Ban Trade With China
This was a class debate. I won, but my friend (who was my opponent) wants me to debate on DDO to be his "rematch."
First round is acceptance.
China is a communist country with a poor human rights record. It has executed more people than any other country in the world and at a higher rate. Since we punish Cuba we should also punish China. If we do not then our policy looks like a joke, and singling out Cuba won't lead to other countries improving human rights or democracy since they will look at how we treat China and say "see it's all just politics".
2. China's trading practices are unfair.
They subsidize their industries above our own to gain a competitive advantage.
China currently devalues US buying power by 30%.
There are 3 points that support why the US should not ban trade with China:
1. China has stood as the world's leading nations in trade and has helped lower inflation through trading down to a 7.5% rate after a recent peak. The US economy will be devastated if we stop trading with China and increase inflation.
2. The US has countless times stood for free trade. How can we deny trade to China in the face of our own image? Banning trade would hurt the US image and show our thinking to be of hypocrites.
3. Equal rights to all people denotes that to China too. The Constitution itself strives for equality towards all and that applies to China too. Banning trade would be discrimination towards the Chinese people.
I leave it to Pro to give the BOP.
MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
1. Pro's first point actually supports me. The poor human rights record provides even more the reason to trade with China. As China merchants get richer, the border control and human right control have lessoned for more rights so trade can be more open. Therefore, we promote human rights through trade.
2. The reason why we trade with China is because its prices are low. The "unfair" practices lead to these low prices. Who will we trade with if we don't trade with China? It is not worth it to increase inflation and ruin the US economy for just the mere sense of "trade injustice" with China.
Thus Pro's points are invalidated.
1. Inflation isnt a problem if people are making >$. Inflation can be tiny but if all jobs r overseas they cant make $ & the low inflation rate does no good. If we ban trade w/China > jobs will b in the US so ppl will have > chances 2 make >$
As a conclusion I'd like to review my main points:
1. Banning trade increases inflation.
2. The US image depends on our policy of free trade.
3. Trading with China is part of equal rights treatments and is also shown in the Constitution.
My opponent has forfeited a round and I'd truly like to discuss about trade a bit more. With what points Pro has provided I'd like to point out the major flaws in his argument.
1. Spelling--Particularily in the 3rd round, Pro has provided a myriad of spelling and grammar errors as well as punctuation mistakes.
2. Pro has completely ignored my arguments and only provided cross exchange for my rebuttals. Therefore conceding to all my points.
3. Pro's logic falls in trading practices. He consistantly gives Cuba as an analogy to China although both are two separate entities. Also, Pro fails to distinguish different entities and groups countries into two vagues groups of freedom of speech or not which limits his arguments to two catagories.
Based on this vote Con!
If people have no job inflation doesnt matter. Can't afford anything.
"US image". The US is not a middle school student. We should look out for our own best interests, our image be damned.
Equal rights is about US citizens and ppl who live here. It doesn't require us to treat every other country the same.
I had to use creative spelling. How else can I argue effectively when the limit is 1000?
Con attacks my use of Cuba as an analogy yet says we'd be violating China's 'equal rights' by denying trade with them. If Con's argument has any merit then that would mean we are already violating Cuba's "equal rights".
"groups countries into two vagues groups of freedom of speech or not"
I never used "freedom of speech". Also, I believe vagues should've been "vague". Guess Im not the only 1 with spelling problems. At least my arguments are a lot clearer than Con.
I haven't limited my arguments to 2 categories. I listed many things above about what China is doing wrong for which they should be penalized.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||2|