The Instigator
Likethetree
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

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...
Yraelz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 41298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Likethetree

Con

This is a three round debate, the first round will be just for the basis of accepting the round. Any arguments made in the first round should be disregarded. The second will be a speech, no rebuttals should be made in that speech. The third round will be a rebuttal speech, with no new arguments brought up in that round. This is a past National Forensics League PF resolution (February 2013). Thank you.
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, fly far PF debater. Let's see what you have.
Debate Round No. 1
Likethetree

Con

As previously stated, I am in firm negation to the resolution.
Observation One: Definitions:
I offer the following definitions for clarification during this round.
Rise: move from a lower position to a higher one
Beneficial: favorable or advantageous
I reserve the right to define any other terms throughout this round.
Observation Two: Framework: (Cost to Benefit) The team that can provide either the most benefit or harm relating to their side should win this round. For the Pro to win, they must show the most and greatest benefit of the rise of China. For the Con to win, they must show the most and greatest harm of the rise of China.
Contention One: China is a major cyber warfare threat.According to an article released by the Los Angeles Times, "In November 2011, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive issued a report on cyber-spying that said Chinese entities "are the worlds most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage. Chinese attempts to collect U.S. technological and economic information will continue at a high level and will represent a growing and persistent threat to U.S. economic security" According to an article titled "The top ten cyber attacks (that we know of)" published by foreign policy magazine, China has released several different cyber attacks on the United States, including, but not limited to attacking:
military labs and NASA by stealing information,
The department of Commerce, forcing the bureau to throw out all of its computers, paralyzing the department for more than a month
Attacking the Naval War College of Rhode Island, forcing it to go offline for weeks in 2006
John McCain and Barack Obama in 2008, forcing them and their senior staff to get new laptops and blackberrys. and
Stealing ideas from Lockheed Martins F- 35, the most advanced airplane ever designed.
These are just a few of many examples of China being a threat to the US.
Contention Two: China threatens the US's hegemony, along with its military and economic capability.
According to an article by Robert S. Ross, titled "Here be dragons," "The ultimate yardstick of national power is military capability." According to Eric A. Posner, a professor at University of Chicago, "China has experienced remarkable economic growth over the last quarter century. Since 1978, China"s gross domestic product has grown 9.4 percent per year; in a good year, the US economy might grow 4 percent. By 2050, at the latest, China"s economy is expected to surpass the size of the US economy. Increases in military spending have paralleled China"s economic rise. The Department of Defense estimates that current Chinese military expenditures amount to roughly $90 billion--the third largest in the world after the US and Russia. As China uses its economic gains to modernize its armed forces, the US can no longer be sure that its current military advantage in the region will continue." While China's military is growing, the United States military is shrinking. Not only that, but China's rise is a direct threat to the US hegemony. Moreover, China"s "armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region." (CATO institute) The CATO institute states "China has or is acquiring the ability to: Hold large surface ships " including aircraft carriers " at risk (via quiet submarines, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), wire-guided and wake-homing torpedoes, or anti-ship ballistic missiles)
Deny the use of shore-based airfields, secure bastions and regional logistics hubs (via conventional ballistic missiles with greater ranges and accuracy, and land attack cruise missiles)
Hold aircraft at risk over or near Chinese territory or forces (via imported and domestic fourth generation aircraft, advanced long-range surface-to-air missile systems, air surveillance systems and ship-borne air defense) Washington has vital interests to protect, but not all of its interests are vital. Defending American territory, liberties, and people at home is vital; ensuring dominant American influence half a world away is not.
And doing the latter at acceptable cost will grow ever more difficult. By spending a fraction of the United States" defense budget, Beijing is constructing a military able to deter U.S. intervention against China.
To overcome this force Washington will have to spend far more " money which it does not have."
Contention Three: China is the Chief thief of US intellectual property.
According to an article titled "China's trade barrier playbook: why America needs a new game plan," published in The Bernard L. Schwartz Initiative American Economic Policy, "Chinese firms and individuals frequently ignore patents and other legal guarantees, or even steal trade secrets outright. By illegally taking our ideas and our technology, China undermines our biggest advantage in trade. Business groups estimate that 99% of China"s music and 78% of its personal computer software is pirated. According to China"s own estimates, between 15 to 20% of the products made in China are counterfeits. Over three-quarters of the counterfeited and pirated goods seized by U.S. customs in 2010 originated in China or Hong Kong. The USITC estimates that, if China protected IP at levels comparable to the United States, U.S. exports and affiliate sales to China would increase by $107 billion and the U.S. economy would add some 2.1 million jobs" By China not acting on this issue, they are giving tech thieves a shield.
Yraelz

Pro

I agree with all that stuff at the top.

