The Instigator
GWindeknecht1
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Kethen
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Kethen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,644 times Debate No: 19085
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

GWindeknecht1

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Round 2 will start actual debate.
Kethen

Con

I accept sorry for last time. I will use the same beginning

I will be arguing that China will NOT become a superpower and is not now.

Definition of SUPERPOWER
1: excessive or superior power
2a : an extremely powerful nation; specifically : one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites b : an international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful states

Define China as People's Republic of China NOT the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Debate Round No. 1
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate today.

I would like to offer my definition for the most controversial term of th evening: Superpower.

Superpower: A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. [1]

With that in mind, let us start the debate.

Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

Future has been defined as the next 5-15 years.

I affirm above resolution and offer 3 contentions finding China to be at, or will achieve in the near future, superpower status according to my definition.

Contention 1: Military Power
Contention 2: Population
Contention 3: Economic Power
Contention 4: Nuclear Capabilities
Contention 5: Influence

Today, we must judge the potential superpower of China by three factors: military might, numerical advantage (population), economic strength, intercontinental nuclear capabilities, and international influence.

Contention 1: Military Power

In recent years, the nation of China has seen considerable gains in military might. The pace and scope of China's military buildup is “potentially destabilizing” in the Pacific, a top defense official warned Wednesday as the Pentagon released an annual report cataloging China’s cruise missiles, fighter jets and growing, modernizing army. [2]
China is looking toward dominating the Pacific Region and has successfully done so. The Chinese have established one of the most modern and advanced navies in the world, comprising more than 560 combat vessels [3].
China's longer-term agenda is to develop 'comprehensive national power', including a strong military, that is in keeping with its view of itself as a great power [4] China’s People’s Liberation Army — with some 1.25 million ground troops, the largest in the world — is on track to achieve its goal of building a modern, regionally focused force by 2020 [5]
The Chinese have built an impressive list of military achievements:
A) Created the world's third largest navy, 562 new and powerful combat-ready vessels.
B) Created the world's largest ground army, comprising more than 1.25 million men.
C) Domination of the Pacific Region

For air superiority, China is developing a new-generation stealth jet fighter, the J-20 [6].

China is a superpower now by most regards. By 2020, it will have the most powerful army in the world, as well as the largest. China’s total military spending for 2010 was more than $160 billion. [7].
China is spending billions of dollars and is achieving results.
By any military regard, China is, or will very shortly, be a superpower.

Contention 2: Population

Without a doubt, a sizable and strong population is a necessary component of the superpower status. China once again achieves this. China has a population of nearly 1.4 billion people, nearly 20% of the entire planet [8].
China's population is a characteristic of their superpower status. "was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability)" [9]
With a population far higher than the next contender, and making up more than 20% of the planet, China easily has a numerical advantage in any theoretical advantage.

Contention 3: Economic Power

Perhaps the greatest indicator of a superpower, is it's economic power. Again, China satisifies this condition. China currently has a gross domestic product of more than 10 trillion dollars, has the highest amount of investment in the world, and an epicenter of economic prowess [10]. China also has a "a superordinate economic capacity " [9]. In terms of economic power China is the economy of tomorrow.
In 2016, the United States will cease to be the world's largest economy, China will overtake the United States as the world's most powerful economic nation [11] [12].

Contention 4: Nuclear Capabilities.

All theoretical superpowers have a "and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity" [9]. Again, China fulfills this goal. China has in excess of 900 powerful, inter-continental ballistic missiles at it's disposal [13]. China has a nuclear capability comparable to that of the United States and previous superpower the Soviet Union.

Contention 5: Influence

As a result of gigantic investment and massive economic growth, China is becoming more and more able to be considered an influential power (in line with my definition).
To understand why China's influence is increasingly pushing past its borders, just do the math.

When 1.3 billion people want something, the world feels it. And when those people in ever increasing numbers are joining a swelling middle class eager for a richer lifestyle, the world feels it even more. If China's growth continues, its consumer market will be the world's second largest by 2015 [14]. China, being the world's largest exporter, [10] exerts considerable control over world markets.
It holds the United States at bay with it's debt and currency manipulation.
China's massive growth greatly increased it's influence. China's influence is now world wide.

