The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
astrosfan
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Resolution TBA.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 4360
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

gahbage

Pro

Gonna take an idea from some other people and do this, because I'm bored and don't know what to debate about.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example.

Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on.

In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
astrosfan

Con

here are the topic ideas

1.congress should approve an extension of the Trade Promotion Authority (if you don't know what this is here is the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org......(trade))

2.The USFG should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan africa

3.The US should boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I'll go with resolution 3, "The US should boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics". 100 freakin characters
astrosfan

Con

i will go con and go second
wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka wacka
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

OK.

The U.S. should boycott the Beijing Olympics. China has an unethical human rights record. http://en.wikipedia.org...
According to this article, China has a habit of violating what would be our first, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments.

Now let's look at similar situation: You talk to your friend in school often. However, one day he starts to insult you in front of his other friends. You start to not talk to him anymore. If you kept talking to him, you'd be inadvertently letting him know that it's ok to insult you.

The same goes for the U.S. and China. To attend a Chinese-held ceremony would be saying that we are perfectly alright with their treatment of humans. To support our advocacy of human rights and to make a peaceful statement about China's actions, the U.S. should not take part in the Beijing 2008 Olympics.
astrosfan

Con

So to road map this first speech I'm going to attack all of my opponent's arguments then create my own

=================
My opponent's case
=================

1.My opponent claims that China is unethical, but first I would like to say this is a very western slanted view. If you fallow the link to the main article over China's human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is say that this article should checked for neutrality thus meaning that my opponent's evidence is biased and flawed. Next on this point we have to understand that many of these quote human right violations are part of the Chinese culture, many people believe in things called "Asian Values" which come from the Confucius idea to put your community before yourself http://www.unu.edu..., thus the US should not boycott the Olympics because we simply don't agree with their ideals.
2.Next my opponent presents example of what is happening. Now this is a flawed example for 3 reasons
a.China has been doing this for a long time and it is part of their culture to do so
b.If you didn't have this friend you would shrivel up and die
c.This friend is not insulting you he is insulting his family
So to make scenes of what I just said China has a history of doing this and you have never done anything, China exports trillions of dollars of stuff to the US and the US owes China billions of dollars in debts, and it not like China is committing these abuses on Americans. So to reshape this example to make it more realistic it should be as follows: You have a friend who is such a good friend you couldn't live without them, and who has been told by is culture to insult his family.
3.Next he claims that attending the opening ceremonies would be indorsing these human rights abuses, but this not true because attending the ceremonies represent more than just that, the Olympics are a show case of a nation's talent and by attending you support the US.

=========
My case
=======

These are going to be some loosely made DA's because I don't have enough room

First Chinese relations DA

A.Uniqueness- US Chinese relations high Krause 07 http://www.america.gov...

The United States is seeking real partnership with "a prosperous China" that is stable, respectful of its citizens' rights and at peace with its neighbors Negroponte told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the United States accepts China's increasing economic, political and diplomatic influence in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond "Even though serious bilateral differences remain, we believe we have grounds for optimism in achieving this overarching goal."

B.Link- Boycotting the Olympics hurts US China relations Cody 08 http://www.washingtonpost.com...

The coordinated campaign was framed in an us-and-them mode, sharply at odds with the spirit of the Olympics, whose slogan is "One World, One Dream." A recent survey by a Beijing polling group found that more than 80 percent of those questioned believed Western news media were conveying a biased image of China abroad. "The Chinese people do not like outsiders to make comments on China's domestic affairs," Meanwhile, a fervidly nationalistic campaign flared online, as Internet users suggested that foreigners were bigoted against China and that Western businesses should be boycotted. Demonstrators gathered in front of stores run by Carrefour, the French superstore chain, in several cities around the country.

