The Instigator
WesternGuy2
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
eastcoastsamuel
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

On Balance, the Rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
eastcoastsamuel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,456 times Debate No: 30122
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

WesternGuy2

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate
I hope we have a great debate!
We"d like to start of with definitions

The Rise of China is the process of China, changing from a developing country with industrial economies to a developed one with service oriented economies, especially in the last ten years.
Interests of the US should be defined as the favorable conditions of the United States and their affairs, such as the economy, trade, and the quality of the life of US citizens.

My partner and I would like to provide the following:
OBSV 1-Even though our opponents might argue that China is doing well/has good army, The US still is the biggest superpower in the world. Foreign Policy Magazine States that China today simply does not have the military capability to challenge the United States in the Pacific, so my opponents cannot say that the US considers China as a threat.

Standard- Since this topic contains the words, "on balance" we have to look at this topic at a net benefit scale based on benefiting the interests of you, judge and the Quality of Life of the United States citizens.
With that said, we have a few main arguments

Contention 1- China"s cheap manufacturing increases American quality of life
These cheap products are benefiting many interests of the United States.
According to Washington Post, the American people benefit from "Made in China" labels, which indicate high quality and favorable price and increase American families' disposable income.
According to the Ohio State University, Manipulation of the current yuan value, which will benefit happen as China rises, can help keep the prices of China"s labor lower. It will be "able to ensure it stays artifi"cially low compared to the dollar, making Chinese goods cheaper for U.S. consumers."
In addition, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, rising imports from China decreases the price of non-durable goods by 2.8%.
According to Resources for Entrepreneurs - Perhaps China's greatest competitive advantage and the catalyst for its growth is its cheap and highly skilled work force.
The impact is clear. Americans have more purchasing power and will have a higher quality of life because of Chinese goods. This is clearly beneficial to you, judge, when you can afford to buy much more material goods because of China. With the rise of China, more of these affordable goods will be available, clearly benefiting US quality of life.
Contention 2- America and it"s companies benefit due to the rise of China
According to Washington Post,
$218.9 billion were totaled as the revenue of US companies in China.
Heritage.org states:
the US gains much from the economic relationship.
China was the third-largest buyer of our exports, a source of strength for our economy.
In addition, China helps increase US companies competitiveness.
If companies benefit with the rise of China, the US gains more economic relations, and the revenue grows increasing the economy of the United States and the Quality of Life of US citizens.

Contention 3- Increase in US profits and trade
The rise of China has helped increase trade with China and can lead to many benefits to the United States
According to the Office of the United States trade representative
U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $539 billion in 2011, resulting in export profits of $129 billion.
According to the Washington Post-
Since the United States and China established diplomatic relations, bilateral trade volume has grown nearly 120-fold. U.S. direct investment in China has topped $63.1 billion

According to World Policy, It is essential to remember that China"s rise strengthens America"s economy and future prosperity. Today, China is the largest growth market in the world for U.S. goods and services. Trade with China, has helped America"s recovery from the global financial crisis.
The impact is clear- When China rises, the United States is obviously benefited. Trade with China has caused us to help the economy, and if we continue to trade with China as it rises, the US economy will be greatly strengthened.
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I will be debating against the resolution, "Resolved; on balance the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States."

I mainly agree with the standards provided by my opponent, but I will stress that the "rise of China" refers not only to economic standards, but military and diplomatic/political standards as well.

1.) China's trade practices with the United States have resulted in a detrimental impact on jobs.
Due to Chinese imports outweighing US exports, trade with China has resulted in a loss of nearly three million jobs between 2001 and 2010 [1], with some states, such as New Hampshire, losing over two percent of total state employment due to China [1]. It has been concluded that these lost jobs, especially in manufacturing, are almost entirely the fault of China [2], and not the US'. With this tremendous loss of jobs, it is abundantly clear that China negatively affects the economy of the US, especially in jobs.

2.) China's economic policies threaten the United States dollar.
Recently, China has been buying a large amount of gold in an attempt to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency [3]. This, along with their goal of allowing the yuan, China's currency, to be traded freely would result in the weakening of the US dollar's dominance as the international reserve currency, making it more expensive for the US government to borrow money and to run perpetual trade and budget deficits [3].

3.) The rise of China threatens the United States' national security.
a.) Iran
China has a close relation with Iran, using its powerful position in the United Nations to protect Iran from UN sanctions [4]. China is also investing in several oil programs in Iran [4], assisting Iran's economy, in turn funding programs that threaten the security of the US. This results in grave threats to the US' security and stability.
b.) Cyber-attacks
China currently contains several powerful telecommunications companies, which China has the means, opportunity and motive to use against the United States and commit espionage [5]. Several cyber-attacks against the United States have also been traced back to the United States [5], necessitating an urge to avoid these companies to avoid further attacks on America. Chinese actors are moving into increasingly advanced operations against specialized targets [6], which further threatens the United States' security.

