作为反方，我们需要做的事情是特别注意抓正方的漏洞，从正方对现状的描述，对问题的界定，对紧迫性的定性以及解决方案的Justification，Solvency，Cost-effective analysis都可以下手找出对方的漏洞，拆掉正方的Case。

然后就是旗帜鲜明地摆出反方的立场，我们反对正方的Motion，然后就是证明正方的Case带来的Tangible Harms并且比较正方和己方的Case证明我方的更加重要，更加完备。

1. Clarification of the main clashes of the debate: it is a debate about whether banning citizens from visiting illiberal states can safeguard the benefits of the citizens and help with the regime change of the Illiberal States. The proposition should prove to us that the government can compromise the freedom of choice of its citizens to facilitate the transformation of illiberal states into liberal democracy, but they failed to present a nuanced mechanism for this change and we advocate an organic change and we are going to prove to you that by passing this motion, the identified problem by the gov will be worsened.

2.Highlight the major problems of government model, 可以考虑的角度有problem-solution mismatch/ wrong target/backlashes/negligence of status quo/ minor problem等。

具体到本题，可以用的论点有：

             I.        Status quo is ok and it has become a trend for liberal countries to lift the ban towards illiberal states, e.g. the U.S removal of tourism ban on Liberia, and very soon Cuba since the ban has almost gone bankrupt since it was initiated 50 years ago.

            II.        Wrong characterization of the problem. Illiberal states can also put in place a sound legal system, which can well protect the visitors, especially when the country depends on tourism. The heavy contribution of tourism incentivizes the government to improve its legal protection of the tourists so as to attract more domestic and international visitors, hence no need to worry too much. And even if some disputes cropped up, the illiberal states will be involved in problem solving, or else its damaged image will sacrifice its profits in tourism.

          III.        Even if harms are imminent, the government cannot be justified in banning the visiting since it is the freedom enshrined in the first amendment in the U.S constitution on the condition that this freedom will not incur tangible harms to the third party.

          IV.        The next layer of analysis in the problem-solution mismatch. Even if subsidizing illiberal states argument might stand, isolating might further reinforce the authoritarian regime in that the regime might channel more resources into other industries, like agriculture and industry or tertiary to enhance its economic power on the one hand, and use the ban as a resource for nationalistic propaganda since the state can nurture hatred towards the U.S in the minds of its people and further enhance the domestic cohesion by using such discourse as improving economic and political autonomy to fend off the intervention from the outside forces since there is no sufficient room for any opposition forces. To make matters worse, this will further dampen the oddity for the birth of powerful rival to the ruling regime from within the territory because the monopoly of media by the regime can screen off any sufficient influx of information that can potentially threaten its rule, which has already been proved in the case of Iran.

           V.        If the U.S implements the ban, it cannot coordinate efforts by other liberal countries and the illiberal states can strengthen ties with EU or other countries to attract more tourists given the deepening globalization.

          VI.        More visits by citizens from liberal countries can bring more information about other countries since isolation breeds hatred and communication nurtures seeds for change. The ideals of liberal countries can help the local residents to compare and thus make better-informed decisions. This mechanism can further help with the birth of opposition forces to the regime and there will be higher chance for the citizens to subscribe to the concept of liberal democracy and empower the opposition forces to participate in the politics in a peaceful manner.

        VII.        The ban can only threaten the local people because the ruling regime can still have other resorts to satisfy their needs while the local residents may suffer from deteriorating living conditions and undermined source of income. And even if the ban can undermine the rule of the regime and lead to regime change, which is more likely to launch the country into chaos and the turmoil, it will hurt the well-being of the local citizens on the one hand and impact negatively on the neighboring countries on the other.

      VIII.        Organic change is the better alternative in that it can protect the freedom of choice for the citizens of the liberal country, which can better ensure the moral latitude of the liberal countries in projecting its open and liberal image. And the booming tourism in the illiberal states can help cultivating the mentality of embracing liberal political concept and more importantly it can empower a large middle-class population, which will become more and more politically active and demand an organic change in the political landscape in the illiberal countries. 

宏辞论道，纵横天下

思辨精英：china_debate