The Instigator
TheBunnyAssassin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" interests.

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 2 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 50021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

TheBunnyAssassin

Pro

President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" dealings. Really? Does President Ma even deserve to be the president of Taiwan? What type of president encourages its country to be united with its arch nemesis? Imaging this: a new president of South Korea propagates a new law that encourages the immigration of North Koreans. In addition, when the North Koreans have stayed for 3-5 years, they can apply to vote. Now, imagine South Korea as a small country (since Taiwan is small, while China is gigantic), and that an overwhelming population of North Koreans have settled there. Wouldn't the fate of South Korea be resting in North Korea's hands? For example, a political party in South Korea that encourages unification with N.K. may choose a presidential candidate. The overwhelming majority of the North Koreans would vote for this candidate, thus handing the control of South Korea to North Korea. Then, South and North Korea would become one, due to the idiotic actions of the latter South Korean president. This whole concept applies to the idiotic President Ma and Taiwan idea.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

President Ma has not tried to unite Taiwan and China. This is basically a conspiracy theory which Pro suggests as a fact in the resolution of this debate, which as a result, is a resolution I don't agree with.

Considering the fact that Pro makes the positive claim and has the full burden of proof, Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof by (a) proving that President Ma is definitely seeking to unite Taiwan and China, and (b) proving why it is a dumb move. So far this has not been done.

Pro already provided two fallacious arguments for (b), and that forces me to use this round as a round for rebuttals, when I usually would only use this round as an acceptance round.

REBUTTAL

Pro has not provided a definition of "unite", and so I will assume that it means that President Ma wants to dissolve Taiwan into China, because that is what President Ma's adversaries are currently accusing him of doing. The term "unite" and "unification" have been used exactly like that in the Media on this particular issue, so I'm going to go for that definition.

Pro's resolution itself is a baseless, conspiracy theory. Pro has not presented us any evidence that President Ma actually wants to unite Taiwan and China. When on the contrary, President Ma has had several Media appearances in which me made clear statements that he is not interested in unification, but simply strengthening the Taiwan's economy through a free-trade economic agreement[1].

From President Ma's interview in the New York times:

President Ma: ... Under the framework of the Republic of China Constitution, we have adopted the principle of “no unification, no independence and no use of force.” “No unification” means we will not discuss unification during my term of office. “No independence” means we will not pursue Taiwan independence. “No use of force” means not using force to resolve cross-strait issues. The maintenance of the status quo under these principles has the support of 86 percent of Taiwan’s people and can thus be regarded as mainstream."

In other words, President Ma clearly explains that in his office, he is not interested in the unification of Taiwan and China. He admits throughout the interview that he ideologically believes there exits just One China, but he also clarifies that he and others do not agree on what that China is, and that is why he refuses to speak of unification under his presidency term. In the same interview, he goes further and says, "For instance, since we have yet to identify a way to resolve the sovereignty issue between the two sides, we have set it aside by utilizing the “1992 consensus” that there is only one China, but each side maintains its respective interpretation of what that China is."

Why no Independence for Taiwan? Because that is problematic matter with differences among 86% of the Taiwanese. Therefore Taiwan's independence is put on hold, and both matters that deal with joining Taiwan to another country or declaring it independent are left in the drawer.

No "use of force" basically means that no Taiwanese will be united with a foreign country or declared a citizen of an independent state against his will(which also refutes Pro's position).


What sparked this controversy in 2014?

A free-trade economic agreement, which made some conspiracy theorists believe that this was a process of unification, although the economic agreement itself treats both China and Taiwan as independent nations. The ECFA (Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement) is a purely economic agreement which seeks to reduce commercial barriers between Taiwan and China[2]. This could be a prelude for unification, but it is not in itself unification or a clear act of seeking to merge Taiwan with China. Israel could have a free-trade agreement with the US, but that wouldn't make Israel an American state. Therefore, President Ma's adversaries are simply creating conspiracies based on their hunches, and not on the actual evidence present for any attempt to go for an actual unification.

Furthermore, I was honestly disappointed with Pro's arguments. The first was an appeal to emotion by claiming that China is an evil, enemy state because of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, which happened a long time ago(more than 60 years ago). And the second is a false analogy logical fallacy comparing North Korea having a hypothetical power(which we only assume for the sake of giving examples) to decide presidents in South Korea, with the case between China and Taiwan, who have nothing but a possible free-trade economical agreement that can't reasonably permit such political control.

Pro asks, "What type of president encourages its country to be united with its arch nemesis?"

Rebuttal: President Ma made unification a null point, that's not encouraging it, but being neutral about the matter.

Pro argues, "For example, a political party in South Korea that encourages unification with N.K. may choose a presidential candidate. The overwhelming majority of the North Koreans would vote for this candidate, thus handing the control of South Korea to North Korea."

Rebuttal: This is a false analogy. President Ma has only agreed to a free-trade agreement that removes customs. This has nothing to do with letting Chinese vote in Taiwanese elections or uniting China with Taiwan, for that matter.

SUMMARY

Pro's resolution is based on a baseless, conspiracy theory that President Ma is secretly trying to achieve unification, although (1) he clearly claims that it's not a matter which he would do as a president, and (2) makes it clear that he believes in One China, but not the current China, while clarifying that many Taiwanese disagree on what that China should be, geographically and ideologically. Pro's only chance of winning this debate is to first prove that Prophet Ma is definitely seeking to unite Taiwan with China, so we can then discuss if it is a dumb move or not.

CITATIONS

[1]http://www.nytimes.com...

[2] http://www.mac.gov.tw...
Debate Round No. 1
TheBunnyAssassin

Pro

TheBunnyAssassin forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Points extended.
Debate Round No. 2
TheBunnyAssassin

Pro

TheBunnyAssassin forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

The Forfeiture poem by Henry King

My Dearest, To let you or the world know
What Debt of service I do truly ow
To your unpattern'd self, were to require
A language onely form'd in the desire
Of him that writes. It is the common fate,
Of greatest duties to evaporate
In silent meaning, as we often see
Fires by their too much fuel smother'd be:
Small Obligations may find vent and speak,
When greater the unable debtor break.
And such are mine to you, whose favours store,
Hath made me poorer then I was before;
For I want words and language to declare
How strict my Bond or large your bounties are.
Since nothing in my desp'rate fortune found,
Can payment make, nor yet the summe compound
You must lose all, or else of force accept
The body of a Bankrupt for your debt.
Then Love, your Bond to Execution sue,
And take my self, as forfeited to you.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheBunnyAssassin 3 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
EVERYBODY! I am VERY SORRY FOR LOSING THIS DEBATE.
Please, I demand a rematch.
I have been busy over the few weeks, and have not been able to return.

But now is my time to return.
Posted by Fox-McCloud 3 years ago
Fox-McCloud
This is interesting, I am born in Taiwan.
Posted by TruthTrust 3 years ago
TruthTrust
I agree with the Pro and would definitely like to see where this goes.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
TheBunnyAssassinNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Con gave sources.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
TheBunnyAssassinNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF