The Instigator
porkbunlover
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
adamapollo
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

China should not free Tibet.

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 3 votes the winner is...
adamapollo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,655 times Debate No: 7903
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

porkbunlover

Pro

Hi, thanks in advance for accepting this debate.

We will begin debating in the 2nd round.
adamapollo

Con

Okay, whenever you're ready
Debate Round No. 1
porkbunlover

Pro

Oh, I'm sorry... for not posting an opening debate. (: I'm new to this online debate thing.. sorry if i broke a rule or something........

Anyway, let's have fun in this debate. (:

Over the years, there has been a lot of controversy around the subject of Tibet and China. Most articles, etc. describe China as the Commie human-rights violator. They blame China for everything from the destruction of the Amazon to global warming. Environmentalists constantly speak about the huge number of CO2 and other gases released while human-rights activists prod and poke chinese officials to lift the one-child rule. Well, let's see what happens. China lifts the one-child rule thats been there for over than a decade, and because of China's vast population and crumbling soil, many die. Thus, China gets blamed for that as well. Then all these people are born, using up more resources, more oil, and more things that pollute our world. Then they get blamed for that. I actually have many friends who live in China, and have visited China many times. Everything is fine there. My friends don't complain or whine, they know the governments doing what's best for them and the country. Okay, maybe sometimes, officials so something drastic or what would be viewed as us Americans as immoral or unacceptable, but you got to give them some space. Nobody's perfect, and with constant pressure from media and organizations to change their ways, it makes perfection even more unlikelier. Something many people don't understand is that life in China is different from life in America. They have SO MANY people, and without the one-child rule, their population would increase even further. Sadly, some people don't get that, and think that people should be able to have 5, even 10 kids and have 8 of them die from starvation or unclean circumstances. Down the entire Mississippi River is a region of great, fertile soil. Look at China. There are maybe a few spots in the entire country that are as fertile as the region around the Mississippi. What the previous example has to do with this topic is the following: I think people don't really understand China, and every little thing they do offends some person or organization and it gets on the paper. Just as I wrote before, if China pleases one type of person, another is going to get mad and so on. So let's see about Tibet.

Ever since the announcement of the 2008 Summer Olympics being held at Beijing, China, people have been frenzying about Tibet and its relations with China. Well, like the example above says, lets see what happens if China does free Tibet. 1) Tibet has little to none natural resources, and right now, every single province in China is donating money to help Tibet. 2) What about tourism? Well, of you count the percentage of Chinese people in the entirety of all the worlds' population, you shall find it is a lot. So if tourism is virtually the only thing that will keep Tibet alive if China does free it, and I can almost guarantee Tibet will lose most or all of the tourists. What can we conclude from this? We can conclude that even if Tibet is freed, it will be worse off and China will be blamed. Again. For freeing Tibet. What about their culture? Well, not to be completely rude or anything, but isn't living a good and healthy life more important then preserving your culture? I know culture is very important to a whole bunch of people, but does that bring you food? Shelther? Clothing? I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but I can tell you one thing; living with it and being fine with it is a whole lot better then trying to revoke against China and causing more chaos around the globe. In Janurary 2007, the Dalai Lama had told a private television channel that he wanted Tibetians not to think in terms of history, but to accept Tibet as a part of China.

Thanks again for accepting. Look foward to hearing back:D.
adamapollo

Con

Ok, first in response to your first paragraph, thanks for providing the background information, but this is irrelevant to the debate. It doesn't matter if the Chinese government is loved by it's people or it's going to be overthrown any day now.