Since China threatens the United States economy by causing a tremendous loss of jobs as well as attempting to weaken the dollar as well as threatening national security through Iran and cyber-attacks, it is clear that the rise of China directly threatens the interests of the United States.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.

Sources: [1] http://www.epi.org...
[2] http://www.usitc.gov...
[3] http://www.aljazeera.com...
[4] http://www.rand.org...
[5] http://intelligence.house.gov...
[6] http://www.uscc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
WesternGuy2

Pro

Good Luck
I agree to broaden my rise of china definition
My opponents first argument is that jobs are lost due to China's rise
I have 5 refutations
1. China is not stealing jobs as their rise will change them to a service oriented economy, changing the course of our jobs.
2. Since we gave up industrialism, and turned to a service oriented economy, jobs are being shipped overseas. We as the US made that choice. We cannot expect jobs to come to us because the company is "hard core American" and wants the jobs to stay in America, though it might be cheaper for their country to ship their jobs someplace else
3. According to the Fiscal Cliff Times, China"s wages might be increasing we"re not admitting this to our opponents, but in the case our opponents are right, we win in both scenarios. China"s manufacturing productivity will improve at half that rate. There is a shortage of skilled workers even in major manufacturing centers such as Shanghai and Tianjin.
In the U.S., wage increases have been minimal for years and will remain at 3 percent or so annually. U.S. productivity will remain higher than China"s by a wide margin, and government incentives are also a factor in attracting US manufacturers back home. "Reinvesting in the U.S. will accelerate," the study says, "as it becomes one of the cheapest locations for manufacturing in the developed world."
4. we can already see a trend: according to a Boston Consulting Group study [{[cited in fiscal times study above]}]: U.S. manufacturing grew at an estimated annual rate of 9.1%in the first quarter of this year, compared with a disappointing 1.8% for the economy as a whole.
5. For instance:
Ford is repatriating 2,000 jobs from China to America
toy maker Wham-o is repatriating half of its production of Hula Hoops and Frisbees most from China

Their second argument is that China's economic policies threaten the United States Dollar
This is completely wrong
China would never threaten the US dollar.
If they decrease the value of the US dollar would cause China's bonds that US owes them to become worthless
China would lose out if the US dollar is threaten, so clearly there is no harm in the 2nd argument
Their third argument is that China's rise is a military threat
I have 7 refutations
1. According to the Heritage Foundation, China invests $30 billion in the United States. The US owes $907 billion to China for their holdings of our treasury securities. Thus, China going to war with the United States would be a very unlikely act, as destroying the US militarily would mean that the US would be less likely to pay back the debts it owes to China.
2. According to RAND, threat is composed of intent and capability. China doesn"t have the intent to attack the United States because we are good trading partners with them, and China invests a lot in the US, money that may be lost when China attacks the US.
3. Actually, China"s military is growing complacent. According to the New York Times, Colonel Liu, a former professor at China"s National Defense University, wrote that the army
had not been tested in decades and had grown complacent. "As a military that has not fought a war for
30 years, the People"s Liberation Army has reached a stage in which its biggest danger and No. 1 foe is
corruption,"
4. According to Foreign Policy Here the PLA lags far behind the
Pentagon. In 2009, the U.S. military spent $738 billion on defense and homeland security. Estimates for
China's annual military budget vary considerably, ranging from $69.5 billion to $150 billion, but it's
clear that U.S. military spending is still several times higher than China's, the world's second highest.
5. China is doing their share to reduce their consumption of gasoline. According to World Bank, China is currently taking drastic measures to help reduce their environmental footprint. For example: Between 2011 and 2015, China"s central government plans to invest around $470 billion dollars in
protecting the environment, more than double what was invested over the previous 5 years.
6. China has an expanding green vehicle industry. Export amounts are predicted to rise from $180 billion today to $280 billion by 2030. Green services will double by that year, with exports predicted to rise to $125 billion.
7. According to foreignpolicy.com, Washington"s cyber-warfare capability on Beijing"s ability to wage high-technology
warfare is equally significant. The same advanced Chinese technologies and weaponry that pessimists
argue present a major threat to U.S. security, including asbms, are highly dependent on advanced
communication and surveillance technologies that are particularly vulnerable to U.S. cyber attacks.
As you can see, I have solidly refuted each of my opponents arguments
So, for all these reasons, please vote for the AFF
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and for his arguments.

