The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

China should become a Federal Republic.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,326 times Debate No: 48579
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (6)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

Pro will argue China should become a Federal Republic, con will argue the opposite. $th round will not be played, unless I am pm'd to extend it. Only conclusion should go there until I do. One rule...

- You may not argue the republic part. We will assume they have the US federal government system of states for the purpose of the debate.
Kleptin

Con

I accept my opponent's conditions for the debate, I hope we will have a wonderful exchange. However, before we continue, since my opponent has taken steps to dictate restrictions for this debate, I would like my opponent to acknowledge that:

I can argue freely, that the values and morals that I base my arguments on will *not* be judged by any set rubric, social standard, or by my opponent's personal beliefs, and that my opponent will also set no restrictions to arguments in rounds later on. My opponent accepts that my reasons for arguing Con, as long as they fit according to the stipulated rules, must be addressed as legitimate and not ignored or passed on simply because my opponent disagrees with them.

I will, of course, extend the same courtesy to my opponent.

If my opponent agrees, he can please go ahead and make his first case. If not, we can rehash and negotiate either in the comments or in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

My opponent and me have agreed on a few things in the comments.

- China will follow the US and Korean Three Branch system.(House,Executive,Senate)

- China will follow the US system of federalism, where each state governs itself, while being overseen by a federal government who enacts rules for all states.






Argument 1: Large Administration



- The new Chinese Democratic Government is faced with a problem. They are administering over 1,350,000 people, with hundreds of various cultures. Surely any law passed will offend somebody? The only solution is to divide China into states, and let them govern themselves. Overseen by the central government, they now have developed a harmonious system of rule.



---------------------------------------------------------------



Argument 2: Cultural and Ethnic division of China

- China is full of different cultures, religions, and ethnic groups. With 56 ethnicity's, 6 major religions, and hundreds of cultures. How can you possibly respect everyones customs and heritage in the new republic? Once again, you need to let them govern themselves. Or else, it will be impossible to recover from the political turmoil.



------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------

Argument 3: The
autonomy
solution does not work

- First, I would like to state that communism is incompatible with federalism, so I hope we can both agree on that. I think we can also agree that autonomy and federalism don't work.

- China (non-republic) has approached these problems with a simple solution.... give them autonomy. While this seems like a simple solution, it does not work in the new republic. By giving states autonomy, they can no longer participate in central government, and while it grants them personal freedom, it alienates them from participating in politics. The evident solution for the republic, is to adopt federalism. By giving regions like Hong Kong, Xinjang, Inner Mongolia, and Macau statehood, they hit two birds with one stone.

What would a United States of China look like?

Pretty much the same as the current administrative system. With some adjustments of course, but the current districts are pretty suited towards current groups.




Argument 4: Possible lead to Unification

- Many people in Taiwan actively support a Chinese Unification, but there are a couple problems.

1. China is not a Republic

2. Taiwan's government has developed highly over 70 years.

Now, we already established at the start of the debate, that China would be a republic, so that cancels out concern one. Concern 2 is also solved. Under federalism, Formosa can keep its liberal government and participate in a greater Chinese Republic. Both sides only serve to gain from a Federal Chinese Republic. With tensions running hot, this is the most viable solution.



--------------------------------------------------------------



Other Concerns

A new flag?

While this seems like a minor concern, it can be a major one. People have been flying the same flag for 80 years. What would the new flag be, easy. The five people under one union flag.




How would the government take on such a dramatic system of change?

Sure enough, China would have to go on a vigorous change to federalism. Some countries have adopted a system of transitional government to combat such changes. China would need to accept foreign aid, and go on a slow process of transition to federalism, but I believe that the end reward is worth it.



Sources

http://dartthrowingchimp.wordpress.com...

http://thescreamingpen.wordpress.com...

http://www.gov.cn...

http://www.china.org.cn...

http://www.travelchinaguide.com...

http://www.travelchinaguide.com...

http://www.radioradicale.it...

http://www.china-embassy.org...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com...


Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his first round and shall now begin. However, I will be requesting the conduct point deducted from my opponent for the fact that he has violated an agreement stated in the first round. Please note:

"My opponent will also set no restrictions to arguments in rounds later on. "

This has been violated by the fact that my opponent has decided to untruthfully stated:

"My opponent and me have agreed on a few things in the comments. - China will follow the US and Korean Three Branch system.(House,Executive,Senate)"

I have already given in to 2 handicaps for my opponent's convenience, so I shall not be granting a third. I will retract my request for the conduct point if my opponent similarly retracts the statement detailing exactly what type of system for China's republic I will be arguing for. The Con argument is my job, not Pro's, otherwise we would have one person arguing with himself!

That being said, I would like to structure my response to my opponent with the following statements:

1. A system of government should reflect the needs and wants of the country
2. A system of government should be based on the morals and values of the country
3. There is no obligation for a country to develop a system of government in accordance with the morals and values of outsiders

I am sure that these statements are incredibly clear. I don't expect my neighbor to raise their children according to my religious beliefs, or organize their household in accordance to my cultural specifications. I now respectfully accuse my opponent of doing exactly this. China does not need a US McGovernment.

Furthermore, while my opponent's point is very clear and has cited many sources, I would like to point out that none of those sources are actually contributing to his argument. They are merely informational aids from basic sites that I will now cite as my own sources in order to dismantle my opponent's argument.

Thank you.

***

The theme of my argument is one, simple word:

Chaos.

What my opponent fails to realize is that China, with a history of 5000+ years, has always been a country with a culture of independence and isolationism. It is through this isolationism that China has managed to grow and thrive into an advanced civilization in the early part of recorded history and become a leading force throughout all of Asia. Please examine the age of China throughout its dynasties:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anyone who has studied Chinese History knows that they record their history not as a series of International wars, but as a series of Civil wars. Please note the changes in Dynasty in the following link:

http://www.travelchinaguide.com...

Scholars note that ages of prosperity are closely linked with lack of political movement and Ages of poverty, want, and need are always linked with political strife. This is why there is a pervasive cultural fear among the Chinese, of which I am included, of chaos. The people are not concerned with politics. They are an agricultural and industrious people concerned with their own basic needs.

Please see the very introduction to the Wiki article on "Politics of China"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Note that even in the introduction of this extremely large topic, this fear is voiced:

"Some Chinese scholars such as Zhou Tianyong, the vice director of research of the Central Party School, argue that gradual political reform as well as repression of those pushing for overly rapid change over the next thirty years will be essential if China is to avoid an overly turbulent transition to a middle class dominated polity. Some Chinese look back to the Cultural Revolution and fear chaos if the Communist Party should lose control due to domestic upheavals and so a robust system of monitoring and control is in place to counter the growing pressure for political change."

Now, we must ask my opponent: Are you championing a United States Federal Government system simply because the western mindset has pervasively convinced the rest of the world that this is the way to go? The answer is Yes. My opponent is championing a new branch of US McGovernment to be opened in China. The Chinese will not thank my opponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Cultural Revolution is merely one example of how systems of political upheaval can severely damage a country's economic stability and integrity. I respectfully accuse my opponent of threatening China with chaos and strife simply because he has inherited the pervasive mindset that the Western system of Government, most similar to that of the United States, is a cookie-cutter McGovernment that works for all countries or *should* work for all countries.

***

Examine the following summary of my opponent's arguments:

1, 2, & 3) Large Administration, Cultural and Ethnic Division, Autonomy does not work

My opponent doesn't actually make 3 arguments, he makes one. He is attempting to delude the audience by stating that the need for China to allocate its rule to representatives of smaller regions, and that this supports his calling for his US McGovernment. But I have some news that is welcome to the audience, but not welcome to my opponent:

The current system of administration is already set up in this manner, according to one of my opponent's very own source citations:

http://www.china.org.cn...

My opponent's source itself is about all the benefits that autonomy has had for the minorities in dealing with crises, progress in health care, progress in education reform, etc. Never have I participated in a debate in which my opponent has provided me with such excellent tools that help dismantle his own argument.

Now, why would we want to throw a wrench in a system that is working? Why inflict chaos, economic, and political strife on a country that is taking care of its minorities and giving them autonomous rule enough to prosper?