C.US-CHINA RELATIONS KEY TO SOLVE MULTIPLE NUCLEAR WARS

Adhariri, Armed Forces Staff College national security professor, 1999 [Eschan, JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, August 1]
a continued deterioration of Sino-US ties does not bode well for the regional stability of the very large and equally important Asia Pacific China, along with Russia, has an established record proliferating nuclear technology. This reality is not likely to change in the foreseeable future . The increased nuclear sophistication on the troubled subcontinent carries with it the risk of a potential nuclear holocaust

Econ DA

a.Uniqueness- The US economy is dependent on the Chinese economy bbc 03 http://news.bbc.co.uk...

The mushrooming US trade deficit with China is set to hit $120bn (�69bn) this year. China has outstripped Japan as the biggest contributor to the US trade deficit. China's economy has not dipped below 7% growth for many years, in painful contrast to the US where bosses are still crossing their fingers that a convincing recovery is on the way. China is also the world's top destination for foreign investment as Western firms have moved there to take advantage of its mix of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labour. Wages are roughly one fortieth of US levels

b.Link- policies to increase human rights brings the end of cheap Chinese exports and dooms the dollar Costello 06 http://www.fpif.org...

The extraordinarily rapid growth of the Chinese economy has depended a great deal on foreign corporations. According to Morgan Stanley's chief economist Stephen Roach, 65% of the tripling of Chinese exports—from $121 billion in 1994 to $365 billion in mid-2003—is "traceable to outsourcing by Chinese subsidiaries of multinational corporations and joint ventures."1 The export surge blamed on China is primarily an export surge of global corporations using low-wage Chinese workers. Foreign corporations thus fear that the law protecting Chinese workers may eliminate their cheap labor costs.

DOLLAR COLLAPSE CAUSES GLOBAL DEPRESSION WITHIN DAYS
Steingart, chief of DER SPIEGEL's Berlin office, Economic Writer of the Year for 2004, 2k6
[Gabor. "America and the Dollar Illusion, October 25,
http://www.globalpolicy.org...]

Experts have often forecast the effects of a dollar meltdown the dollar crisis would spread. The hunger for imports would fade, causing problems for exporting countries as well. It would only be a matter of days before newspapers would once more feature a term that seemed to have disappeared decades ago: world economic crisis. Steroids for the Giant Last century, the United States already suffered from one deep economic crisis that gradually spread to the rest of the world. The Great Depression lasted 10 years and brought mass unemployment and starvation to the United States. The country's economic power sank by one-third. The crisis virus wrought havoc all over the West. Six million people were unemployed in Germany when the economic fever was at its peak.

ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR
Bearden, former LTC U.S. Army, Director of the Assoc. of Distinguished American Scientists, 2000 [T.E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis" June 24, http://www.seaspower.com...]

desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals (WMD), are almost certain to be released. suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea,. Or a desperate China, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

I will address the rebuttals, then go at my opponent's case.

1. If you look at the article on Chinese rights, you'll notice the first one, freedom of speech. It says that the Chinese constitution guarantees free speech, but the government does not follow this rule. Regardless if it is Chinese culture or not, China has a constitution, and they have to abide by it. If you look under "legal system", it says that China acknowledges what is wrong. However have they done anything about it?
2a. See above
2b. No, I'm saying that if you choose to keep talking to this friend, you would be letting him know that it's ok to insult you. So in U.S. and China, it would be like we're ok with China's human rights violations, and we'll show it by not boycotting the Olympics.
2c. So you're saying that China's insulting itself by not treating its citizens right?
"You have a friend who is such a good friend you couldn't live without them, and who has been told by is culture to insult his family."
Boycotting the Olympics would not stop trade, and even if it did, we could send our apologies to receive their trade back.
3. Even if you are supporting your country, the ceremony is held by China.

Now for my opponent's case.

Relations DA:

A. "The United States is seeking real partnership with "a prosperous China" that is stable, respectful of its citizens' rights and at peace with its neighbors"

China is technically not stable, because there are poor living conditions and working conditions. They are only considered stable because they trade with other countries enough to be stable.

