China is deliberately buying America
Round 2: Arguments
Rounds 3 and 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion
I hopefully and gladly accept Pro's debate.
They've already started buying American companies and assets, such as banks and oil reserves. With that said, let's play a hypothetical simulation where China buys all oil reserves. With all the oil you buy, most of that money will be going to Chinese state-run companies. What happens then? You give them the ability to buy even more and more, and they may even start to buy land deposits (which they are).
Chinese takeover of US companies doesn't mean they're "buying America", I know that, but if they get enough money from that to buy land deposits then they will literally be "buying America". They're actually doing the same thing in Africa and Southeast Asia.
For the sake of limiting my opponent's ability to just "pull a fast one," I'd like to solidify each side's argument.
My opponent, Pro, is arguing that the government of China is intentionally working at making America's economy dependent on China, and is succeeding.
I, as Con, will be arguing that China's government is not making America's economy strongly dependent on China's.
For my first point...
The Dependency Relationship Between The Two Superpowers
Economics can be, to many (everyone), rather adverse a challenge to completely comprehend. So, to simplify things a bit, let's imagine two close siblings. They've had their ups and downs, but they always reach an equilibrium of being close family. A constant in the relationship would be the older brother asking the younger sister for money very frequently.
So, on the surface value, it's clear who is dependent on who. The older brother is financially dependent on the younger sister's fiscal status.
But, imagine delving deeper into this relationship and finding out that the younger sister's income comes from selling her custom made bracelets...with the brother as the distributor. In other words, she makes products. She gives the products to the brother to sell. The brother makes money, and gives a bunch of it to the sister.
This is quantifiably the relationship between America and China. At first, it seems like America is always borrowing money from China to pay off its debts. Americans are a*sholes who can't deal with their own issues. However, China's economy growing stupidly fast is due to our consumers.
If China decided to destroy our economy somehow, assuming they could even do that, their economy would be significantly weaker as well.
Exploding Babies Everywhere (Except for Locations Not China)
"Well, that's Hypothesis Contrary to Fact! What if their economy turns out just fine, since they have tons of workers? I mean, even with how terrible the risks are to get to work, people still risk their lives to get to work! Those are some hard working, dedicated motherf*ckers!"
Hard working motherf*ckers indeed, stock character meant to establish a hypothetical point who's character depths exists solely within the lampshading by others.
But, the thing is...okay, America's economy is in trouble right now, right? Do you know why? Do you History? If you History hard enough, you'll remember that there was something to do with slavery and black people, but that's too hard. Go a bit closer to our time. Yeah, almost there. There you go. The Second World War. After all that craziness with the Holocaust and stuff ended, what happened? Well, I'll let this stock NPC from Half Life 2 explain. We had lots and lots of kids. We had a Baby Boom. That really messed up something known as the "Dependency ratio." So, right now, we've got a bunch of kids and old people, and those with ages just right? They're doing all the work. And there's not enough of them. So, if this baby exploding issue were to happen even worse, in a nation with even more people, say...one fifth of the population, that nation would be doomed to fail without assistance, right?
Yeah, China can't buy America. They need America.
2. I know history very well, I got a 96% on my last report card in World History. Reality is, China loved the way the USA helped to weaken the Japanese so they can be liberated. But the fact is that they know that the Americans never actually liberated them, they believe that Mao Zedong did. After Mao died and the country was visited by Nixon, China started the concept of globalism and allowed US companies to enter China. Even after that, even today, there are still political tensions between China and USA. As long as the Peoples' Communist Party is in power, their political hate towards USA and even capitalism might continue. 
3. The baby boom. Did you know that nearly all of the children that were born then are growing up? That means that once they retire then they will depend on the government teat for welfare and social security. There's not enough of us youngsters to keep up with their demands, so that means we would have to borrow more (unless of course we cut programs). 
4. I'd like to compare the two country's debts. China is actually paying off it's external debt and public debts, but USA's debt to China is much higher than China's debt to USA. 
4. I'm very sorry it had to come to this, but I have to attack your sources. Why would you give us a website in the Chinese language (3)? Not to be prejudice, but you really should post websites containing English so we can understand them. I think that cracked (4) is not a reliable source at all, even though some information is correct it's highly unprofessional and has nothing to back up its own claims. And I'm really sorry but do you honestly expect youtube to be a good source? Let alone when it cites a video game? The rest of your sources have nothing to do with what we're talking about, only describing China's age gap and only support my claims that China can have a high dependency and still be expected to surpass USA in GDP by 2016 giving it the highest in the world .
I'm actually really inclined to defend my sources first.
An Espousing Rearming
"Why would you give us a website in the Chinese language (3)?"
It's possible that I may have hastily assumed the impression that my audience would have access to Google Translate or something of the kind. Also, I do believe I summarized it by stating that the traffic business is risky in China.
As for my second source regarding the matter, that it is...
"highly unprofessional and has nothing to back up its own claims."
Being that it is a secondary source, I didn't deem it necessary to have it be as professional as my first source. My reasoning was that having both a statistical and professional source, as well as one that was based off of a person's experience, would make it a stronger case.
"And I'm really sorry but do you honestly expect youtube to be a good source? Let alone when it cites a video game?"
This was a fault in the same manner as well. I took another hasty impression and assumed most people knew what a baby boom is. My opponent's source regarding the baby boom didn't define it either, so I hardly think my fault is anything more than negligible. I also believe that speaking of the unbalancing of the dependency ratio implied a definition for the baby boom. Nonetheless, to satisfy my opponent, here is a source defining the baby boom.
"The rest of your sources have nothing to do with what we're talking about"
A looming hunch in my mind has a circumstantial verdict, and that verdict isssss:
Pro really didn't read anything I put that round at all at all.
Hopefully, Pro will at least read everything I assert henceforth.
Rebutting the Rebuttal
I, unfortunately, am not sure how you're rebutting me here.
"The baby boom. Did you know that nearly all of the children that were born then are growing up? That means that once they retire then they will depend on the government teat for welfare and social security. There's not enough of us youngsters to keep up with their demands, so that means we would have to borrow more (unless of course we cut programs)."
Wh-!? Yes!? I exhibited an understanding of the baby boom's after effects in my argument! I'm growing more and more certain that Pro failed to read anything I said in Round 2.
"4. I'd like to compare the two country's debts. China is actually paying off it's external debt and public debts, but USA's debt to China is much higher than China's debt to USA."
I'm not sure why you labeled two of the rebuttals in your list "4," but it matters not. I've already cited a source from Forbes debunking the potential threat in this, summarizing it by saying that we buy things from China, and still two remain. However, it's important to not just have Forbes as a source. So here's just a few more.
I'm willing to concede with your notion that China is a bit hostile with the United States.
But they need each other. They just need to give each other a reason, just a little bit's enough, then they can learn to love again. If China decides to stop supporting the US, it wouldn't affect America too much, in contrast to how much it would affect China.
China's far too deep in hostile, bursting infants to do anything to harm the US right now, mate. ;)
Nordenkalt444 forfeited this round.
Nothing to rebut or refute that I already haven't.
I won't make new arguments, as I don't believe my opponent would be very happy, then.
So, consider this a Round skip.
Nordenkalt444 forfeited this round.
:( How unfortunate and disappointing. Oh well. I'll take the burden of concluding both our points. :)
I hope I was unbiased. I tried my best. I tried to make both sides as presentable as I could based on my interpretation. I wish my opponent did his own side, as that would make things remarkably simpler.
|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:||0||1|