Contention 1: Cyber Warfare

There are two predominant problems with my opponents rational. The first is that she has proven that cyber attacks are already at an all time high, consider her source, "Chinese attempts to collect U.S. technological and economic information will continue at a high level and will represent a growing and persistent threat to U.S. economic security". This tells one thing, the chinese (coorporations, hackers, government etc...) already have the infastructure required to hack well. Thus the question we must ask is simple, "will the rise of China result in more hacking or less hacking?" With a little thought, the answer to this question is self-evident.

The chinese hack U.S. technologies in order to become more internationally competitive. Phrased another way, the chinese want access to our sophisticated technology, so they attempt to steal our intellectual property by hacking. If the chinese do not rise, then their economy will remain lower than ours which will increase their incentive to compete. On the other hand, if their economy continues to rise their will be less and less need for the chinese to hack the U.S. At some point chinese technologies will reach the sophistication of U.S. technologies which will preclude the need to hack altogether. Thus my opponents first contention is actually an advantage for the Pro.

The second problem with this issue is that of "weight". Although the Chinese do occasionally hack the U.S. the economic detriment generated does not outweigh the economic benefits of our competition. I will extrapolate more on this point in a later contention. Moreover continued hacking attempts generate internet security jobs within the united states which help drive the economy. Consider the latest hiring statistics as a result of hacking: http://www.wantedanalytics.com...


Contention 2: That Hegemony and How Scary China Could Never Be

The contention falls for three extremely compelling reasons. First we should consider exactly how China has managed to prosper in the last ten years and how they are projected to keep growing. China is an export driven economy which means they rely on other nations to buy the goods that they produce. So who does China increasingly sell to? The answer is the United States, China exports almost as many goods to United States as to the entire European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The ramifications of China starting a war with the United States is that of economic suicide. The chinese economy would never survive destroying it's single largest trading partner, and thus, China will never initiate a war against the United States. As the Chinese continue to rise, and to sell more to the United States, our economic interdependence will only become more crucial to their economic success.

Secondarily, their exists a more pronounced problem. The current international curreny is pegged on the United States dollar. This fact, and the dollars strength, allow China to export their goods for cheap. So what does China risk if they attack the United States or engage them in any war? Well first the United States will immediately denounce their commitment to pay back the trillions of dollars in treasury securities which China owns (http://www.treasury.gov...). This will serve as an initial shock the Chinese economy but it will also downgrade the value of the dollar (because investors have no interest in a zero commitment). Furthermore, sucessful confrontation with the United States means the dollar risks being shattered. In doing so the Chinese currency will outvalue international peg which will destroy their ability to export to ANY country. For these reasons the Chinese, in a world where they continue to rise, will never seek military agression against the United States.

And third, mutually assured destruction checks back any risk of chinese aggression. My opponent can literally list every theoretical technology in the world but it quite simply doesn't matter when nuclear warheads exist. The fact that the United States will retain the abiity to destroy the world (multipe times over) makes any military acquisition by China a non-issue. In reality this entire contention is a massive advantage for the Pro case. The rise of yet another nuclear hegemon means that the United States will waste significantly less resources intervening in places like the middle east. Furthermore, saber rattling will decrease in place like the South Chinese Sea because it becomes absolutely pointless if the United States can't intervene (how much saber rattling does the U.S. conduct against other significant nuclear powers? none). This reality once again saves the United States significant resources.


Contention 3: Stealing all that IP, Finally

My first answer should be quite obvious by this point. What would happen if China didn't continue to rise? Well obviously the status quo, "99% of China's music and 78% of its personal computer software" would continue to be pirated. What happens if the Chinese continue to rise? As in any economies of size, their technology will continue to develop in sophistication. And as it develops the advantage of pirating U.S. IP will become less and less net beneficial. In fact, the chinese continuing to steal our technology is hugely advantageous because it allows them to build on already useful designs, this has two predominant effects:

a. The United States will continue to beef up cyber security thereby creating more and more jobs.

b. The Chinese will start to compete with U.S. market goods. Competition is hugely advantageous for both parties because it drives additional innovation. In fact this effect is already occuring. Consider that U.S. exports to China have also been on the rise (http://articles.washingtonpost.com...).

My opponent suggests that many jobs would be created if China had IP regulations comparable to the U.S. This point doesn't help my opponent in the slightest. If China does not rise then the status quo will remain as it is and those jobs will continue to not exist. However, if China does continue to rise the most obvious outcome will be increased regulation. As their economy grows more complex and stabilizes, officials will have an increased incentive to regulate growth. Furthermore, as the Chinese technologies begin to rival American technologies the Chinese will have to worry about hacking of their technologies. This situation will create a quid-pro-quo. As chinese technologies develop they will become increasingly sensitive to the U.S. upholding international IP. In return they will become increasingly more receptive to international IP regulations. Thus China's rise is actually the catalyst for creating the jobs that my opponent talks about.

