Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government
Debate Rounds (4)
In respect to the rules, I'll be arguing against retaliatory cyber-attacks to the People's Republic, along with different methods to deal with a digitally incompetent nation. Good luck to my opponent.
Resolved: The US government should implement the hack back system
Before we go any further though, we must define a few key terms in
Observation 1. Definitions
1.People"s Republic of China - a communist nation that covers a vast territory in eastern Asia; the most populous country in the world
2.Hack - use of a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system
3.Significant - in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention.
4.Reform - make changes in
5. Hack back - the ability for a country to trace a hack, and retrieve and delete any stolen information
Observation 2. Standard
The weighing mechanism for today"s debate round is protection of information. America should be allowed to keep trade and military secrets as well the information of those who work for the United States government private and secret. If a country violates our privacy, we have every right to trace that hack, retrieve the information, delete it, and possibly find the person responsible. By passing our plan, we will allow America to "hack back" when China violates our privacy, and when partner and I show you that we better uphold the protection of information than the status quo, by allowing us to hack back our information, an affirmative ballot is warranted.
With the definitions and weighing mechanism established, let"s take a look at the situation in the current system in"
Observation 2: Inherency
Inherency: China backs hackers who get American info
Since then, a new report has drawn direct connections between China"s People"s Liberation Army and a hacking operation of U.S. allies in the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported today about a hacker named Ge Xing:
Through accounts allegedly tied to Mr. Ge, the report draws a direct link between his unit, People"s Liberation Army Unit 78020, a military intelligence arm based in China"s southwest, and a hacker collective known as Naikon that security researchers say has successfully penetrated key computer networks in countries competing with China for control over the South China Sea.
MPX: China is backing hackers who break into the US database and steal valuable information and secrets.
Inherency: The Chinese government is building an online cyber army
Last week, it was revealed that Chinese hackers launched a massive cyber attack on the U.S. government, affecting 4 million current and former federal employees. The blackmail potential of such information, and the harm to U.S. national security, should be obvious. And the connection with China should not be surprising since the U.S. has been fighting this war for some time. A senior Chinese government official even stated recently that the country is assembling an "online army," which means that the cyber war between the U.S. and China is bound to heat up.
MPX: China is currently building a cyber army to attack the US database and steal information
Observation 4: Harms
Harm: China is stealing valuable trade secrets
Five Chinese military hackers employed by the Chinese government were accused yesterday of infiltrating American companies and stealing trade secrets. By charging the men with economic espionage and identity theft, among other crimes, the Department of Justice has set the stage for a tense standoff with the Chinese government.
MPX: Chinese backed hackers are stealing secret American trade information which we will bring up upon request by the negative team but included solar power technology, nuclear power technology, inside information on US business strategy, etc. but not only has this hurt the US government, but it is hurting US businesses as we will see in the impact
MPX: US businesses are harmed by the state backed Chinese hackers
The apparent victims of the hacking are American titans: U.S. Steel, the nation"s oldest and biggest steel manufacturer and the lovechild of tycoons Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan; Alcoa, the world"s third-largest aluminum maker; Westinghouse Electrical Company, one of the world"s leading nuclear power developers; SolarWorld AG a leading solar technology company ; and the United Steelworkers, among America"s most iconic labor unions.
Harm 2: Chinese state backed hacker steals sensitive defense information
A Chinese businessman pleaded guilty this week to conspiracy to hack computer networks of U.S. defense contractors and obtain sensitive data on military aircraft that was passed on to China. The plea deal includes an admission by Su of conspiring with two people in China from October 2008 to March 2014 who broke into U.S. computer networks at Boeing and other defense companies. The hackers stole large amounts of military information that was supplied to China, according to court documents and a statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. The operation first gained access to some 630,000 Boeing computer files on the C-17 military transport aircraft technology in early 2009. The C-17 is the U.S. military"s main cargo aircraft. The data included details on the aircraft"s onboard computer. Other stolen files included data on the F-22 and F-35 aircraft, the military"s most advanced radar-evading stealth fighter jets. The F-22 data included details of an unspecified "training component" on the stealth jet used to launch missiles.