In conclusion, when determining whether China is, or will become a superpower, look at the facts:
1. China has the world's largest army.
2. China has the world's largest population.
3. China will have the world's largest economy (by 2016, in 5 years)
4. China has a massive nuclear stockpile.
5. China exerts global influence.

By all accounts, China is a superpower, or at least by 2016, it will be a superpower.

I urge an affirmative vote.



1- http://en.wikipedia.org.........

2- http://www.nytimes.com........

3- http://globalfirepower.com.........

4- http://www.cbsnews.com.........

5- http://www.nytimes.com........

6- ibid

7- ibid

8- http://www.google.com........

9- http://post.queensu.ca.........

10. https://www.cia.gov.........

11. http://www.guardian.co.uk.........

12. http://www.dailymail.co.uk.........

13. http://www.fas.org.........

14- http://www.washingtonpost.com.........
Kethen

Con

I don't find Wiki credible and Google isn't a source. The Google one needs a website. Thanks.

1) Military Power
China's military is far far behind most of the major countries today. Far behind the U.S. , Russia, Britain, France and Canada. Their military is at least 20 years behind. [1] You also stated that they have "the most modern and advanced navies in the world" which could be considered true except for the fact it isn't. Their very first carrier used "a 20+ year-old Soviet hull with updated electronics"[1]"Even China's newest military gear is reminiscent of Western or Soviet technology from about 20 years ago"[1] Even the Chinese officials agree.
"There is a 20-year gap between China and the U.S. military in equipment, weapons and systems, Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie told the 10th Shangri-La Dialogue on June 5 in Singapore.
"I would call the gap big," he said. Liang acknowledged that China's military modernization has improved, but the "main battle equipment of our services … is mainly second-generation weapons." China does not have a large arsenal of third-generation weapons, systems or platforms. "For example, the army is still being motorized, not mechanized," he said."- Chinese Gen. Liang Guanglie [1] You also brought up there "advanced air fighter" it to isn't advanced. "Even its stealth fighter is rumored to have been build with secrets stolen from the USAF's 30 year-old F-117A design"[1]
They like to throw around the amount of troops they have which does help. One problem with that is that their mass numbers don't make them very good fighters. It actually hinders them because it is a lot easier to train 2,000 troops extremely well then it is to train 20,000. Numbers don't win wars, skill, preparation and support does. China has a drafted army which throughout history has been the worst means of military strength. They lost the Sino-Vietnamese War, they argue that they achieved their goal except the Vietnamese stayed in Cambodia for quite awhile longer. You could argue U.S. sort of lost Vietnam. They didn't because their goals were actually achieved but they didn't completely obliterate them like everyone would expect. A bigger point is they are too dependant on other countries... We will get to that. I find no source that says "China dominates the Pacific Region". Though I do find that they control the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. still controls the Pacific.

2)Population.
I quote you. "Without a doubt, a sizable and strong population is a necessary component of the superpower status. China once again achieves this." and I agree.
Problem for you is that word strong. That means a usable population. So babies don't count and neither does the elderly. China has this limiting babies problem. So they inherited this " 4-2-1 phenomenon, in which one child is supporting two parents and four grandparents"[2] They are by law forcing their country to become a country of the elderly.With the working class not consisting of people under 18 or people over 65 by "2039, less than two Chinese taxpayers may have to look after one retiree."[3]

