seeing and reading only bad things about my country, I feel we are often very misunderstood. That's why, I appreciate your empathy (even if it's for debate purposes), it's very rare in American/western media to show understanding to Turkish POV. I think you did a very good job for pointing out both pro and con, but please call it football not soccer😀

[@HailStateDebate]

Very grateful for such a thoughtful comment. And duly noted: football not soccer from now on.

[@publicforumdebateacademy5369]

Thank you for this excellent video! I really appreciate the top 10 way you organized the video

[@ahmtfrt81]

Great video, I enjoyed listening to every minute. Finally a very logic and educated person who can understand Turks. Actually you are much much better than most smart (!) western politicians.

[@shh0167]

OMG I WAS WAITING FOR THIS

[@user-zi1uz9rq9c]

Great video!

[@shuhanli]

the *actually, it's ANCHOR-UH*s got me laughing. But what would be your best tips for coming up with blocks and responses to arguments on the spot and also before the debate round? also, what would be a good, high in magnitude and likeliness impact for the sowing chaos in the middle east contention? thank you!

[@HailStateDebate]

Sorry I missed this last week. If you still need the impact on the middle east, I think this article sums up the general issue pretty well: www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/competition-between-russia-and-turkey-drives-conflict-across-middle-east-africa-and The basic idea is that Turkey's active destabilization and competition with Russia in particular actively creates new challenges for NATO throughout the Middle East. Basically, constantly creating new fires to put out and new flashpoints for potential conflict with Russia. As for getting better at on-the-spot rebuttals, the irony is that this is a long process that starts way before a tournament begins. There are two basic ingredients: (1) Getting experienced with different rebuttal types (cutting links, undermining evidence credibility, outweighing impacts, attacking relevance/topicality, etc.) so that you have a sort of template in your head for how each works; and (2) Knowing enough information on the topic that you can quickly spot defects in the opposing case and assign the right kind of response. So for example, if you've practiced cutting link chains by pointing out that the opposing team's quote doesn't say what they claim it says, and you know on a gut level that the claim they're making about Russia and Turkey's relationship is way outside what most experts say, you will almost reflexively know to probe on exactly what the source said in crossfire, then point out that their whole impact goes out the window when their link chain is severed because their expert didn't actually say what was claimed. This is just one example of course, but it illustrates how (1) familiarity and fluidity with general rebuttal archetypes; plus (2) knowing the topic well, equals (3) strong off-the-cuff rebuttals.

[@mustafatezelsandalli4889]

Excellent

[@liamh1604]

HOLY that was fast!

[@ssa089]

In simple, NATO wants Turkey fight Russia in front line, while Turkey nowdays reluctant to do so and see NATO less reliable partner / ally starting from Irak, Afganistan, and Syiria conflict.

[@daviddogan7383]

Turkey sovereign country not slave of any country.

[@chloe-eh]

Hi! Can I ask how I should respond if I was on the CON and talking about democratic values but my opponent says that Turkey helping out in issues right now completely outweighs the values?

[@HailStateDebate]

This is something I meant to talk about in the video, but ran out of time: How do you weigh costs and benefits that are fundamentally different things? In other words, what common metric can you use to compare something like a short-term push to help Ukraine versus a long-term erosion of democracy? And the only real answer is, you have to play your argument out to the end and tell a clear story about why it's making the world a worse place. That means you need to be linking Turkey's erosion of democratic norms to some clear scenario in the future where democracy is in worse shape for NATO countries. And I'll be honest, that's hard. Sometimes it's tough to find good cards that link specific current events to broad impacts. If you have them, great: emphasize them. If you don't, you have two options. First, de-link their arguments about "issues right now". If they're talking about Ukraine, show that Turkey's rhetoric on Ukraine is making no difference whatsoever in the outcome. Second, in the worst case scenario, revise your case to focus on more immediate concerns like weapons purchases and destabilizing the Middle East.

[@Chloe-bh4tg]

Hello, I actually have a debate on this very soon. I was doing a practice debate recently when my opponent pointed out that there actually isn't much proof on Turkey helping out Ukraine. They haven't stationed troops, only a few drones that are not confirmed to be effective. More articles these days are popping out for the CON side. Can I ask how should I argue for this? Should I just research more?

[@HailStateDebate]

Your opponent is kind of correct here. The impact on this for the PRO does diminish now that Russia has pushed forward in Ukraine, particularly since Erdogan has made it clear he opposes sanctions against Russia. There's no way around that. But that said, I think you can still argue that Turkey did as much as anybody else in NATO early on and arguably had more to lose, given its economic ties with Russia. So you can still point out that their actions, even if they didn't change the outcome, signal a basic commitment to side with NATO against Russia. But there is no question that Turkey's rejection of calls for sanctions does dilute the effectiveness of this for the PRO.

[@squidsrhot6058]

Hey i need some help with argumentation on pro for this topic. My debate team seems to think the debate is actually CON sided which seems odd to me. In the tournament they went to they kept hitting people who said " we're not kicking turkey out, simply providing a cost benefit analysis". I want to argue that a NATO without turkey is terrible, but i'm afraid of hitting people who argue the statement above. Any tips for dealing with this?

[@doopdoop7673]

Well we're not kicking Turkey out, which is true, so I think you should structure your arguments around that. While you're aff you can talk about Turkey's past contributions and their strategic important through things like geography and military, or potential cases if Turkey was never in NATO, like an alliance with Russia. While you're neg you can talk about what ways Turkey is undermining the alliance, and it's values, and if it never was in NATO what would happen. But if you're really bent on running a scenario where we kick Turkey out, you could say that the best way to evaluate the topic is if Turkey was kicked out, because it's hard to evaluate a parallel universe that's been different for 70 years, and hard to predict everything that could've happened.

[@HailStateDebate]

And that is exactly what the CON should argue. The PRO's response is, "Any cost benefit analysis necessarily requires some alternative scenario to compare to. You can't meaningfully weigh the costs and benefits of filing your taxes without accounting for what happens if you don't (pay fines; go to jail). Similarly, you can't meaningfully weigh the costs and benefits of Turkey being a member of NATO without accounting for the likely results in the scenario where Turkey is not a member." Put another way: "Avoiding all the bad things that happen if Turkey left NATO (or never joined) IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF ITS MEMBERSHIP." Just like avoiding going to jail is one of the benefits of paying taxes. CON doesn't get to exclude that part of the cost-benefit analysis just because almost nobody in the real world wants to actually expel Turkey. We debate impractical, unlikely proposals all the time in PF. And if anything, the fact that nobody wants to expel Turkey shows you just how great the cost-benefit analysis of Turkey's membership is, and why you vote PRO.

[@Zeenzhou824]

Hello! I'm actually going to a tournament for this! Quick question, what do I do when I don't know how to answer my opponent's question during crossfire?

[@HailStateDebate]

Smirk at the judge, turn to your opponent, and respond "Seriously?" in your most sarcastic voice. But seriously, this is a complicated question and there is no magic trick. It also depends heavily on the type of question: for example, are they asking you for a fact or trying to get you to agree with/admit something? If it's a fact, you're not necessarily responsible for memorizing every piece of data on the topic, so it's usually fine to say, "I don't know that particular detail off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll address it in your speech if it's important." If it's an attempt to get an admission, it's fine to ask them to clarify exactly what they're asking you to agree with. And usually, if it's even remotely controversial, it's fine to respond, "I'm not going to stipulate to that in crossfire. If you want to make that argument in your speech, we'll listen to what you say and give our response." But most of all, it's really just about developing confidence that you know what matters and what doesn't. There are plenty of pedantic debaters who will try to quiz you and nitpick you on details. But if you've done your reading, understand the topic, know your case cold, and have some solid blocks, you'll have the confidence to push back and explain why details you don't happen to have handy really don't matter in the larger analysis, or on the judge's ballot.

[@Zeenzhou824]

@@HailStateDebate Thank you very much!

[@lukesmith8386]

Not to be thaaaaaaat guy, but is there a timeline for the march april topic?

[@HailStateDebate]

We're having to take the month off. Please take a look at the post on our community section for details. Really sorry, but we just need some time to get the division of labor set up better. We will definitely have strong videos for April and NSDA, and from then on.

[@lukesmith8386]

@@HailStateDebate ah i see, my bad.

[@jackholler3572]

Anchor-a is not a right pronounciation. "A" pronounced as "a" in halt. So it is An-car-a but "a"s pronounced like a in halt. Perfect video and I liked the analogy alot. The only thing that felt incorrect is that people think being an islamist nation is a thing in Turkey. It is far from doable and Turkey's probility of being an islamist nation is same as a Christian country in Europe become ruled by a scholastic church.

[@aarthiraghavan6273]

any overview ideas on the pro or con?

[@HailStateDebate]

On the Pro, I think the core of the case is just telling the judge that NATO is a defensive military alliance, not a collection of best friends who always agree. Turkey is in that defensive alliance because it's in one of arguably the most strategic locations in the world, and despite all the recent conflicts, still sides with NATO on the large majority of issues, including the most important issues like Ukraine. Giving up such a strategic foothold permanently because its current leader is reckless would be arguably the most foolish, shortsighted thing NATO has ever done. On the Con, I think you really focus the judge on the word "beneficial," (i.e., must be actively benefiting, not neutral or just good enough to stay in) and basically just give them a rapid fire list of all their problematic activities. You finish that list with the S-400 and tell them that, if NATO is an anti-Russia defensive organization, buying strategic arms from the very enemy NATO exists to oppose is by itself incompatible with being "beneficial".

[@aarthiraghavan6273]

@@HailStateDebate Do you think an actor incentives overview on the con would be helpful?

[@HailStateDebate]

Can you specify a bit more what you mean? Are we saying that letting Turkey do these things and remain in NATO creates incentives for other members to test the limits? Or something else?

[@aarthiraghavan6273]

@@HailStateDebate More like just painting Turkey and NATO's interests to show how they don't align

[@HailStateDebate]

I think that's useful framing if you can do it efficiently. Basically, "Our contentions are going to show you why Turkey is hurting NATO in specific terms, but on a broader level keep in mind, these are just the current examples. NATO and Turkey will never line up on key issues because their fundamental incentives are very different and here's why." That's a solid narrative; the only question is whether you can say it efficiently in limited time. If so, go for it.