I think that my opponent's US McGovernment may be best suited elsewhere. We can toss out these three arguments (or rather, one argument).

Now, my opponent's only remaining argument is that it may lead to a possible reunification with Taiwan. Please see the following source:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, relationships between China and Taiwan could be better, but audience, please keep in mind that we should not be looking at this from a Western point of view. We must look at it from the Chinese point of view. China does not recognize the independence of Taiwan, they still think that Taiwan is part of China. That being said, there is no "reunification" problem. China is simply still in talks to negotiate a relationship with Taiwan, and slow progress is being made, with some bumps in the road.

Furthermore, I don't see why my opponent thinks this is a priority. A good cause, yes, but not a priority. Taiwan's population is less than 2% of China's population. I think that China has a lot more things to worry about than inflicting chaos and political strife on 100% of its citizens simply to set up my opponent's dream US McGovernment.

That being said, one of my opponent's restrictions/handicaps on me is that I must argue for some FORM of republic, as stated in the comments.

"You are Pro, and I am Con. You will be arguing that China should become a Federal Rupublic, and I will be arguing against you, with the additional restriction that I think that China should be a Republic of *some sort*. Did I get that right?"

"Yes. Some sort of republic."

In that case, I will simply state that China should be the type of republic it is right now. China cannot afford to have political upheaval simply because my opponent is enamored with establishing a US McGovernment.

I thank the audience and my opponent. I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

"My opponent and me have agreed on a few things in the comments. - China will follow the US and Korean Three Branch system.(House,Executive,Senate)"

I have already given in to 2 handicaps for my opponent's convenience, so I shall not be granting a third. I will retract my request for the conduct point if my opponent similarly retracts the statement detailing exactly what type of system for China's republic I will be arguing for. The Con argument is my job, not Pro's, otherwise we would have one person arguing with himself!

I misunderstood you in the comments, so I withdraw this statement.



I am sure that these statements are incredibly clear. I don't expect my neighbor to raise their children according to my religious beliefs, or organize their household in accordance to my cultural specifications. I now respectfully accuse my opponent of doing exactly this. China does not need a US McGovernment.

I am not sure where you are going with this, but the mcgovernment buissness needs to stop. Federalism is not a western ideal, and is currently in use on 6 continents over 25 countries. Currently, about 40% of the world population belong to a federal country. You asked me to not judge your morals and values, so respect mine.



Countries Which use federalism

United States
Canada
Mexico
Australia
Brazil
Ethiopia
Germany
India
Mexico
Nigeria
Pakistan
Switzerland
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Bosnia and Hergovia
Comoros
Malaysia
Federated States of Micronesia
Nepal
Russia
St. Kitts and Nevis
South Africa (Unitary/Federal)
Spain (Unitary/Federal)
UAE (Strong Centrist Federalism)
Venuzuela
Iraq (Kurd/Transitional)
Sudan (Transitional)
South Sudan

http://www.forumfed.org...



Now if you study the map/list, you were probably able to observe that many of the federal countries have been historic melting pots of cultures. China is no different. With Muslim Turks in Xinjiang and contemporary liberals in Hong Kong asking for more and more out of the CCP, China is at risk of fracture. They could take the smart move and decentralize, or they risk dead bodies lining the streets. The CCP has suppressed dozens of federalist movements already, in contrast to nationalist support for federalism.

These article's display nicely what might happen to China if they don't reform their administrative system:

http://www.waseda.jp...

http://law.nus.edu.sg...

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk...


In my research, I found very little support for China's unitarianism ideology, but many articles and people advocating for decentralized reform. It is baffling that anyone would support centralizing one government for nearly 1.5 billion people.

What my opponent fails to realize is that China, with a history of 5000+ years, has always been a country with a culture of independence and isolationism. It is through this isolationism that China has managed to grow and thrive into an advanced civilization in the early part of recorded history and become a leading force throughout all of Asia. Please examine the age of China throughout its dynasties:

I do realize this. And first of all, federalism has nothing to do with isolationism. It is simply the administration of a country, and a system that provides more rights to citizens of different customs and cultures.

Scholars note that ages of prosperity are closely linked with lack of political movement and Ages of poverty, want, and need are always linked with political strife. This is why there is a pervasive cultural fear among the Chinese, of which I am included, of chaos. The people are not concerned with politics. They are an agricultural and industrious people concerned with their own basic needs.

I must admit, I have never heard of this political philosophy, and am quite intrested in knowing who invented it. Change is not always a bad thing, and your view that people care only for basic needs seems to be taken from a legalist viewpoint.

Now, I must say that's false. People in China do care about politics, and they want more rights. Even with the current system, they are not getting their basic needs. The people are starving because the government tries to control the life of every citizen. Decentralize, and let regions manage themselves. The Central government should only interfere when it is on behalf of the nation as a whole. Your centralist view points are edging very close to Authoritarianism. The solution is decentralization, because while some districts have become wealthier, some have become even poorer at the expense of the others.



http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org...


The current system of administration is already set up in this manner, according to one of my opponent's very own source citations:

Assuming you read my argument, I had already stated that is how China is set up. I then went on to say that it needed a few reforms. Districts like Liaoning, that are ethnically and culturally Korean, need more rights, as their customs are not being respected. It is not the first time people have rebelled against the government due to them exercising to much control.








My opponents argument that China can not afford the unrest is illogical. Chinas current system is causing unrest. There are a million seccession movements within the country. If they don't start decentralizing, they will lose the unity they have achieved. China has already been charted as unstable, so the only viable solution is to offer these regions statehood. The government is trying to manage to much, and it will end in disaster.



http://www.clb.org.hk...



http://ffp.statesindex.org...

My opponent's source itself is about all the benefits that autonomy has had for the minorities in dealing with crises, progress in health care, progress in education reform, etc. Never have I participated in a debate in which my opponent has provided me with such excellent tools that help dismantle his own argument.

Ha, it's a Chinese domain, so I didn't expect it to say anything bad about the sytem. Given government cencorship and all. Anyways, if the autonomy system was working, how come mass riots spring up every year in those regions? According to the previous failed state index, China is more unstable then most African nations.



http://www.cfr.org...

Yes, relationships between China and Taiwan could be better, but audience, please keep in mind that we should not be looking at this from a Western point of view. We must look at it from the Chinese point of view. China does not recognize the independence of Taiwan, they still think that Taiwan is part of China. That being said, there is no "reunification" problem. China is simply still in talks to negotiate a relationship with Taiwan, and slow progress is being made, with some bumps in the road.

Sure, talks. They actually started making actual talks very recently. This is unrelated from the debate, but China should not be pointing a couple thousand missles if they want peace.



In that case, I will simply state that China should be the type of republic it is right now. China cannot afford to have political upheaval simply because my opponent is enamored with establishing a US McGovernment.

1. China is as much a republic as Korea claims to be.

2.China is already facing massive unrest, because they are unwilling to reform.

3.We should not avoid hard questions and problems simply because they can cause people to be angry.

4. Key leaders in Tibet,Xinjiang,Mongolia, and Tiawan support a federal China.

5. My opponents arguments rest on the fact that I'm a stupid westerner, even though I have a passion for world administration reforms.

Thank you for accepting, and thanks to the audience as well.










Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and for his retraction.

I would like to clarify with my opponent about the McGovernment issue before we begin:

My issue with my opponent's proposal is not that he is proposing Federalism. I have nothing against Federalism and I find it to be an excellent system of government. My problem is with the fact that my obviously politically well-informed opponent has become enamored with Federalism to the point that he sees it as a target or goal for a country that culturally, historically, and logically is completely incompatible with my opponent's proposed version of Federalism.

Government is not a one-size-fits-all sock from the discount bin at the pharmacy. Government needs to be tailored to the country based on specific things. I will continue to oppose my opponent's attempts to inflict a McGovernment on the Chinese because he has *not adequately proven* that it is what China needs. None of his arguments have survived my first round rebuttals.

Even now, my opponent assumes that by grouping China as a "melting pot" of cultures along with many other Federalist countries, he can justify a Federalist government. This is obviously a Non Sequitor fallacy and the audience should not be fooled. For thousands of years, China has always been at what my opponent defines as "Risk of fracture".

