The Thucydides Trap

Richards and Allison give to opposing perspectives on the potential for war between the US and Chinabut which is more useful in understanding the situation today? Richards offers some logical reasoning based on questionable assumptions to argue that conflict is unlikely. Allison, on the other hand, simply looks back at the past 500 years and notes that in the majority of cases the facts show that when two nations like the US and China engage in a power struggle the outcome tends to be war. The main reason Allisons perspective is more useful than Richards perspective is that Allison bases his argument on facts, without making any assumptions or presenting any biases, while Richards uses logic but bases the logic of his reasoning on assumptions whose merit is debatable at best.

Richards says that aristocracies no longer rule nationswhich I do not find convincing. Anyone looking at the US today can see that billionaires are pulling strings behind the scenes. Richards also states that civilians lead nations rather than military strategists. Again, this is not a convincing statement: the EU is led by technocrats and seems to do whatever

Plus, the Pentagon has a lot more sway in US foreign policy than civilian leadersjust look at Americas...…useful perspective. Of course, even a valid argument can be weak if it is based on premises that are not particularly strong or compellingand that is precisely the case with Richards. Richards argument is not without logic, but the problem is that the premises do not ring true, and anyones unbiased reflection on personal experience should indicate as much. In order to create a strong argument, debaters need to find premises that will resonate with their audience and convince them of the conclusion. By taking the time to build a solid foundation, debaters can ensure that their arguments will stand up to scrutiny and be persuasive; Allison does this, which is…