MPX: Not only are the Chinese taking away our trade and business secrets, they are stealing our military secrets and plans and America does not make any efforts to regain or delete those documents.
Observation 6: Solvency
Solvency: America is capable of implementing the hack back system
America has the big stick in cyberspace. But does it matter, if the rest of the world believes we won't use it? There's an awful lot the U.S. could do, and it might need to launch a cyber strike or two to get adversaries off its back. "We need to have people believe if they hack us there will be punishment," Lewis said. "We have the capability ... people don't think we'll do it."
Today, we saw the damage that China is causing America through their thievery of our secrets, military tactics, etc. I leave you with this quote from Michelle van Cleave which perfectly sums up China in the cyber world. "The Chinese have a sophisticated network of tens of thousands human spies and computer hackers targeting American military and technological secrets, what they can"t acquire legally through trade, or creatively through mergers and acquisitions, they are prepared to steal." It"s time to combat their thievery by hacking back our information and for all these reasons, an affirmative ballot is not only warranted, but needed.
I thank my opponent for providing his strong arguments.
By the term "constructives", I'm not sure if that allows rebuttals in this round. However, this debate is whether a hypothetical action should take place which forces me to make rebuttals, if not list other methods to combat the current situation. My apologies if these rebuttals weren't meant for this round, but my position in the debate forces me to make them. Regardless, I will keep my rebuttals as low as possible. The People's Republic currently is not under any actual evidence that the data stolen was by perpetrators acting under orders of the government . In the world of digital technology, there exists a location masking entity of the world of proxies. Proxies can be used by any hacker to hide themselves from being tracked, and when tracked, they have the potential to broadcast a location of their choice . This makes finding solidifed evidence of cyber-attacks by an actual government, virtually impossible, and any other nation or group of people known for having hatred towards the US (such as Anonymous ) to create false tensions. If the United States makes a congressional move to create their own cyberwarfare strategies, with their own congressional hearing, the US would be under a tremendous amount of evidence of an actual action condoned by the American government. My opponent made statements that China stole information, but as I just stated, there is no actual evidence that the Chinese government was behind it. My opponent has stated that the US should "retrieve" this stolen information, although, in the world of computers, (Not to mention back-ups), the US didn't actually lose their information, neither if they did, could they even hope to find it in the digital ocean of China .
In order to advance the debate, I agree with all definitions provided by my opponent.
In this section of the debate, my opponent made the argument that the privacy of the American government and its susceptibility entitles the US to protect her privacy by the plan of "trace that hack, retrieve the information, delete it, and possibly find the person responsible". In the manners of the practice of cyber-attacks, tracing a hack, especially from someone who had the potential to hack the American government, is more than expected to have the fundamental knowledge to mask their identity through a proxy. By retrieving the information, I assume my opponent believes that the information of ours was deleted after being intercepted. A hacker would want anonymity from their attack and can be expected only to copy the information, not destroy it. Especially when the US government can have their information on a back up, their information wasn't stolen, it was copied. My opponent also states that in the plan, the information would then be deleted, but you can expect the hacker to make copies and back ups that aren't connected ensuring their digital security, making it impossible for their newfound information to be destroyed. As for finding the person responsible, refer to the practice of proxies. What I had just stated is virtually the fundamentals of any form of anonymous digital attack, or even in piracy, although if my opponent doubts, I do back my statements up with sources .
The source my opponent quotes regarding PLA affiliations with traced hackers is, by terms of the government of China, unofficial and the US can't prove otherwise . Especially since the source my opponent used also states that the Chinese government has made attempts to crack down on these international cyber-attacks by quoting Xi, and uses the term "allegedly" when regarding the traces. As Fortune is an economic website, and an independent one as well, the viability of them making statements that the Chinese government is directly behind these attacks is comparable to a tabloid making sure they don't use solidified verbs in their accusations as Fortune did not use solid verbs to link the claims (Refer to Source 6).
The next source regarding the "online cyber army" is nothing short of ridiculous, especially when the secondary link goes to a non-national website of local news. The simple click-bait for website views shouldn't be taken as seriously as my opponent says. The next argument regarding a Chinese official saying so is a lie. Please look at the sources yourselves, because my trust for Fortune.com has also dropped. Concluding this argument, my opponent only makes assumptions of blackmail, but as I pointed out before, you can't "blackmail" this information, because the USFG still has it and China hasn't been directly tied, nor would they want to.
My opponent manipulates the wording a little regarding his source, Time, also does not use solid and direct verbs on the Chinese government. You must be wary of the term, "accusations", and "allegedly", especially since the other links provided by Time leads to other opinionations made for the process of click bait, and no direct investigations. In the second argument of my opponent, I smell plagiarism . Word for word, and taken from a less than reputable site, from the first 3 paragraphs. This site offered no secondary links to any of their claims, and in their website is full of Pro-Republican propaganda against anything Democrat or lax in foreign policy. As for nearly the rest of the argument of my opponent, there seems to be confusion on what exactly a cyber-attack is or how do you combat it because once the enemy has it, you can't trace their exact computer back nor implant any sort of Trojan virus on it, to delete the information they already have. I should also state, the other arguments that I seemingly left behind has actually been rendered null from my solidified statements of a lack of direct link.
The primary argument of my opponent stating the US should make retaliatory strikes can no longer use the world retaliatory, because the US has been on the offensive for as long as China has been doing so. It was never retaliation, it is already a back and forth . The reason I took up this argument is because the claim is "hack-backs" and retaliatory, but in this situation, hack-backs can't be attempted.
Concerning the high relations that can be between two major powers , obvious congress approved cyber-strikes against a nation would be fatal to advancement of relations. The United States has technically made the first violation because since cyber-crimes is not a recognized war-fare tactic by the United Nations or any other organization China is a part of, the Budapest Cyber-Warfare Convention that the US has signed would make the US the perpetrator , or the continuum.
Instead of fighting fire with fire, the United States can draft personal cyber-treaties with China  and if China does deny, there would be a diplomatic link to Chinese involvement for digital protection of interests which would include evasion of international justice. Otherwise, the United States could introduce material political sanctions.
I am going to skip over these since they are mainly stating what his stance is and I will come back to them later while refuting his points
My opponent has negated the standard and therefore I will still uphold our standard. I still strongly believe in the protection of information. What my opponent failed to realize is that the US government, while not having the best security in the world, seen through the attacks China has placed on us, has some of the best technology. We have traced back hacks before in the US and that is how we know who is responsible for these attacks. If you go this link (http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) and take a look at page 8, you will be able to see some recent hacks, what it has done to US citizens, and how that the US government was able to find the group or person responsible.
Before moving into any refutation points of the stock issues, I would prefer to focus on substance of why we should not do this. He has mainly focused on source kritiks and I am here to clear up some of this fogginess he has created.
So first off he said that the government is making advancements in this area of cyber security. I would like to tie this in with the "online cyber army point and show how this is completely relevant and worthy to be recognized in this debate round. He may not take the word of Time or Fortune, which I will get to in my next paragraph, but will he take the work of our Ex-NSA director Mike McConnell? Mike McConnell said that the Chinese government has hacked every major US corporation. In direct response to the cyber army being ridiculous, here what Mike McConnell has to say about that. "In his speech, McConnell also said that during the final years of the Bush administration, the Chinese government employed a jaw-dropping 100,000 hackers dedicated solely to breaking into computers." That seems like a cyber army to me.
In response to the sources, I wish my opponent would not only look at the publisher, but who wrote it. Scott Cendrowski has pretty good credentials, he has been writing about China basically his entire life. My opponents opinions on credibility should not be counted higher than what his credentials have to say. S Kumar, the writer of the Fortune article, has been a tech commentator his entire life. He has worked in technology, media, and telecom investment banking. I think his word is also credible.
I would like my opponent to clarify who he thinks is plagiarizing because I put in my first speech that I was quoting. Ok, maybe he does not agree with Time"s word once again, and says they use squirrely phrasing, but let me direct you over to the DOJ"s site where it says that these men pleaded guilty and convicted of these trade secrets. https://www.justice.gov...
Since my opponent says that he doesn"t need to respond to the other harms, I will expect a response in the next round since I have provided him with an adequate link and article
This is simply not true, the US-China relations committee does not believe so. (http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) They support the hack back system because China is taking advantage of our secrets and cyber security. We are obviously not on the offensive, when Chinese employed hackers steal the social security number, fingerprints, etc. of OVER 4 million current and former federal employees. I don"t know about you, but that does not seem like offense.
His other systems argument should not be relevant in this debate because the one system he has proposed, making peace agreements, has been tried and failed. In late 2015, a peace agreement was supposedly come to, but in the following two weeks, China carried out a number of cyber attacks against pharmaceutical companies. Crowdstrike, one of the organizations that identify hackers, has a "high degree of confidence" that these were Chinese backed hackers and is certain that one of these hackers was the Deep Panda, a Chinese backed hacking notorious for their large and detrimental attacks to the US.
Finally, I have a few source citations kritiks for him as well. Wikipedia. Wiki has never been credible in a debate. Wiki can be written by anyone. It could even be written by my opponent. I ask my opponent to fix these sources with more credible sources in the next round. Please give me a source with some credentials or backing behind the author. And, yes I am getting this info about who can write Wiki from Wiki, but this page I am citing is a Wiki info page thereby meaning that this was written by one of the people who work at Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org...
In conclusion, all my opponent really did in the Inherency and Harms was attack sources. I have showed you how the sources are credible and even gave you additional sources. This is not something to be taken lightly, it is detrimental to the US and one day could be detrimental to you. We can fix this detrimental problem by passing the Affirmative team"s plan.
I thank my opponent for providing his strong rebuttals.
My opponent states that he strongly believes in cyber-protection, and so do I. The United States currently has a cyber-protection program within the Department of Defence and many resources are diverted into the program daily . Although, my opponent is arguing for retaliation against China, not digital protection. The source link that my opponent uses, regarding the .gov website and congressional report is only a report regarding cyber incursions traced back to the Chinese homeland . The report does not ratify the allegations that my opponent has made regarding the Chinese government backing the incursions, nor do these incursions have a name behind them. Only the location has been traced.
I will attempt to defend my claims against the viability of the sources my opponent has listed. Let me state, that my attacks on the sources were supposed to be that none of your sources (Which you also did not refute) made direct claims towards the Chinese government, and neither has the federal documents you provided. They are all still allegations, and in diplomacy, everything must be airtight. Otherwise, private sector invasions would not be able to pass their grievances against a specific government in the name of international law .
My opponent starts making claims on the credibility of Mike McConnel regarding the cyber-army he claimed the Chinese government was building up without secondary links in his article. In the previous sources of my opponent regarding the cyber army, there was no mention of McConnel nor could I find anything online. Digging deeper into the credibility of Fortune, their secondary link of the cyber army was taken out of context . The secondary link states how the Ministry of Defence of China was dedicating a section of the PLA towards expertise in computer technology to create firewalls and encrypt secret data of the Chinese government. Neither articles mentioned any sort of offence, and Fortune used it to their click bait advantage. I urge voters to look into the secondary links of the sources my opponent provided. I also ask my opponent to provide a source to Mike McConnell and his 100,000 "hackers" dedicated only to the goal of invading computers.
To my opponent regarding Cendrowski, I wasn't questioning his credibility I was pointing out the indirect verbs he used regarding the link between the Chinese government and the hacks towards the American private sector which were allegations. A point that you did not refute. His credibility was not in question, it was his wording. As for Kumar, he had little to no prior experience regarding China and like I stated with the secondary source link, he took the term, cyber army out of context. The same way that the American DoD has their own cyber-security strategy with persons managing the sector (Refer to Source 1). It was Kumar's credibility, which I proved unreliable.
I thank my opponent for accepting Time's dodging of direct links towards the Chinese government and providing the justice.gov source, but it still offers no direct link to the Chinese government. The justice.gov site states about a Chinese immigrant conspiring to steal the trade secrets, but he did not admit to nor was he found to be employed to the Chinese government . Trade secrets are valuable, and his Chinese nationality being linked to a connection to the Chinese government is just an assertion, meaning his plan to take the secrets could have even been sold to another company in the private sector. My point is that there is still no direct link to the Chinese government.