Please note:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

These ethnic groups have been part of China for at least 1000 years, many ranging as far back as before the common era. How can this possibly compare to the countries my opponent is pointing to, which are melting pots because of Immigration movements in the 19th century?

Furthermore, let us examine my opponent's three sources about "what might happen to China if they don't reform their administrative system"

I have read through the sources but I do not find them convincing. Perhaps the audience will disagree with me, but I believe they will not. Even their concluding paragraphs are dubious:

"This article nevertheless does not propose to establish a full European and American style federal China. When setting up the deferalist system in China, China's reality, culture and history must be taken into account in order to include the wishes and interests of the people."

The second article sums up its suggestions by saying "It may not be called federalism as commonly understood by Western scholars, but it will be China's brand of federalism".

The third article concludes with "At the practical level, it seems that the timing is not right for the legitimization of federalism".

It is clear that the approach these authors are taking is similar to that of my opponent: to examine Federalism in other countries, and try to mold it onto China in the hopes it will cover up what they don't like. However, the authors wisely concede that IF federalism were to be implemented, it would need to be highly tailored to China.

As for the other of my opponent's sources, which has to do with rural poverty, I highly question whether my opponent reads his own sources. While my opponent points to this poverty chart and blames political instability, the source itself states that the main contributors are simply:

"Increasingly frequent natural calamities, especially floods and droughts, caused by extreme weather conditions that are associated with climate change

Remote locations with poor community infrastructure and services, such as paved roads, markets and safe drinking water

Depleted natural resources and decreasing farm sizes

Lack of skills and capacity, and a disproportionate incidence of illiteracy and poor skills among women

Limited access to inputs, financial services, markets and value chains

Reliance on traditional farming techniques."

In other words, the rural poor are poor simply because of their remote location. I have absolutely no idea why my opponent thinks that political change can draw provinces physically closer together.

Finally, my opponent has brought forth a new argument not previously mentioned in his previous ones: The issue of decentralization. This is something he is a proponent of and he dedicates nearly all of the rest of his arguments and pictures to the notion that China must decentralize.

There's a pretty big problem with this:

Decentralization has nothing specifically to do with this debate.

Now audience, you may ask "Why would that be? Pro has spent 80% of his post arguing for decentralization, and provided all this evidence. Doesn't that hurt your case, Con?"

Absolutely not. Because I am in favor of decentralization for all the reasons that my opponent listed. In fact, I would say that I am much more a proponent for it than he is, because I believe that the ULTIMATE goal for China, based on China's history, wants, and needs of their people, is pure communism.

Now, audience, please note I am not changing my argument. I maintain that China should be a Republic now, and for the foreseeable future, because political change can be far more disastrous than what my opponent's fear-mongering suggests. However, China should eventually become Anarcho-Communist as an end goal.

My reasoning actually is based on something my opponent has called on clarification for: And that is, Chinese Philosophy.

One of the core tenets of Chinese Philosophy is Taoism, which is a philosophy that focuses on moderation and the natural tendency to seek it. They call this natural path of moderation "The Way" or "The Tao". Lao Tsu, the founder of Taoism comments thusly on government:

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

http://www.wussu.com...

Lao Tsu and Confucius had very particular views on the role of government in China. Primarily that a very, very strong one should exist, but should do nothing.

The analogy of the wheel, a very popular Chinese story demonstrates this. The Chinese liken their society to a Wheel that moves. The citizens represent the outer wheel, which turns and moves a lot. The inner wheel represents the nobility and landowners and government representatives. The spokes represent merchants, traders, and craftsmen who glue society together. At the very center is the Emperor, or now, the government. The key thing about this story is the notion that the Emperor at the center, is the axle. The axle is not meant to move, but to hold the wheel together so that it can turn efficiently. They say that the best type of ruler, is one that seems not to do anything at all, and simply allow people to achieve prosperity with little to no involvement.

Put short, they either want a figurehead totalitarian dictator, or no rulers at all. A federalist government is the exact middle they are trying to avoid, and the Communist Party is currently the former trying to become the latter.