I will first respond to my opponent's contentions before responding to his rebuttals of my contentions.

In my opponent's observations, my opponent states that China does not have the military capability to challenge the United States in the Pacific, so I cannot claim that the US considers China a threat. This is inaccurate as this is assuming that China would be engaging in a direct, militaristic conflict with the United States. This is also inaccurate as just because the US is the sole superpower on the planet does not mean there will be no one to challenge them. Keep in mind, the US was the sole superpower in 2001, and yet we faced the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, causing us to go to war overseas for nearly ten years.

My opponent's first contention states that China's cheap manufacturing increases quality of life. My opponent tags several sources, yet does not link to them, so I will ask my opponent to provide those links for a proper understanding of the points. Yet this does not address the numerous lost US jobs and decrease in wages [1], which definitely lowers the quality of life in the US drastically. While manipulation of the current yuan does result in cheaper goods for US consumers, Chinese currency manipulation is not only illegal [2] but it severely hurts US jobs and results in hundreds of billions of dollars lost [3]. This heavily outweighs the impact my opponent is trying to advance.

My opponent's second contention states that China helps American companies. Again, this does not address the tremendous loss of jobs, decrease in wages as well as billions lost due to the trade deficit. My opponent states as well in this contention that China helps US companies by being a source of competition. My opponent does not specify as to how this helps US companies, so until he does provide some backing for this, this point must be ignored. That aside, rising competitiveness between the US and China might actually be dangerous, especially in technology [3].

My opponent's third contention states that China helps in trade, and he states several dollar amounts that trade with China raises with the US. However, this again does not address that China and the US are unbalanced when it comes to trade, resulting in tremendous job losses and numerous other economic faults, which outweigh any gained revenue.

I will now proceed to address my opponent's rebuttals.

My opponent's rebuttals to my first contention is that "China is not stealing jobs as their rise will change their economy", "Jobs being shipped overseas is our own fault and we shouldn't expect jobs to come to us", "China's wages might be increasing, but this doesn't matter as US productivity will remain higher than China's", "US manufacturing is rising" and "These major companies are moving back to the US". The first rebuttal does not address my contention, as it is assuming something in the future while we are addressing the current status of China. The second rebuttal does not address my contention either. As I've demonstrated, China's currency manipulation and trade inequity is resulting in the lost jobs, which is entirely the fault of China. The third rebuttal does not address the contention; even if productivity and incentives are factors, that does not resolve the massive loss in jobs and has not been seen being done heavily in practice. Again, my impact outweighs my opponent's points. The fourth rebuttal is unsatisfactory; even if US manufacturing is increasing, that does not resolve the fact that we have lost numerous jobs to China nor does it resolve those losses. The fifth rebuttal is also unsatisfactory; my opponent's two examples are just that, specific examples, and do not rebut the fact that China has cost us jobs nor does it recuperate those lost jobs. My first contention is still standing.

My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention is simply "China wouldn't do such a thing". This is ignoring the fact that China is currently hurting the dollar right now; my second contention is not a theory or hypothesis, it's based on evidence of China's actions. China's actions point to them threatening the US dollar. My opponent's rebuttal does not apply and my contention remains standing.

My opponent's rebuttals to my third contention are "China wouldn't try to threaten the US", "China's military is complacent", "China's budget is less than the US", "China is reducing gasoline", "China has a green vehicle industry" and "China's weapons are vulnerable to U.S. cyber attacks". My opponent's first two contentions are that "China wouldn't try to threaten the US", which is incorrect as we are seeing evidence of them threatening the US, contradicting my opponent's rebuttal. "China's military is complacent" is incorrect; China's military is dangerously growing [4] [5]. "China's budget is less than the US" does not address the contention; as long as the Chinese military threatens the US, this rebuttal falls. "China is reducing gasoline" and "China has a green vehicle industry" does not address the point made about Iran; as long as China is supporting Iran, which they are currently, these rebuttals fall. These rebuttals do not even address national security, which was the contention at hand. Finally, "China's weapons are vulnerable to US cyber attacks" does not address the contention either; as long as China's military technology threatens the US, which they do and which China has used recently, these rebuttals fall. This contention is still standing.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution.

Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.slate.com...
[3] http://blogs.hbr.org...
[4] http://www.economist.com...
[5] http://www.foreignpolicy.com...
Debate Round No. 2
WesternGuy2

Pro

My opponent has asked me to cite my evidence
I will gladly do so
I am going to restate my case, but with the cited evidence
Contention 1- China"s cheap manufacturing increases American quality of life
These cheap products are benefiting many interests of the United States.
According to Washington Post [1], the American people benefit from "Made in China" labels, which indicate high quality and favorable price and increase American families' disposable income.
According to the Ohio State University [2], Manipulation of the current yuan value, which will benefit happen as China rises, can help keep the prices of China"s labor lower. It will be "able to ensure it stays artifi"cially low compared to the dollar, making Chinese goods cheaper for U.S. consumers."
In addition, according to Bloomberg Businessweek [4], rising imports from China decreases the price of non-durable goods by 2.8%.
According to Resources for Entrepreneurs [3] - Perhaps China's greatest competitive advantage and the catalyst for its growth is its cheap and highly skilled work force.
The impact is clear. Americans have more purchasing power and will have a higher quality of life because of Chinese goods. This is clearly beneficial to you, judge, when you can afford to buy much more material goods because of China. With the rise of China, more of these affordable goods will be available, clearly benefiting US quality of life.
Contention 2- America and it"s companies benefit due to the rise of China
According to Washington Post [1],
$218.9 billion were totaled as the revenue of US companies in China.
Heritage.org [5] states: the US gains much from the economic relationship.
China was the third-largest buyer of our exports, a source of strength for our economy.
In addition, China helps increase US companies competitiveness.
If companies benefit with the rise of China, the US gains more economic relations, and the revenue grows increasing the economy of the United States and the Quality of Life of US citizens.
Contention 3- Increase in US profits and trade
The rise of China has helped increase trade with China and can lead to many benefits to the United States
According to the Office of the United States trade representative [6]
U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $539 billion in 2011, resulting in export profits of $129 billion.
According to the Washington Post
Since the United States and China established diplomatic relations, bilateral trade volume has grown nearly 120-fold. U.S. direct investment in China has topped $63.1 billion

According to World Policy [7], It is essential to remember that China"s rise strengthens America"s economy and future prosperity. Today, China is the largest growth market in the world for U.S. goods and services. Trade with China, has helped America"s recovery from the global financial crisis.
The impact is clear- When China rises, the United States is obviously benefited. Trade with China has caused us to help the economy, and if we continue to trade with China as it rises, the US economy will be greatly strengthened.

Now for the refutations
My opponents keep talking about currency manipulation
However
1. Manipulation of the yuan keeps products cheap. This increases the purchasing power of Americans, so that the citizens will have a better quality of life, which is within our interests.
2. According to Heritage.org, In the 1990s, China made its currency cheaper, which many people argue is bad for us. Yet in the 1990s, our unemployment rate fell. Starting in 2005, the PRC slowly pushed the value of its currency up, making its goods more expensive. Many people say this is good for us. Yet after 2005, American unemployment soared.
The explanation for this is simple: China barely matters to our unemployment rate. In the 1990s, we had a healthy economy. In the 2000s, we didn"t. That"s the result of our choices, our failures, and our successes. Blaming China is like saying it"s the neighbors that make your house clean or dirty.

Lastly, my opponents seem to go straight through my refutations against job loss
I am providing clash here, while my opponents are not. They keep extending their arguments disregarding my refutations
Thus I will have to repeat them
I have 5 refutations
1. China is not stealing jobs as their rise will change them to a service oriented economy, changing the course of our jobs.
2. Since we gave up industrialism, and turned to a service oriented economy, jobs are being shipped overseas. We as the US made that choice. We cannot expect jobs to come to us because the company is "hard core American" and wants the jobs to stay in America, though it might be cheaper for their country to ship their jobs someplace else
3. According to the Fiscal Cliff Times, China"s wages might be increasing we"re not admitting this to our opponents, but in the case our opponents are right, we win in both scenarios. China"s manufacturing productivity will improve at half that rate. There is a shortage of skilled workers even in major manufacturing centers such as Shanghai and Tianjin.
In the U.S., wage increases have been minimal for years and will remain at 3 percent or so annually. U.S. productivity will remain higher than China"s by a wide margin, and government incentives are also a factor in attracting US manufacturers back home. "Reinvesting in the U.S. will accelerate," the study says, "as it becomes one of the cheapest locations for manufacturing in the developed world."
4. we can already see a trend: according to a Boston Consulting Group study [{[cited in fiscal times study above]}]: U.S. manufacturing grew at an estimated annual rate of 9.1%in the first quarter of this year, compared with a disappointing 1.8% for the economy as a whole.
5. For instance:
Ford is repatriating 2,000 jobs from China to America
toy maker Wham-o is repatriating half of its production of Hula Hoops and Frisbees most from China

