前面我们说了，经济类辩题涉及广泛，包括公平与效率之辩，自由市场与国家规制之辩，国内经济与全球化之辩，最麻烦的是经济和政治的扯到一起以后立马会使得辩题难度上层次，下面我们就根据某位小朋友的问题来看看这个辩题：

This house would ban its citizens from visiting illiberal states whose economies depend on tourism.

这道题目其实并非一个单纯的经济类辩题，它还融合了政治中的自由政体，即Liberal Democracy和非自由政体，即集权政体Dictatorship 和威权体制Authoritarian的辨析，非自由政体是system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties. It is not an “open society”. There are many countries that are categorized as neither “free” nor “not free”, but as “probably free”, falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes.在自由政体中，个人权利，即Civil Liberty是被视为最为重要的权力，因而像Freedom of Choice这样的First Principle才成为必须要讨论的话题，但是这个辩题恰恰叙述的是自由政体下的政府要干预公民的个人选择自由，这个自由主要是关于Freedom of Movement的，即旅游的自由，我想去哪里旅游当然是我自己说了算啊，那政府凭什么要出来插一杠子呀，这不是狗拿耗子多管闲事吗？接下来就得想啊，个人自由不是绝对的，在什么情况下可以使个人自由得到限制呢？当然是公共利益，尤其是Tangible Public Interests受到实实在在的威胁的时候，国家是可以以保障当事人以及多数人的核心权力为诉求而对个人的自由加以恰当的限制的，那接下来就要考虑的是在这样的原则下，公民去那些依靠旅游业的非自由政体经济旅行会给国家带来何种危害，比如，自由国家的政府是否有这种干预个人自由的正当性，干预是否能够解决前面所提到的这些危害，是否是最佳的解决方案等一系列问题就可以带出来，建立正方的Case。

首先，看看Government Case需要包括的东西：

这里需要注意的是辩题中的depend一词，我们知道每个国家都会有旅游业，但是旅游业显然并非大多数经济体中的支柱产业，因而，这里的depend一词应该理解为该国的经济主要依赖旅游业，否则这个辩题就没办法辩下去了，我们可以看看哪些非自由政体国家的旅游业有如此重大的意义呢？像Iran, DPRK, Cuba这些国家可能就进入我们的视野了。

一般而言，在国际比赛中，评委们的预设是如果这一辩题没有特别指定发生地，可以预设为Liberal Democracy国家，找到一个不是特别extreme的国家来把辩题落地是比较易行的一个方式，本题可以contextualize 到美国，这样比较容易把问题讲清楚。

1. Status Quo:

首先，要明确自己的Team Stance，通过描述美国目前对大多数Illiberal States并没有实施旅游禁令，而这导致了一系列严重的问题。

1)      For poor rule of law, more and more crises involving American citizens attracted by propaganda of beautiful scenery to the illiberal states, which harm the safety of citizens and diplomatic disputes.

2)      Subsidizing the authoritarian or totalitarian regimes by enhancing its legitimacy of rule because the economic booming can further lengthen the rule of the regime.

3)      The enhanced legitimacy and strength of illiberal states can harm the credibility of liberal democracy. Every wave of democracy has been followed by setbacks in which the system was seen as inadequate and new alternatives were sought by ambitious leaders and restless masses. The last such period of disenchantment, in Europe during the interwar years, was seized upon by demagogues. Today, in the face of a spreading virus of illiberalism, the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. States without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.

2. Stance:

We should ban all the citizens of the U.S from visiting such illiberal countries (countries that have yet to put in place a publicly elected government) as Iran and DPRK to better protect our citizens and pressurize those regimes to reform their political systems.

3. Model:

1)      Ban means the embassy will issue warnings to the U.S citizens and ban any attempts to visit the countries on the list of illiberal states and this ban should be coordinated with other allies to enhance its effectiveness.

2)      “Depend” means these economies can’t remain sound without a lucrative tourism.

接下来，你需要告诉裁判“what the debate is about”, 以及“what shall be the main clashes/ burdens of proof”.   本辩题是关于自由政体国家是否应该禁止其公民到那些高度依赖旅游业的非自由政体国家去旅行的，因而我们需要辩明的就是禁止是否正当，禁止和不禁哪个更加符合自由政体国家、民众以及非自由国家（而非其政府）和民众的利益即可。作为政府，我们的任务就简化为证实通过这个motion我们可以以最有效率、最小代价、最大福利的方式解决现有的问题。

4. Arguments that can be presented.

Elaborate on a principle argument by addressing:

1)    What is the principle, what is the theoretic and practical basis of this principle?

2)    Why is this principle relevant to this debate, how is this principle related to the interests of all the stakeholders?

3)    What might be the principle argument of the opp, or why the government’s paradigm is better in terms of upholding certain principles that both sides try to promote.

I.             Justification:we aim to maximize the welfare of the citizens without endangering their physical and spiritual autonomy (ultimate goal)

a.    American citizens influenced by advertisement can hardly make sound decision and freedom of choice sacrificed and the government tried to better protect the benefits of its citizens through banning visits to illiberal states.

b.    Illiberalism harms the civil liberty, breeds corruption and even wars, while comparatively liberal democracy can better ensure such values as the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

c.    The economy depends on tourism, which can sustain and subsidize the illiberal regime and thus deprive the opposition parties of opportunity to change the regime.

d.    Booming tourism can improve the international image of the illiberal regimes and possibly give rise to the demagogues.

II.            Why is this helpful?

a.    Different from liberal democracies, of which the root of legitimacy is the constitutional liberalism, illiberal states base the rule on economic performance, so the ban can hurt the economic performance and thus nurture oppositions on the one hand, and undermine the legitimacy of the regime and force the regime to reform its political systems on the other and prevent from the danger of dictatorship in the country.

b.    It can better protect the individual citizen’s rights by distancing them from the potential dangers and save the government troubles in dealing with the disputes.

III.          Why ban is the best choice?

a.    Organic change is impossible or time-consuming if possible.

b.    Military intervention is too costly and highly risky.

c.    Major stakeholders, citizens of the U.S, U.S government, citizens of the illiberal states all benefit from the ban in the long run.

宏辞论道，纵横天下

思辨精英：china_debate