We actually ran china and russia as our first contention, econ as our second, and the middle east and boko haram as block arguments. It went pretty well, since we were 5-0.

Basically, we ran that increasing military presence in places of already high tension (Balkans, South China Sea) would be perceived as a sign of aggression, causing Russia and China to up their military as well, creating an arms race (we had blocks for sanctions, economic instability, etc), and our impact was a 337% increased chance of war. Econ was basically saying that we already spend more than the next ten countries combined and that something like $125 billion goes to waste—so if invested in other sectors, like education or clean energy, it would create double the jobs and benefit the economy more (if you ever something like this, be sure to have a response when someone calls it a CP).

Boko Haram is a group in Nigeria whose philosophy is "End Western Education." They, along with other groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, formed as a response to increasing US military presence and hegemony that they felt "white washed" their culture, so by increasing military presence there, we'd only give greater incentive to existing terrorist groups or contribute to the formation of entirely new ones.