"Since my opponent says that he doesn't need to respond to the other harms..." is a lie, if not at least a fallacious statement. I stated -"I should also state, the other arguments that I seemingly left behind has actually been rendered null from my solidified statements of a lack of direct link.". I left them seemingly without a response because like the last 3 arguments you provided, they were all knocked down for not providing an actual link to the Chinese government employing any hackers. You were listing the harms of the hacking, something that is a statistic, but my point was that there is no direct link to who is behind the hacking. That means you mostly just listed the damage without the actual link of the perpetrator, thought to be the Chinese government.
My opponent refuses to acknowledge the NSA leak I provided that trumps the document of the congressional report. The United States is obviously on the offensive because the leak shows American strikes. China has had no 'leaks' giving no direct ties. Just to show the power of credible sources, the United States had been conducting cyber-attacks on China since before the 2015 congressional report . My opponent also states that "Chinese employed hackers stole social security numbers, fingerprints, etc. of over 4 million current and former federal employees". A fallacious claim. The source he uses before of the federal congressional report (Refer to Source 2) does not list 4 million federal victims, nor is there a Chinese government link. I usually try not to use harsh wording in my debates but that is a second fallacious claim you have stated. I seriously urge voters to look at his sources.
My opponent states that my other arguments weren't relevant which is assumptive. The US and China has not tried individual cyber-treaties which would allow the US and China to browse their individual history of proxy uses in order to align them with the exact date of the attack events. If China denies, that would be the greatest piece of assumptive evidence that they were actually behind any of these attacks. The US of course, has denied such a treaty because the US is also at fault of attacks (Refer to Sources 7,8,9). As for the previous treaties and 'Crowdstrike', I ask my opponent to provide sources, as I took the effort of providing my own.
Let me also say, regarding other systems my opponent completely dropped my argument regarding political sanctions towards China and my argument of the Budapest Cyber-Warfare convention that the US violated. This leaves 3 arguments of mine my opponent left un-refuted.
As for my Wikipedia sources, Pro is incorrect. In strong public articles like cyber-warfare review sources with their own teams and make sure the editor marks their sources . They don't allow just anyone to write these articles as my opponent claims, and if the editor leaves an article without secondary sources, there is always warnings at the top of the page stating so .
My opponent has left 3 strong arguments of mine, un-refuted. My strongest argument is that if the US retaliates, because they already violated the Budapest convention, China can bring the US to political sanctions.
I thank my opponent for a great debate and I will conclude and summarize everything in this last round beginning with the standard.
My opponent is correct in stating that I strongly believe in American privacy, but then he states that he does as well. I don’t think I entirely agree that he believe in American security by letting a broken system continue to be broken and doing nothing to reform it. Actually, according to the site on foreign relations, they were able to trace the exact group such as Deep Panda, a government run organization. We were not able to go past the retrieval of information because according to the US-China relations report which I posted earlier is against specific US laws and therefore was not allowed. Congress thinks we can go ahead and achieve this task.
The funny thing is that everyone of my sources ties the hackers to the Chinese government. He never provided you a link stating that they were not related. Again referring to the US-China paper, looking at the graph, all of those were Chinese backed organizations
Yes, my fault for not posting the link and I apologize sincerely for that. (http://money.cnn.com...) He says that he typed it in online and that nothing came up. All you had to do was type Mike McConnell hack corporation and a whole bunch of things would have come up. Once again though, I do apologize for forgetting to post the link. My opponent will also find the 100,000 hackers here in this article that were recruited by the Chinese government for cyber espionage.
The case Cendrowski was talking about said that it drew links between the PLA and the hacking initiative, but here is another link which shows that at the end of a 3 year investigation, the PLA was confirmed as hackers who hacked over 115 US companies (http://www.thedailybeast.com...)
In regard to Kumar, he deals with tech every day in his life, but once again I will refer my opponent to Mike McConnell who backs up S. Kumar when McConnell states that they have over 100000 people working for China in the Cyber espionage effort.