As I have already shown, China is not respectful of its citizens rights. To make things worse, they are at peace with their neighbor North Korea, who also have a bad human rights record and have contempt with the U.S.

B. "A recent survey by a Beijing polling group found that more than 80 percent of those questioned believed Western news media were conveying a biased image of China abroad."

The key words here are "Beijing polling group". A poll from a neutral third party would be more believable.

""The Chinese people do not like outsiders to make comments on China's domestic affairs,"

I wonder why. They don't like the fact that other countries treat their citizens better. We don't care if other people criticize democracy, because we believe in free speech/thought.

C. This all relies on the fact that China will react violently if we boycott their Olympics. I'll address this later.

Econ DA:

a. I'll address the trade situation later, but I'd like to point out that the fact that the workers are not properly paid and work just as hard/are just as skilled as U.S. workers shows more bad treatment.

I don't fell that b and c need to be addressed, they all rely on the fact that boycotting will cause economic problems.
_______________________________________________________________________________

My opponent's case rests on the assumption that by boycotting the Olympics, all economic trade with China will be broken off. However this is not true. Attending the Olympics is like attending a party or a wedding. You have been invited to a huge party or a huge wedding. If you choose not to go, it is likely that the most harm that will happen is that whoever invited you will slightly have their feelings hurt. Who would stop talking to you over a rejected invitation? Likewise, why would China stop trading with us over a rejected invitation to their Olympics? It is foolish to assume that all economic relations with China will be cut off if we simply don't attend the Olympics. Similarly, it will not harm other relations, and this small act will not contribute to the threat of nuclear war.

So now that I've established that boycotting the Olympics will not result in economic destruction or nuclear war, you should vote PRO.
astrosfan

Con

Keeping in line with the last 2 speeches I will go in the same order as before.

=================
My opponent's case
=================

1. My problem with is first point not that China is not committing human right abuses, rather instead it about how they are portrayed. At the top of the main article it says that article is not from a natural view and doesn't show the other side, which is that many of the Chinese see this as a necessary evil and that if losing their helps the community as a whole then they are willing to lose their rights as it talks about in the article.
2a. because this is part of their cultural ideals so the US should not intervene
2b. the problem is that the US is dependent on China and not supporting them would in turn hurt the US
2c. what I'm saying is that they are not directly hurting the US directly so the US should not be acting. And the second part of this I will talk about later
3. The US still should attend the opening ceremonies to support it athletes

=========
My case
=======

a.First China is stable, there are not revolutions trying to over through the government. Next the fact is that they are respecting the people because the people don't see this as a bad thing.
b.On this point group the 2 arguments, the fact is while this is a Chinese it is polling the people, it is the people who say they don't like the foreign people talking about their country and they believe that there is nothing wrong with the Chinese government's actions
c. I will answer this in the same place as my opponent

a.I really don't know what this is saying but I think my opponent is trying to say that the US doesn't need China, but while the US does have skilled workers they don't work at the low prices
b.Extend these two points across because my opponent has not answered them.

My opponent's assumption that my arguments are based on the China stopping all trade is untrue. My relations advantage has nothing to do with trade what it is talking about is how boycotting the Olympic will show how the US doesn't like what China is doing and hurts our relations. On the econ da doesn't rely on the end of trade, what the da says happens is that if China is no longer able to have cheap labor because of its low human rights which cause prices around the world to go up and causing the impacts. Next once again my opponent try to use an example to show how these impacts will not happen but again he misshapes this example because if the US doesn't attend the ceremonies because of the human right abuses then it will cause the relations to go down dramatically.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

I'll address the points in the same order as my opponent.

1. "At the top of the main article it says that article is not from a natural view and doesn't show the other side, which is that many of the Chinese see this as a necessary evil and that if losing their helps the community as a whole then they are willing to lose their rights as it talks about in the article."