Could the Communist Party do better? Yes. Should they change? Eventually. Should they move towards my opponent's model of Federalism? Absolutely not. It is not a match for their culture, it is not a match for their history. We cannot look at China's state in the past 5 or 10 years and make such an ignorant conclusion. Culturally, chaos is China's worst enemy. They have 4 times our population, so a few lives or liberties lost to them is an equal exchange for the Party preventing political catastrophe and widespread ruin.

Western government as we know it has only been around for 2-3 hundred years at most and even then, has changed drastically every decade. China has 5000+ years of history and has only ever known either the Emperor or Communist dictatorship.

Let the Communist party do what it must for China. It is changing, but a Federalist McGovernment is not the way.

Thank you all.
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

I will conclude in round 4, as per rules, but first I want to address a couple concerns and likely confusions my opponent may be having.

My issue with my opponent's proposal is not that he is proposing Federalism. I have nothing against Federalism and I find it to be an excellent system of government. My problem is with the fact that my obviously politically well-informed opponent has become enamored with Federalism to the point that he sees it as a target or goal for a country that culturally, historically, and logically is completely incompatible with my opponent's proposed version of Federalism.Government is not a one-size-fits-all sock from the discount bin at the pharmacy. Government needs to be tailored to the country based on specific things. I will continue to oppose my opponent's attempts to inflict a McGovernment on the Chinese because he has *not adequately proven* that it is what China needs. None of his arguments have survived my first round rebuttals.

When I said "for the purpose of the debate" , I meant that any explanation of federalism should be explained through the representative system, not that China should adopt the US system to the number. There is more then one form of federalism, and I did not want me and my opponent to be arguing a million different federal idealism's. So, for simplicity, I narrowed what may be explained in the debate to the representative system, as a rule, and not as a resolution.

While I don't see the harm in duel interactions between the state government and centralized federal government, I am not oblivious to quite obvious differences. As for federalism, it is a one sock fits all kind of deal, and has been proved to work in 25 countries, with distinct ethnic, cultural, and political differences. Sorry for any confusion this may of caused my opponent, and I hope that clarified things for him and the audience.



CONCLUSION

- My opponent has brought up several arguments regarding "republic" status, which is against the premise I set for the debate.

- My opponent was more enamored with a anti US federal viewpoint, then focusing on the actual resolution. "China should become a Federal Republic"

- My opponent has brought many of my sources in question, while he himself has used Wikipedia. Wiki articles are sometimes edited over a hundred times a day.

- My opponent has continued to use the "mcgovernment" attack, even after I politely asked him to stop. Direct contradiction to his acceptance statement, that beliefs and values could be freely spoken and treated with respect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion 2

- China is in a state of unrest, and my opponents proposed "change nothing" stance does little to help a nation with some of the highest political instability in the world.

- Federalism would provide more rights to ethnic and cultural minority's, while weakening the influence and power of the centralized government.

- Centralism is an absurd philosophy for 1.5 billion people, and puts to much power in the hands of so few, over so many.

- China is not just "one culture", and currently, many peoples beliefs and customs get overlooked.

- Dividing China into states, might alleviate seccession movements, as it gives unstable regions more rights to self determination, and self governance.

- Chinese nationals do not care just about money and food, and many want more civil rights.

To conclude, Chinas current administaration system is not working, and currently suffers from some of the worst unrest in the world. Doing nothing will not help anybody. Even though hardships may follow, I believe, through some simple reforms, China will pave the way for a better life for its citizens.

Thank you for debating me Kleptin, and I appreciate your effort. Good luck to you in future debates.

*Reminder, no new arguments are rebuttals should go in the conclusion round :)*

Kleptin

Con

I first want to thank my opponent for a stimulating debate. Although throughout our exchange I have disagreed with him, I have nonetheless learned much about his proposed system of government, the benefits, and of course, the drawbacks.

***

My conclusion is quite simplistic as my opponent is the one to carry the burden of proof for the resolution that China should become a Federal Republic, and the conclusion is that my opponent has not successfully proven to myself, or to the audience, that China is ready to undergo such a specific political change.

I shall not be introducing any new arguments, but I shall address my opponent's accusations of violating certain rules or regulations:

1. My opponent accuses me of arguing or redefining "republic". I have only used the word "republic" 4 times outside of quoting my opponent throughout this entire debate and I honestly have no idea what his accusation is based on.

2. My opponent accuses me of not focusing on the resolution. I have given numerous arguments about why my opponent's proposed government is a poor fit for China, countered all of his arguments, and the only counterpoints he proposed in return were expressions of indignation at my disapproval.

3. Although there is a stigma against using Wikipedia, I have only used Wikipedia to illustrate some basic facts and definitions. My opponent criticizes me for this, but strangely, he has not disagreed with a single thing I derived from those sources, whereas he has used generally poor sources that ended up dismantling his arguments more than helping them. I find it better to use a "lazy" source than ones that are misleading, misinterpreted, and misused to the highest degree, or ones that are purely decorative in nature as was the case for half of his pictures.

4. My opponent has proposed that I violated rules of conduct by attacking his argument. I extended and requested the courtesy to mutually respect the values and beliefs that arguments are based on, and I have done this. However, I never mentioned anything about not attacking my opponent's arguments. What I have attacked and criticized is my opponent's seemingly blind faith that this "Federal Republic" is a fit for all countries, despite all of my unaddressed and uncountered arguments that China has no political, historical, or logical predisposition toward this type of government, and that it would actually harm the country.

5. My opponent continuously fear-mongers the audience into assuming that China is some impoverished or desolate country with dwindling resources and rife with political rebellion, pressuring the audience into thinking that rapid political change is somehow a vital necessity. However, I have successfully called out each and every single one of his attempts by questioning the validity or relevance of his sources and supporting the cultural fear of political upheaval. His arguments about cultural and ethnic minorities is answered by his own source stating that autonomy has made life easy for them. His arguments about poverty are answered by his own source stating that the poverty is the fault of geography, not politics. And finally, as I commented before, his arguments for decentralization are irrelevant to the resolution because decentralization is the goal of the current communist party, and is a legitimate course of action in the pursuit of numerous political endpoints, not just for a Federal Republic.

To conclude, audience, there simply aren't any arguments made by my opponent which are left standing, and I don't find any legitimate basis to the countless technical or conduct issues my opponent focuses on. My opponent has given little to no attention to any of my counterarguments, and has actually done very little to actually answer my criticisms of his sources, facts, and arguments.

As frustrated as I (or you, audience) may be by my opponent's responses though, all of my arguments have been extended to this very point, and I hope, audience, that you have concluded the same thing I have:

Pro did not meet his burden at all.

Thank you to my opponent, and to you, audience.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
No, a federal republic.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
@Jiffy

So you were advocating a federal monarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Your reasoning is confusing me. Kleptin was advocating the status quo, and I was suggesting change. I said that China should become more federal, and he said that they should stay how they are.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
This was a very confusing debate. At the end of the day I hand it to Con due mostly to the arguments about the ideal system of government for China. I'm told that the Chinese ideal is a very strong government with a very powerful figurehead who doesn't do anything. As con points out, this is basically the exact opposite of federalism and as such there's no reason to project a western style government onto China.

This is where my thoughts were at the end of the debate. It was extremely confusing as to who was advocating a system closer to the status quo as both made the claim, but ultimately since I'm convinced by Con what system is best for China, and federalism is not it, even if Pro is closer to the status quo I am not given sufficient reason to prefer the status quo.

On top of that, there were other more minor factors Con won such as stability leading to a clear con ballot.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
thett3 - on his debate with roy about the voting system
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
thett3 made an interesting argument about this with Roy - that game theory dictates you should award as many points to the person you think won as possible because you know that others are doing that too, so it's a prisoner's dilemma game.

But yeah, here you really did make me re-read part of the debate, and I really did notice a lot of S&G errors, which swayed my opinion on S&G. That's the danger you face when you ask someone to re-read a part of your debate - that they might decide for you, but they might decide differently all of a sudden on sources, S&G, and conduct.