And finally on the points about economies. Let's not forget that increased economic interdependence precludes international conflict because any conflict become a fairly lethal two edged sword. The chinese desire to undercut the U.S. economy will continue to decrease as an inverse function of mutual trade.


Underview:

In this debate round my opponent has delineated substantial analysis about how the world currently exists. But that's not what the resolution asks us to examine. The resolution wants to know if "the rise of China" will be beneficial or detrimental. I have used my round to agree with my opponent, the status quo is not optimal, but I have demonstrated how the rise of China will substantially benefit the United States. This is especially true because the Chinese rise will continue to drive competition and thereby create innovation (jobs/technolgies).


With that I look forward to the final round.

Debate Round No. 2
Likethetree

Con

As a brief roadmap, I will go over my opponents case, and then my own.

As for my opponents first contention: Cyberwarfare, he said " On the other hand, if their economy continues to rise their will be less and less need for the chinese to hack the U.S. At some point chinese technologies will reach the sophistication of U.S. technologies which will preclude the need to hack altogether." Now, to counter this, I will use an everyday example. Bobby and Billy are in a math class together. Bobby is very good at math and consistently scores "A's" on his tests. Billy, on the other hand, is barely passing the class, with a "D-" So, as soon as Billy finds out Bobby gets good grades, he begins to cheat off Bobby's papers. At the end of the semester, which one is better at math? The answer is Bobby. He knew how to solve the problem on his own, Billy is just behind because he did not learn along the way. Billy will continue to cheat in math classes because he never learned the basics taught in this class. This can be likened to Chinese hacking. The Chinese are behind, because they "cheated" off the United States papers, China will need to continue to cheat in order to maintain some form of power. The Chinese are essentially stealing secrets that took us years and millions of dollars to develop. My opponent brought up that hacking provides jobs for antihacking software companies. However, these are correlated, but not caused by the hacking industry.

His second point: "Hegemony and how scary China could never be," does not make sense."First we should consider exactly how China has managed to prosper in the last ten years and how they are projected to keep growing. China is an export driven economy which means they rely on other nations to buy the goods that they produce. So who does China increasingly sell to? The answer is the United States." My opponent fails to mention that the whole reason China's economy is currently thriving, is because they build towns and cities, just to abandon them after 3 or 4 years. This creates jobs, but only temporarily. "the Chinese, in a world where they continue to rise, will never seek military agression against the United States." Their economy will soon fail, then they do no t have anything to lose in this department by striking with war.

Onto his third contention: "Stealing all that IP, Finally" As I brought up under my rebuttal to his first point, while his statement, "The United States will continue to beef up cyber security thereby creating more and more jobs." is true, we have to look at what else came out recently that caused a rise in jobs for tech companies... the NSA. http://www.businessinsider.com... With this,we can argue that while China's rise and jobs in the US may be correlated, these jobs are not caused by China's rise.

I will now go over the framework my opponent accepted. "The team that can provide either the most benefit or harm relating to their side should win this round. For the Pro to win, they must show the most and greatest benefit of the rise of China. For the Con to win, they must show the most and greatest harm of the rise of China." My opponent took the first round to argue against my case, which is actually against the framework. In order for him to win, he needed to provide the most benefit of China's rise. Because he refrained from providing a case, he showed that he had no ground to stand on.
Therefore, I urge you (as a judge) to vote in negation to the resolution.
Thank you.
(I would also like to thank my opponent for an excellent round.)
Yraelz

Pro

Contention 1: Billy and Bobby Hack it Up
My opponent begins the third speech by presenting a false analogy based on two school children. The analogy breaks down because of a phenomena known as reverse engineering. Billy (the Chinese) steals ideas from Bobby (the U.S.) and then proceeds to learn how they work (reverse engineering) (http://papers.ssrn.com...) In effect the chinese take our ideas/technology and then, part by part, break them down into their components in order to understand the technology. This allows them to imitate our technology and then build upon it. A better analogy would be, "Billy (a school bully) forces Bobby to waste some time tutoring him in math, and then Billy understands how to do math by the end of the semester." Thus Billy no longer needs to waste Billy's time getting tutoring, and the chinese no longer need to reverse engineer our secrets.

That's not really the important point here though. Remember that my opponent has already proven that hacking is high in the status quo. If China does not rise then my opponent has conceeded that China will keep hacking the United States. There is only a risk that China's rise will result in decreased hacking and more technological innovation. Thus the rise of China only has a risk of being good and is therefor prefereable to the status quo.