My opponents keep talking about how China is giving sanctions to Iran
However I will like to bring up an argument about the RAND corporations
It shows that a threat is composed of an intent and a capability
China is giving Iran the capability, but nowhere in their case do they talk about the intent. Thus China nor Iran is a military threat
There was also an argument about cyber warfare
I would like to refute this and add another refutation
1. According to foreignpolicy.com, Washington"s cyber-warfare capability on Beijing"s ability to wage high-technology
warfare is equally significant. The same advanced Chinese technologies and weaponry that pessimists argue present a major threat to U.S. security, including asbms, are highly dependent on advanced
communication and surveillance technologies that are particularly vulnerable to U.S. cyber attacks.
2. However, although many cyber attacks have been reported to originate from China, the
preposition based off of these is simply false. Looking at the data, 85% of Chinese
originated cyber attacks were NOT from government or state facilities, but rather,
from privately owned computers. This means that independent Chinese hackers are the perpetrators of the majority of these cyber attacks. ALL of the attacks traced to
private computers showed no link or coordination with the Chinese government.

[1]- http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2]- http://moritzlaw.osu.edu...
[3]- http://www.gaebler.com...
[4]- http://www.businessweek.com...
[5]- http://www.heritage.org...
[6]- http://www.ustr.gov...
[7]- http://www.worldpolicy.org...

Again, if my opponent needs any evidence, just ask for it, and it will be provided
As you can see, I do have the evidence!
Thank you, and please vote Pro/AFF
eastcoastsamuel

Con

eastcoastsamuel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WesternGuy2

Pro

Extend all arguments
eastcoastsamuel

Con

eastcoastsamuel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WesternGuy2

Pro

Extend all arguments..... again
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I will now demonstrate why you should cast your ballot in favor of the affirmation in this debate.

My opponent talks about currency manipulation, specifically that currency manipulation keeps products cheap and that there is no correlation between unemployment and currency manipulation. Since my opponent does not cite any statistics, one cannot assume that this outweighs any of the statistics that I have cited. Thus, the judge cannot look to this refutation. My opponent's statement that China and unemployment are not connected is inaccurate; studies, such as those from the EPI [1], connect the China-US trade deficit to severe job losses. Currency manipulation plays a critical role in the amount of the deficit [1], resulting in severe negative effects to the economy. The judge cannot look to my opponent's refutations on currency manipulation; thus, my points on currency manipulation still stand.

My opponent proceeds to state that because I am not providing clash, his refutations still stand. This cannot be looked to on the ballot. This completely ignores the facts that several of his rebuttals do not even address the contention I was advancing and that the other refutations are outweighed by statistics I provided. The judge cannot look to anything my opponent provides on this contention.

Next, my opponent talks about Irani sanctions. My opponent's comment that I do not discuss the intent and that therefore you cannot look to China or Iran as threats is, again, inaccurate. I have shown previously that China has funded Irani weapon programs, which automatically is a threat to the United States. Not only that, but I've shown that China is threatening the United States' cyber security, which in turn threatens national security. Clearly, China is a threat. Since Iran has several weapons programs and is a well-known enemy of the United States, it is clear they are a threat as well. The judge cannot look to my opponent's points on this issue.

My opponent is not able to definitely rebut my points on cyber security either; my opponent's first rebuttal is, as I've mentioned before, entirely irrelevant (no matter the US' ability to challenge China, as long as China is attacking and poses a serious threat to US security, the point stands) and his second rebuttal has no evidence or support, just the citation, "looking at the data". The judge cannot look to any of my opponent's refutations, and thus my contentions remain standing.

Not only do all of my contentions stand, but all of my opponent's contentions fall as well. My opponent's economic impacts are all outweighed by the impacts I raised throughout this debate (especially dealing with the trade deficit), and since all of his contentions are centered around these impacts, all of my opponents' contentions fall.

I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution, based on my demonstration that China poses and is posing a severe economic and military threat to the United States and that any benefits from China are heavily outweighed by the negative effects. Thank you.

Sources: [1] http://thecontributor.com...
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WesternGuy2 3 years ago
WesternGuy2
Its fine
Posted by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
Sorry again about the forfeiting; I was busy with schoolwork.
Posted by WesternGuy2 3 years ago
WesternGuy2
Its fine!
Hope you did well in your debate tournament!
Posted by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
I apologize for the forfeit of my round three post; I was at a debate tournament over the past few days and I was unable to get on here. I will address my opponent's rebuttals and anything else in my next post.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by awesomeness 3 years ago
awesomeness
WesternGuy2eastcoastsamuelTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: since pro didn't impact his arguments and showed me y he won while con did, i voted con