So here is what my opponent failed to realize. These were Chinese immigrants, but they passed the info they STOLE onto the Chinese government. I once again point my opponent to the Time article cited in the first round.
I was summarizing what he said and to call the opponent should not be allowed in a debate round especially when it was just summarization of my opponent’s point which still stands. He never refuted the impact it had on American business which is not a lie. All you have to do to see that I am not lying is check under the second paragraph of round two. One cannot say, I have refuted one harm, therefore all the harms don’t stand. It is a logical fallacy and since I don’t have any further speeches, I ask my opponent not to respond to the impact on American businesses and for the judges to count this as dropped and award that argument to the Affirmative.
First off, my opponent is once again referring to his Wiki articles which are not credible in a debate round. The usage of Wiki articles in today’s debate, I ask once again, should be stopped. Even though China has had no leaks, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. Not only caught, but direct links tied to them and their officers. My opponent has been going throughout this entire debate with blinders on. He doesn’t see the true facts. The links drawn, the people caught, etc. If my opponent refuses to take these blinders off, we will never get anywhere in this debate.
I was quoting a different source than the US-Chinese report, but how about we take a look at that real quick so my opponent will stop calling my claims fallacious. In April of 2015, the OPM was hacked putting over 22 million Americans personally identifiable information at jeopardy as well as millions of sensitive and classified documents. Let’s look at one more example. The USPS Espionage in November of 2014 put the personal data of over 800,000 employees of the US Postal Service at risk including the Social Security number as well as their addresses. I urge the judges to take a look at this chart when considering their decisions. (http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) The Chinese government can be found in both the site I mentioned previously as well as S. Kumar. I think my opponent also didn’t read the graph from the report I posted which had MANY different examples of the Chinese government hacking into US companies.
My opponent is once again confused, China was found supporting the hacking that was taking place two weeks after the peace agreement. (http://www.v3.co.uk...) When we wanted to talk about it and the news had questions, what did China do? Refuse to talk (http://www.cnbc.com...) The sources of Crowdstrike will also be found in both of those links.
Political sanctions would be a bad idea. “One U.S. official said that sanctions imposed on individuals or companies would effectively cut them off from using the U.S. financial system, which could be a death-sentence for a serious business venture.” Implementing political sanctions is a horrible idea which should be thrown right out of this round.
My opponent has still failed to say how we violated it with a good source. The top of the page even says that the Wiki article needs correction. This argument must be thrown and did fall under the wiki argument brought up in the last round.
In response to the Wiki response, I ask my opponent why he did not quote the cited articles? The point still stands that Wiki is not credible and that if he thought it was credible, go to the secondary link and cite it their where the author actually has some credentials.
I have refuted all my opponent’s points and since I have no further time to refute, I ask for no new arguments and no new arguments against dropped arguments such as the Impact on businesses. I care about the protection of your information, and the way we can protect it is by retaliating against China and getting it back. I thank my opponent for a high energy debate round, and wish him best of luck in the voting period.
I thank my opponent for giving his strong argument.
My opponent questions my belief that American national secrets should be kept secret with the claim that I agree with the current 'broken system'. My opponent has not offered any reforms to digital cyber-security and the topic of this argument, hack-backs, is completely different than the establishment of a national firewall . I believe in protection of the security of national interests, a defencive program, but not retaliatory strikes against China when the US already violated the Budapest Convention .
Pay attention to what my opponent says next, because it really starts to question the validity of his claims in the quote "Deep Panda, a government run organization". My opponent fabricated the link between Deep Panda and the Chinese government, when Deep Panda is nothing more than a proxy . To the voters, in Round 2, I stated what proxies were and how they destroy any chance of the US making anything other than allegations to Chinese government employed hackers. In fact, Deep Panda has had multiple attempts on being shut down by the Chinese government because Chinese hackers attack Chinese companies, themselves (Refer to Source 4)!. I seriously urge voters to look at the sources. The next argument of my opponent still does not acknowledge that if Congress ratifies (and most likely won't) a cyber-attack on China, the outcome is public and gives reason to China to bring the US under an international prosecution by the United Nations. A Congress ratification is a direct tie to a government backed cyber-attack.