3)Economic Power.
On the SURFACE this one seems completely true. But really it isn't.
Like I said before. The more workers then non-workers speaks of how well a country will thrive.
Problem is they are doing the exact opposite...like on purpose. By 2050 the amount of elderly people will rise" from 10% now to 40%" [4] Now we can't compare them to America yet because we are talking about the World. So lets look at other developing nations. "From about 2030 the country will have more elderly dependants than children (see chart 8), whereas in most other developing countries the opposite will remain true for the next few decades. China's pattern of ageing is very similar to that in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The difference is that in China this is happening at a time when the country is still relatively poor."[4]
Now them surpassing America is a myth. In fact Forbes agrees "Myth No. 2: China could surpass the U.S. as the largest economy in 10 years. Truth: There is a reasonable chance that China will never surpass the U.S"[5]. China has been on a growth but now they are reaching their peak where they will start declining. "The last 30 years were characterized by demographic expansion very favorable to growth in the PRC. The next 30 will be generally characterized by demographics unfavorable to growth. The transition from growth-conducive to growth-hostile demographics will begin about the middle of this decade and continue indefinitely"[5]
They also rely too much on other countries. They are a very export country. Which is great except when no one wants your goods anymore. Then you have this problem that you weren't producing anything for your country. So no you are not making money and not making goods that can support your country. Even their currency is dependant on other countries. "Without the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency and the American bond market as safe haven, China's exchange rate and balance of payments regime could not function."[5]

4) Nuclear Capabilities
I think this is useless anyway because almost all developed countries have nuclear capabilities. They start teaching about nuclear reactions in Beginning Chemistry. Anyway the technology isn't what makes them a superpower. In that case North Korea is. It is the ICBMs or other means of transportation that make them a Superpower. China has a whopping 20 while the U.S. has a not so whopping 830 and Russia has more. [6] By 2015 China will have an extreme amount of 75 missiles focused on the U.S. The U.S. will have a boring amount of 780 on China.[6] China is really not looking to get a huge nuclear capability. "China has never responded by building large nuclear forces of its own and is unlikely to do so in the future". They don't seem to want it that bad. They might even be the first country that truly wants global peace!

5) Influential
I 100% agree that China is influential. But I do not agree that it is relevant to a countries Super Power status. Greece is not considered to be a superpower but they are influencing decisions in the U.S. now. Most of Africa can't be considered at all to be a superpower but they influence decision as well. Modern day times every country is tied together by more than a thread. The only influence that matters is the influence they have to force another country to do as they wish. China doesn't do that. They are right beside North Korea and could easily obliterate them but have done nothing. They may have the capability but they don't ever try. You issue about when their population wants something they get it is utterly false. It isn't the amount of people that want something its the amount of money they have. China is a poor country their people don't make much money. When they want something they don't normally get it.

Conclusion
1) China's military is large but far behind in technology and technology wins wars. They are also not very well trained.
2) Numbers don't matter if they are people that are not working. They are also poor people. Their population seems to have no relevance.
3)"China will have the world's largest economy (by 2016, in 5 years)" Completely false. Their economy is on a decline.
4)China has very little nuclear warheads
5)every country is Influential. Influence is irrelevant

Economy, Working Pop. and Military is what is relevant. China has or will have none of these

[1]http://defensetech.org...
[2]http://www.ibtimes.com...
[3]http://factsanddetails.com...
[4]http://www.economist.com...
[5]http://www.forbes.com...
[6]http://www.atimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GWindeknecht1

Pro

For some reason my "Copy and Paste" only copied the domain name. I have no idea why so I'll recopy and repaste them all to this debate. For this I apologize. I have no explanation for why that occurred.

I'll first go over my opponents case then back over my own. (And then repost sources of Round 2) .

1) Military Power

One thing my opponent and I both agree upon: Military power is a fundamental characteristic of a super power.

My opponent calls China's military as outdated and ineffecient. However, I have research to the contrary. And I promise the sources will work this time.

China's military power has grown exponentially in recent years. To such an extent, where the undermine confirmed superpower the United States' influence in the Pacific.
"China'sincreasingly advanced weaponry could undermine U.S. navalpower in the Pacific,Defense Secretary Robert Gatessaid on Wednesday.Echoing USintelligence guidelines released on Tuesday that warned of Beijing'smilitary modernization, Gates said USnaval carriers and air bases in the Pacific faced new threats from China." [15]

Furthermore, China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft and counter-space systems. [16]

In addition, "As China's military modernization steadily advances, there are questions in Washington about Beijing's ability to project power abroad and deter U.S. intervention in the Pacific" [17].

Though my opponent has contended that China's military is 20 years behind the U.S., China's military is indisputably a strong and formidable force.

[15]- http://www.breitbart.com...
[16]-http://www.marsecreview.com...
[17]-http://carnegieendowment.org...
2) Population

My opponent has contended that China's population is unusable. However, this couldn't be farther from the truth. In the Korean War, China's massive numbers gave China the ability to destroy NATO Coalition forces, regardless of the techonology.
In addition, this 4-2-1 effect is not in place as of right now, and it won't be in place until 2039, (according to you), which is far beyond the scope of this resolution (5-15 years).
Furthermore, this effect isn't felt at all right now, as China's median age is still in the norm. [18]

[18]- https://www.cia.gov...

3) Economic Power

Throughout this point, we are looking at sheer economic power, not individual power. If it were judged by individual power, Norway, Luxembourg, and other European nations would win with the highest GDP per capita in the world [19]. No, what we have to do is look at sheer economic power. This is perhaps the most important factor when judging a superpower. China's economy will be the biggest by 2016, within 5 years [20]. They cannot be the world's foremost economic power without being a superpower (in my opinion only).
Again, we have to look at the scope of the resolution, 5-15 years, and we can see China will in fact take over the United States as the world's leading economic power. For the next 5-15 years at least, China must be classified as a superpower due to economic ability.

[19]- https://www.cia.gov...
[20]-http://www.guardian.co.uk...

4) Nuclear Capacity

This is not as important a sign of superpower status, but rather an inherent component. A nation can be a superpower without having nuclear weapons, though the process of being confirmed by experts would become more difficult. I realize and agree that the U.S. has more nuclear weapons than China, though we also have to realize China is indeed a nuclear power.

5) Influence

My opponent misinterpreted the meaning of "influence". He took it as the ability of having influence, but in international superpower terms, influence is in reference to the ability to exert influence to change global conditions at will. [21] [22] [23] [24]

[21]- http://www.wnd.com...
[22]-http://news.xinhuanet.com...
[23]http://www.wikinvest.com...(CTXIF)/Chinese_Government_Exerts_Substantial_Influence_Over_Manner_Conduct
[24]-http://www.eastvalleytribune.com...

Conclusions Drawn:
1) China's military is advancing very quickly and in the next 5-10 years will be on par with the U.S.
2) Numerical advantages play a decisive role. They may be poor but they pack a punch.
3) China has a massive economy, which grew by 10% last year (far more growth than in the U.S.)
4) China has a nuclear stockpile, an indicator of a super power status.
5) China exerts influence at will, unlike almost every country today.

I'm now going to re-list all lost evidence from the previous round. Again, for some reason citing evidence is not working with me today.

1-http://en.wikipedia.org...
2- http://www.nytimes.com...
3-http://globalfirepower.com...
4-http://www.associatedcontent.com...
5- http://www.nytimes.com...
6- ibid
7- ibid
8-http://geography.about.com...
9-http://post.queensu.ca...
10-https://www.cia.gov...
11-http://www.guardian.co.uk...
12-http://www.commondreams.org...
13-http://www.tldm.org...
14-http://www.mineweb.com...

Again, sorry for the source problems. I hope they work this time.
I urge an affirmative ballot.
Kethen

Con

Good Job! I'm enjoying this!
1) Military
I don't know what to say. I can find numerous sources that say both. So who are telling the truth and who are blowing it out of proportion? I don't know but I will form my argument either way.
Instead of putting up a rebuttal I am just going to tear apart his facts and sources because if I go find more sources it will be a stalemate.
You must have not read your sources all the way through.( I don't normally either).
But either your sources don't speak on how modern they are or they agree with me that they are still behind "By purchasing fourth-generation fighters from the Russians and as it starts building more advanced fighters, China has also enhanced its aircraft. The country, however, is still having trouble with engine designs and therefore still depends on expertise and equipment from the Russians. " your source [1]
You go on to say that China is developing and fielding short-long-medium ranged missiles. This is true. Russia, U.S. and Germany were developing these 60 years ago. Fielding them about 40 years ago.
Germany had V-2s in the late 1930's (all be it not very good ones)
Also you keep bringing up the undermining thing. By undermining I don't think they mean like they are going to be able to fight us or attack us. I think they mean more like they will be able to influence nations more and remove a little of our influence. Or not even that far just as of right now No one compares to the U.S. so they really do whatever they want and they just won't be able to do whatever they want anymore.
I would agree that China has a strong force but I disagree that it is formidable. I believe in a war we would lose lots have men but they definitely wouldn't stand a chance. Expescially since all your sources agree that China is not even comparable to us physically they only stand a chance cyberly. Your own source says "In … late 2008, when they deployed a three-ship task group to the Gulf of Aden to conduct counterpiracy operations, that was a big step for them," Dorsett added. "Three ships to the Gulf of Aden, compared to what the U.S. Navy does on a daily basis, … you can't contrast the two, because the difference is so great." [5] They are getting praised for things we did pre-WWI.
No one agrees that they are a formidable foe, just an up and coming one. They are not going to be a superpower just a large pain in the superpowers butts. They have the means to undermine us but not the means to do anything more than that. By undermine they mean to annoy us and try pushing their own ideas. All your sources agree they are far behind us and Russia but that they will grow and MAYBE eventually become powerful but not for an extremely long time a dominating force. You want to limit this to 5-15 years. Your source agrees by 2020 they still wont be formidable "But by 2020, Chinese aircraft carrier proficiency and capability will still be very limited, Dorsett said, because integrating flying aircraft into not just flight deck operations but battle group operations "takes a fair amount of time."� [2]

So my opponent wants to say military is advanced and powerful, but his own sources speak to the contrary. So my opponent can agree or disagree with me but his sources agree.

2) Population
You brought up their numbers in the Korean war (when they were way higher percentage of working adult and we are not talking about 50 years ago but none the less)
"China's massive numbers gave China the ability to destroy NATO Coalition forces, regardless of the techonology"
I don't know what you were thinking but that is crazy. All of NATO lost less troops than China alone![3]
In fact here is a little story my grandpa told me before he died. North Korean and Chinese troops were NOT ALLOWED to initiate combat on U.S. Marines because they know they would lose. If fired upon by U.S. troops they were told to retreat at a timely manner! The only reason NATO got pushed back is because every country except the U.S. pulled out as soon as China started in. We were left with entire front left unguarded! My grandpa told me this story so I have no source but his name is Keith Hoard. The 4-2-1 started in 1970's I said that already. They are hitting their peak now. Now they will start to decline. [sources from before]

3)"Throughout this point, we are looking at sheer economic power, not individual power. If it were judged by individual power, Norway, Luxembourg, and other European nations would win with the highest GDP per capita in the world."
I agree and disagree with this. GDP is important and GDP per capita is more important. See luxembourg has a population of less than U.S. cities. That is why its per capita is so high. You have to have a balance between GDP and GDP per capita. US. makes in GDP 14.582 trillion and Percent $47,784 per person for 300 million people. Lux is 108,000 but only for 500,000 people that's only 55 billion in GDP. So U.S. is the economic superpower because in the top ten GDP per capita they have by far the highest pop.
China on the other hand is way way down there. GDP is 5.5 trillion 1/3 of what U.S. makes. Per capita they make 4,000 ten times less then the U.S. but way more people. The balance is that U.S. is the third largest in pop. and largest in GDP. With a great GDP per capita were China is Largest (for now India is on their way) and has a way lower GDP but are still 2nd. With a very poor GDP per capita.
I am tired of arguing about Economy. China has a poor economy period it is not arguable. When most of your citizens still live in huts and grass houses you are not an economic superpower. Your government may be rich but you are not only very poor but on the verge of rebellion.
Numbers [4]"To believe that China is the next superpower, it�€™s also necessary to assume that China�€™s super-charged economic growth will continue. Unfortunately, relying on any country�€™s past performance to predict its future prospects is a risky proposition"[5]
There is no argument that they have a very large GDP but that doesn't matter if they have too large of a population. China is not a economic superpower, they may seem like it but once their people need more support they will end or revolt.