Finally my opponent argues that hacking and jobs are only correlated. I agree. But, as my source delineates, increased hacking has actually caused increased cyber security (imagine that). Thus hacking does create jobs.


Contention 2. China, Definitely Not Scary
My opponent misses a few key points. He/she suggests that the key component of China's economy is internal construction. This isn't true. 46.8% of China's economy is made up of the conglomerate of mining, energy, construction, and manufacturing (http://en.wikipedia.org...). But the majority of that is manufacturing and exporting of good (http://www.treasury.gov.au...). In fact the chinese economy has often been referred to as the "export-driven model of economics". Thus my point stands strong, the Chinese would never act out severe agression against the U.S. because it would dent the major function of their economy.

My opponent argues that the chinese economy will soon fall and this will create a war. He/she offers no warrants for this scenario, in fact it appears that internal housing growth is strong and backed by strong cash demand (http://www.forbes.com...). Consider that the U.S. housing bubble was actually a mortgage crisis or a complex credit crisis. Since most domestic buyers in China are paying with cash this alleviates a potential bubble burst. Moreover consider the ludicrous nature of my opponents logic, the argument is tantamount to saying, "part of China's economy might fall so they will initiate a war that will surely destroy the rest of their economy." And finally, my position in this resolution proposes that china will rise. My opponent's scenario is contingent on China falling and thus has no bearing on my position.

My points about mutually assured destruction and the dollar peg go untouched. These points independently check chinese aggression and are compelling reasons to vote Pro.


Contention 3: Please Steal More, You're Helping!
My opponent returns to the points made in contention 1, I have already dealt with those. However many of my arguments in this section go unadressed. I have substantial arguments as to how the rise of china will make them more reponsive to international IP regulation; my opponent has already illustrated how this will create millions of U.S. jobs. Moreover I have demonstrated how increased competition is mutually advantageous to both parties and I have offered empirics on increased U.S. exports. Thus I reaffirm my point, China's rise will be hugely beneficial to U.S. interests.


Underview: A Reminder
In this debate round my opponent has delineated substantial analysis about how the world currently exists. But that's not what the resolution asks us to examine. The resolution wants to know if "the rise of China" will be beneficial or detrimental. I have used my round to agree with my opponent, the status quo is not optimal, but I have demonstrated how the rise of China will substantially benefit the United States. This is especially true because the Chinese rise will continue to drive competition and thereby create innovation (jobs/technolgies).

I thank my opponent for the thought provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
Take the other side then. =)
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I don't necessarily disagree with your position.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
This topic....
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
@Yraelz:

Debate what?
Posted by Likethetree 3 years ago
Likethetree
Thanks for letting me know what to improve on, I wrote this case when I was a novice debater, so I know its not the strongest. Also, I am new, so I am still learning the format of the debate site. (Like how did pro get his points bold?) Thanks again for helping me out :)
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
In addition Pro was the only one to use sources fluently and effectively.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Right off the start, S&G goes to pro. Reading Cons arguments almost gave me a brain tumor. No structure, run-ons, and fragments. It was like a silhouette of Stevie Wonders first essay. Con addresses cyber warfare, how china threatens the hegemoney, and china being the biggest thief of Us intellect property. She supports this with a majority of points. Pro addresses contention 1 with explaining the point of international competitiveness, he refutes contention 2 using the Us dollar and the infrastructure behind it as a main point, and for theft he addresses the issue of competition and How china is making the US compete and be more active with certain jobs. Con could have refuted this better, but goes to one liners like "o who does China increasingly sell to? The answer is the United States." My opponent fails to mention that the whole reason China's economy is currently thriving, is because they build towns and cities, just to abandon them after 3 or 4 years. " This left pros rebuttals virtually untouched and in the last round he was able to build on them and make his own arguments stronger. If con did a better job refuting his points about competitiveness, and the backing of the US dollar as a type of monopoly she could have a tied arguments. She just left pro with a free round in R3, and he took her to the woodshed because of her failure to properly address his rebuttals and contentions.
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
=) path of least resistance. Want to debate it with me?
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
Reading this debate is like watching two blind men groping an elephant -- amusing, head-shake-inducing, and disgusting.

Amusing in that these two Americans are trying to debate about international policies without actually understanding what's even going on.

head-shake-inducing in that they think they do understand what's going on.

disgusting in that they have distorted ideas of what is beneficial and what isn't.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 3 years ago
FourTrouble
LikethetreeYraelzTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm voting Pro cause he's my mafia buddy (yes, this is a legitimate reason to vote for someone and I'd be happy to debate it). Also, his "I agree with all that stuff at the top." statement totally rocked.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
LikethetreeYraelzTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. This seems like a votebomb but it is not. Pro earned these points.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
LikethetreeYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: both did something to do with pressing a lot of buttons