I'm still undecided, but I'm learning conduct towards Kleptin the more we talk because I am realizing that you tried to have it both ways: *you* argued all your net benefits from China becoming a "republic" then asked for conduct when Kleptin tried to argue against the republic aspect implicitly as well.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Ha, and you're the one who said people vote to sway thing their way. You just wrote 4 pareagraphs, then switched your vote to give the opponent the edge -_-
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
>Chinese nationals do not care just about money and food, and many want more civil rights.

You are directly arguing the "republic" aspect of the resolution here. If China became a de-centralized dictatorship, this wouldn't result in more civil rights. Only if it became more democratic would this increase civil rights............................
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
If you still disagree with my RFD, then debate me on it:

Jifpop won his debate against Kleptin. I'll take Con.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
You yourself are arguing implicitly that China should adopt a representative democracy. If they merely tweaked their current authoritarian government, I don't see why the protests would stop. Your net benefit derives from arguing the REPUBLIC aspect of the resolution, which you fault Con for doing.

> Federalism would provide more rights to ethnic and cultural minority's, while weakening the influence and power of the centralized government.

Not if it were imposed in a system of dictatorship. Your net benefit once again derives from the "republic" aspect of the resolution, which you just told me I can't consider. So this point and the previous one I have to throw out of the debate.

>Centralism is an absurd philosophy for 1.5 billion people, and puts to much power in the hands of so few, over so many.

I generally agree with you here, but I don't see why local authoritarianism is any better. The idea that local issues should be decided locally by the people themselves = the idea of having local representative democracies. Again, this argument argues the "republic" aspect implicitly.

>China is not just "one culture", and currently, many peoples beliefs and customs get overlooked.

Okay, this isn't so much a reason to vote for you as just a true statement. I don't think Kleptin ever contests this.

>Dividing China into states, might alleviate seccession movements, as it gives unstable regions more rights to self determination, and self governance.

Not if the local government is just a new dictatorship. The people want the right for self-determination, which means you derive this net benefit from the democratic aspect of the resolution.

>Chinese nationals do not care just about money and food, and many want more civil rights.

You are directly arguing the "republic" aspect of the resolution here. If China because a de-centralized dictatorship, this wouldn't result in more civil rights. Only if it became more democratic would this increase civil
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro should have defended his sources, I feel that he adequately met the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Also, having to re-read Pro's conclusion again, I noticed an awful number of spelling and grammar mistakes. I probably wouldn't have noticed, except Pro implored me to re-read the Conclusion - e.g. "cultural minority's" should be "minorities" and the possessive is left off "my opponents" in many places.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments on both sides were very good. However, despite Con's accusations, I do think that Pro met his burden of proof. In addition, Con devoted a large part of all his rounds towards pointing out Pro's supposed violations of conduct and details concerning the resolution, rather than actually debating...
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll start with sources. Jifpop09 has a bad habit of dropping his own sources and moving on rather than taking the time to defend them. As such, everything Con says goes straight through the debate, and does quite a bit to weaken Pro's arguments. I don't find his sources incredibly convincing either, but the lack of response on them (besides a general "Wikipedia bad" argument) gives him easy points here. As for arguments, I think Pro let himself get swayed too much here. I don't see anything about a time frame in which this transition to a republic should occur, and yet Kleptin constantly claims that Pro is arguing for a rapid transition. And Pro seems to buy it! As long as I buy all of the arguments of upheaval that Con claims (and Pro spends too little time on), I really have no choice but to vote for the likeliest and largest harm in the debate. As for conduct, the point is allocated here b/c of Con's redefinition of his case in R3. The long term communism goal was brand new.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Jifpop09KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This line killed Con's side: "My conclusion is quite simplistic as my opponent is the one to carry the burden of proof for the resolution that China should become a Federal Republic, and the conclusion is that my opponent has not successfully proven to myself, or to the audience, that China is ready to undergo such a specific political change." If you read any of Pro's argument you will see this is clearly wrong for example just read Pro's round 4. This killed any chance of me voting conduct or argument to Con, sources lean Pro but not by enough to award points. S &. G is a tie, which is typical