Still, China's constitution guarantees rights, but they are not given. It is like our government limiting free speech. Even if it is part of our culture, they told us we could have free speech, and they didn't give it to us. Not only is it a problem of rights, it is a problem of China's promises on those rights.

2a. China has already mentioned this as a problem. If they see it as a problem, why haven't they done anything about it, and why would a "problem" be part of their culture?

2b. Like I said before, boycotting the Olympics would not cause an end of trade.

2c. One goal of U.S. foreign policy is to spread democracy/support human rights. How can we support our spread of democracy and our stance on human rights by dealing with a country that has a bad human rights record? One of the ways we normally deal with countries to fix their human rights is to not associate with them, so why not boycott the Olympics to show our disapproval? (I'm not saying we should end trade with them, because we get alot of necessary resources from them).

3. If the U.S. has athletes, then they attended the Olympics. So you're basically restating your stance.

His case:

A. "First China is stable, there are not revolutions trying to over through the government."

I said economically [un]stable. The have incredibly low wages, harsh working conditions, etc.

"Next the fact is that they are respecting the people because the people don't see this as a bad thing."

Actually, I saw a Chinese riot about their human rights treatment on the news a couple months ago.

B. If a poll about the Chinese government's treatment of its citizens is conducted by the Chinese government itself, there is reasonable suspicion that the results could have been fabricated/altered. They would be more reliable if a neutral party conducted them.

Ca. I'm saying that China using low wages and harsh working conditions is even more poor treatment for the workers and their rights.

Cb/Cc. They pretty much stem from the same basis as Ca, which I addressed. Therefore, they should be included in or combined with Ca.

"My opponent's assumption that my arguments are based on the China stopping all trade is untrue. My relations advantage has nothing to do with trade what it is talking about is how boycotting the Olympic will show how the US doesn't like what China is doing and hurts our relations."

Well you included the benefits of our trade system with China and showed the consequences of stopping it, so I assumed you included trade relations with relations. And that's what I'm talking about too: By boycotting the Olympics, we can make a peaceful statement showing our disapproval of their human rights abuses.

"On the econ da doesn't rely on the end of trade, what the da says happens is that if China is no longer able to have cheap labor because of its low human rights which cause prices around the world to go up and causing the impacts."

Still, cheap labor is the least terrible of the human rights abuses. The main ones China has committed are limiting of due process rights, first amendment rights, etc. Cheap labor isn't too much of an issue, but it is technically a human right abuse.

"Next once again my opponent try to use an example to show how these impacts will not happen but again he misshapes this example because if the US doesn't attend the ceremonies because of the human right abuses then it will cause the relations to go down dramatically."

This is the main core of my opponent's argument: He claims that U.S-China relations will be hurt if we boycott the Olympics. In this sentence, he is restating it. However, he has only presented evidence/backup to this claim in the previous round. In my previous round, I have refuted these claims, showing that they will not happen and providing an analogy that shows that the worst that will happen is temporarily hurt feelings. In this argument my opponent has done nothing to reinforce his position or refute mine. Also, I will not have a chance to respond to any further points he may make toward this subject. Therefore, since he has a lack of backup, I suggest that this be considered a dropped/pointless contention.

===============================================================================

So here is why you should vote Pro:

1) I have refuted my opponent's rebuttals and points.

2) I provided reasons to disprove the basis of his argument, and they stand uncontested.

Remember, vote on the debate, not the issue.
astrosfan

Con

astrosfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Sorry, I forgot to run spellcheck.
Posted by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
Well, what do you know to peaple from the USSR.

P.S. I am only joking and this is an atempt to get both of you to cange your pictures.
Posted by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
sorry, I thought I had another day. Guess not, oh well it was fun sorry I didn't finish
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
You want a pink flamingo? XD
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
SMOSH!!!!

Hoover DAM the 25 character limit.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageastrosfanTied
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 Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
gahbageastrosfanTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
gahbageastrosfanTied
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 slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
gahbageastrosfanTied
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:30