The Instigator
Jifpop09
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
KingHenrikLundqvist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

China would of been better off under the Nationalists (Led by Chang-Kai-Shek)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,559 times Debate No: 48702
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Jifpop09

Pro

Rules:

1.
I will argue that a Nationalist China would be better for the people.

2.
My opponent shall argue otherwise.

3. For the purpose of the debate, it will be led by Chang Kai Shek.

4. Sun-yat-sens transitional government plan applies.

5. Evidence on Taiwans aftermath is allowed.

6. We will be of the assumption that tridemism is the political doctrine.

7. You may not make hypothetical military assumptions, since this is a philosophy debate, and most claims would most likely have little backing

KingHenrikLundqvist

Con

1.) I will be debating that China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung was the better path for the Chinese people by using evidence of China's rapid modernization and its jump to a world power

2.) I will debate that Chiang Kai Shek would have turned China into a Nazi style nation by using evidence of the Sino-German cooperation

3.) I will debate that Sun Yat-sen's transitional government plan does not apply


Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Pro

Argument 1: Cultural Revolution

If China had been led by the nationalists, then it is likely the cultural revolution would of never happened. A revolution which displaced millions, and destroyed 1000's of years of Chinese culture. Not only that, but many who were not communist "lackeys" were often tortured and raped, at Mao Zedong's "consent". State sponsored anarchy at its finest.





http://www.history.com...
http://www.mega.nu...



Argument 2: Success of Taiwan

In case some of you don't know much Chinese history, for 23 years, the communists were at war with the ruling nationalists. The nationalists believed that China should become a democracy, after a transition through military rule. After WW2, the nationalist army was completely destroyed, and Mao Zedong saw a chance to seize power. The communists defeated the nationalist army, and 2 million nationalist citizen and government personnel fled to Taiwan.



Today, Taiwan is known as one of the 4 Asian tigers, and has one of the highest standards of livings in the world. Not only that, but it is one of the most democratic and liberal nations on earth. Instead of Communism, they used capitalism and democracy to achieve their goals, doing so without the democide of 50 million people. Is it unreasonable to assume the mainland could of had a similar fate?




http://www.gallup.com...

Argument 3: Great Leap Forward

There is a evident problem with both communist and one party states. You have to put your economic future in the hands of a couple high ranking officials. During the great leap forward, Mao's attempt to get rid of China's agrarian reliance, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 18-45 million. Most of the deaths were the result of government democide, due to the protests and riots of the people. Even though China had a population boost, the great leap forward was one of the saddest tragedys in human history, and killed China's economy.



http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
http://www.sjsu.edu...

Now I'm sure my opponent will bring up many cases against the nationalists, so I will get more in depth next round. I am also certain that this particular opponent may attempt to use state sponsored media or websites for his sources, and I will remind him now, that the reliability of those sources are quite low.
KingHenrikLundqvist

Con

KingHenrikLundqvist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Pro

Extend all Arguments
KingHenrikLundqvist

Con

If you honestly think I'm going to debate someone that says "his sources are going to be unrealiable" than you are wrong. You are not the person to judge if my sources are reliable or not. That is the voters decision, I was expecting a good debate but I was wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Jifpop09

Pro

Extend all Arguments.

If you honestly think I'm going to debate someone that says "his sources are going to be unrealiable" than you are wrong. You are not the person to judge if my sources are reliable or not. That is the voters decision, I was expecting a good debate but I was wrong.

I also want a good debate, which is why I took the time to inform you that Chinese government sites and any DPRK website is without a doubt unreliable. I could of said nothing, and let the audience undoubtebly realize this. Anyways, here is the press freedom of China and DPRK.

As a 14 year old living in the states, I would avoid Maoism and Juche. You are to young to be worshipping Kim Jung Un. If you want to debate me on that, please feel free.

http://en.rsf.org...
KingHenrikLundqvist

Con

KingHenrikLundqvist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
My mistake, 18.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Ahem, corporate media. I don't think so. Plus, you're the one who tried to use the DPRK government website as a source '_'
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
HAAHAHAHA What an asinine ending, HE USES CORPORATE MEDIA AND HE CLAIMS THAT SOURCES THAT I MAY USE ARE INVALID? THIS DUDE IS A HYPOCRITE!
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Looks like a very interesting debate.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Don't be to sure. Especially since the nationalists had modeled after the American government. Lots of Americans here.
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Maoist here, just saying, you'll lose this.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I guess your sorta right, but it is illogical to make a statement about that the nationalists would not of been able to win the war or whatever. To many factors. I can argue on political and economic grounds regarding the success of Taiwan.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
What is a "hypothetical military assumption?"

Also, what is to prevent you from making "hypothetical economic assumptions?"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Jifpop09KingHenrikLundqvistTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, made no arguments, and gave no sources.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
Jifpop09KingHenrikLundqvistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made 3 such premises that weren't contested properly, it was a well written contention and Con refuses to debate on grounds of source reliability. Con would have continued after his attack accusations on sources but he didnt. It would have warranted a valid reply along with producing a valid argument. But this is not the case,obviously.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Jifpop09KingHenrikLundqvistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This would have been a very interesting debate. Too bad Con didn't present any arguments. However nobody really should win this debate since it wasn't really a debate.