My opponent keeps making claims that the US-China paper states there was Chinese backed organizations, a fallacious claim. On his own source, all the claims state only things of Chinese origin, not government. I already proved your manipulative wording to be incorrect on Deep Panda.
My opponent stated his source links which I thank him for, yet the link does not state direct verbs as well. Not to mention a string of triple-links that each lead up the same CNN article where only members of the PLA are considered spies . I should say the PLA isn't under the same system of the American military as the PLA is divided into 15 branches, one, which is the technology commission, cannot order cyber-attacks although all the members have access to computers . Those that are a part of the commission should know fundamental 'hacking', when hacking is just the process of infiltrating a foreign computer with a domestic program . As for the 100,000 hackers, CNN offered no secondary link, and like I stated before, these 100,000 'hackers' could simply be a sector of the Chinese cyber-defence commission, McConnel used the word out of context.
My opponent still argued about the sources of the PLA which I did not refute before, but still stated does not tie links to the Chinese government. Only to members of the PLA, not the heads of the PLA themselves. As for PLA United 61398 , the source of many attacks, the Chinese government and Xi have looked into the problem, and repeated themselves thoroughly for not condoning or ordering cyber-attacks (Refer to Round 2, Inherency). Like I also stated before, many members of the PLA have the potential to enter a computer and steal the knowledge for themselves, from Chinese and American companies alike to competitors for personal financial gain.
In regard to Kumar, he has no prior or current dealings with international law and her jurisdiction in incursions of the private sector. I also state that McConnell uses the 100,000 strong out of context, when the cyber commission in China equals roughly the same amount (Refer to Source 8).
My opponent is once again caught in a fallacious claim. Regarding the Chinese immigrants, they didn't pass any information because they were only conspiring to do so, and most likely for their personal gain, as they did not claim to do so for the People's Republic . Time does not support your claim, in any way. My opponent is right that I did not refute the impact of the hacks on the US, because the hacks did happen. What I am debating, is that the Chinese government has no direct links to these digital incursions, something my opponent still failed to prove. There is obviously harm from a hack, but my point all along was that the sources you listed never made direct solid verbs towards the responsibility of the Chinese government.
My opponent thinks that Wiki articles are unreliable, and that's honestly something for the voters to decide. Just because someone wrote it, makes it automatically unreliable is ridiculous, especially when Wikipedia has their own fact-check systems (Refer to Prior Arguments). My opponent states "Even though China has had no leaks, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT." even though I had refuted every single source of his and their lack of directly using verbs against the Chinese government. They haven't been caught, and the PLA does not represent the Chinese government (Refer to Previous Arguments). My opponent has not refuted these lack of direct verbs in all of his sources. Their accusations lie on the origins of the hacks being in the Chinese homeland, no further.
My opponent continues his argument with the statements of the chart, which do not directly tie the Chinese government, by the American cyber-security system, to the extremely impacting attacks. These harms do not tie in with the Chinese government and the US can be held by an international prosecution of the UN for creating a congress approved cyber attack, in violation of the Budapest Convention!
Once again, the sources provided by my opponent do not make direct ties with the actual Chinese government. Only sources within the PLA which the Chinese government does not have direct control over. My opponent is also confused over the difference between a political sanction and an economic sanction. A political sanction stops China from joining any socio-political alliance in which the US is a part of until they pay compensation for a prior offence against the United States, what I recommended. An economic sanction stops China from trading with the US. Your argument has been nulled. My opponent lies again on what the Wikipedia page says. The page simply reads "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." which doesn't imply it needs correction. It is just a warning of perspective. My opponent states "The point still stands that Wiki is not credible and that if he thought it was credible, go to the secondary link and cite it their where the author actually has some credentials." WHICH I DID! I listed a triple-link chain to show you, that you were wrong (R3, Sources 7,8,9)!
The United States does not have solidifed evidence of the government's involvement. The Budapest Convention and the American & Chinese membership of the United Nations, along with a needed congressional hearing stops the US from making a 'retaliatory strike'. If the congressional hearing goes through, the results are public and China would have evidence of a violation of the Budapest Convention, forcing the US to pay hefty fines.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.