Off of your first point, I would like to see at least a URL or an author for that, so all the evidence is on the table. However, the majority of developments from "every single province in China" are used to benefit Han Chinese, rather than the Native Tibetans. According to John Powers, author of the book History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China, the Chinese have been viewed by the native Tibetans as equivalent to Nazi Germany in terms of oppression. Furthermore, the developments have in some cases been on account of prison work camps like those of Nazi Germany. According to Robert Barnett on this subject, "The most important evidence comes from an official report written to Premier Zhou Enlai in 1962 by the late Panchen Lama, then head of the Tibetan government. The report noted that 'there has been an evident and severe reduction in the present-day Tibetan population' due to the fact that "many people have been lost in battle,' 'many people were arrested and imprisoned caused large numbers of people to die abnormal deaths," and "many people died of starvation or because they were so physically weak that they could not resist minor illnesses"... In a speech delivered in 1987, the Panchen Lama estimated the number of prison deaths in Qinghai at around 5 percent of the total population in the area."
This brings me to the subject of the Panchen Lama, and thus the idea that China has been smothering Tibetan Culture. In 1995, when the Panchen Lama from before the Chinese invasion died, the Chinese government appointed a new, Han Chinese boy, raised in Beijing, with no respect towards the Tibetan methods for selecting a new one. The Chinese government has now placed the boy and his family under "protective" custody.
To answer your pre-empt to the cultural argument, Tibetans are still starving. On Sept 30, 2006, Chinese soldiers shot at a group of starving refugees fleeing their oppressive rule. An offical statement from the Office of Tibet says, "On September 30, Chinese border patrol fired at some 70 tired and starving Tibetans in Nangpa-la, in the Mount Everest region, as they were toiling toward Nepal to escape repression and exploitation in their homeland. A 17-year-old nun was killed on the spot, while two others were wounded; one died subsequently. Forty one escapees managed to reach Nepal. The remaining ones–many of them children aged between six and ten–were taken into custody. The incident took place in full view of a large group of foreign mountaineers, which is why the world knows about it now. And, yes, the incident has outraged the conscience of the international community. But China remains unabashed. To add insult to injury, spin doctors in Beijing have come up with a fantastic story. Beijing's official Xinhua News Agency said that the Tibetans attacked the soldiers, forcing the latter to open fire in self-defense! Earlier, Chinese diplomats in Kathmandu tracked down the foreign witnesses and made an attempt to silence them."
I would like to highlight the final sentence, which shows just how far China is willing to go. As for your final sentence, the Dalai Lama has just realized how much the Chinese government wants Tibet, and is willing to compromise. He is asking for an actual autonomous region, not just the flimsy title the Chinese government has smacked on Tibet to placate the people who want to lie to themselves.
Debate Round No. 2
porkbunlover

Pro

porkbunlover forfeited this round.
adamapollo

Con

adamapollo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
porkbunlover

Pro

porkbunlover forfeited this round.
adamapollo

Con

Yeah, so please vote, even though the debate was not finished.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro lost conduct by repeated forfeits. Pro lost arguments by leaving Con's arguments unrebutted.

The argument that Tibet would be economically better off cannot outweigh the human rights issues of Tibet being an unwilling captive. It would be for the people of Tibet to make the decision of whether or not they are willing to give up independence for prosperity, if in fact that was the choice. Slave states typically do not prosper in the long run, so the premise of prosperity is doubtful.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The block text is SO INTIMIDATING!!!!
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
Noo why so many forfeits??? karen!!
Posted by adamapollo 8 years ago
adamapollo
I agree, but this is should, not will be.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Tibet is never going to be freed. All the "Free Tibet" bumperstickers are useless. The people with them want it freed, but don't want the violence necessary to do so. Hooray for self-contradiction!
Posted by porkbunlover 8 years ago
porkbunlover
Hmm, neither actually. I just didn't have enough time to post an arguement :D.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Or perhaps Pro has a really amazing argument that would deter many potential debaters from ever accepting the challenge. Or perhaps Pros argument is rather long and he/she feels that others would not want to debate due to the amount of time it would take. Or it could be that Pro feels someone who feels strongly about the position would be more willing to accept the debate regardless of an opening argument. Might be that Pro is looking for just that sort of person. Or possibly Pro figures that not having an opening argument makes the debate more of a juicy challenge to some debaters; Pro might be seeking those debaters to debate with. OR MAYBE........ -.-
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro doesn't care enough about the topic to make an opening argument. That suggests Pro has some strange or unintelligent position on the subject, but we are supposed to accept the challenge and commit to a potential waste of time before the potential nonsense is revealed.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
There have been some good debates on this topic actually. But I think it's still ultimately a difficult position to advocate that a people should not have autonomy. Especially when they have had it in the past.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
EErrrm, wha-?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
porkbunloveradamapolloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by porkbunlover 8 years ago
porkbunlover
porkbunloveradamapolloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by adamapollo 8 years ago
adamapollo
porkbunloveradamapolloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05