4) My opponent said and I quote "This is not as important a sign of superpower status, but rather an inherent component." I agree it is not important because everyone has the capability now. Including terrorists. Everyone has nuclear capabilities

5)I agree with his definition of influence and sorry I didn't describe what I meant very well. I did understand what it meant. My point was they can't have a high influence because they are too controlled by other countries and everything else I said still apples to this. My prior argument still stands.

Conclusion
1)My opponent disagrees but his sources agree with me. China is not and will not be for quite awhile a military superpower (definitely a great power though there is a difference.
2)Numerical value plays no role. It is proven through out history that a few well trained men will always beat a bunch of poorly trained men.Especially when they have nothing to fight for they have to kill their kids if they have to many and their not supported by the government
3)China makes a lot but they spend too much as well. They have too many people and as a country they are not rich at all. Quite poor. Their people are poor.
4)My opponent even agreed Nuclear power means nothing. Especially today when even terrorist can get their hands on it.
5)China can exert influence at will but they are shut down by all the countries they depend on. China has influence but the countries that they depend on shut them up awful quick.

[1]http://carnegieendowment.org...
[2]http://www.marsecreview.com...
[3]http://koreanwarstuff.com...
[4]http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I'm going to keep this final round as short as possible, as our voters already have quite a bit to read through before voting.

I would like to take a quick moment to thank my opponent for one of the most enjoyable debates I've ever participated in. So thank you very much.
hey
Final Observations and Clarifications.

What this debate comes down to today is whether or not China is by definition, a superpower. Or at least will reach super power status in the next 15 years or so.

These are the characteristics we must look at:

1. Military Power
2. Population
3. Economic Power
4. Nuclear Capacity
5. Global Influence

Military Power

China has the world's largest ground force, 3rd largest navy, and an advanced array of figher jets. They are one of the largest militaries in the world, no debating that. My opponent has said that their weapons are outdated, however this is not the case [1]

1- http://wareye.com...

Population

China has the world's largest population, with more than 700 million available manpower. This is 4 times that the United States could muster. China's population is a deciding factor, regardless of how much each citizen produces [2].

Economic Power

China has the world's second largest economy, producing well over $10,600,000,000,000 (10.6 trillion) USD [2] in gross domestic product per year. In 2016, the United States will cease to be the world's dominate economic power, and the age of China will have begun. [3][4][5] China is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

2-https://www.cia.gov...
3-http://www.foxbusiness.com...
4-http://business.blogs.cnn.com...
5-http://www.ezega.com...

Nuclear Capacity

This is not necessarily a characteristic, but an indicator of great military power. As only a relatively few highly powerful nations have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. China has a nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no debating this.

Global Influence

China has the rare ability, like the United States, to project power anywhere on the planet. In addition, China is the world's largest exporter [2]. China has massive global influence, not only over the Pacific Region but also over the entirety of the world market. Few other nations, besides the United States and perhaps Russia, have this unique ability to:
A) Project power anywhere in the world
B) Exert massive influence over the world's economy

So I'll end with a few observations.

1) China has the world's largest and one of the most advanced militaries.

2) China has the world's largest population.

3) China will have the world's largest economy.

4) China has a viable nuclear capacity.

5) China exerts extremely strong global influence.

Again, I'd like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate.

I urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Kethen

Con

I had fun too!

1) Military power.
Your source says nothing on them being caught up in technology. They are on the right track is what it speaks of consistently (and they are).
I have already shown that their "advanced fighters" are 20 year old Russian designs. Just looking at the pictures from his source shows their Cold War Era technology. They are even bragging about Cold War Era technology. His source said "When asked Khrushchev condemning us ... "missiles plus one satellite... For example, the "hawk hit 12″ supersonic anti-ship missiles, using solid punching power, the maximum flight speed of more than three times the speed of sound, penetration ability, long-distance, is the latest generation of anti-ship, anti-aircraft carrier "killer." Also, the "East Wind 41-type" missile, "waves-II" submarine-launched ballistic missiles, only to hear its sound, has made enemies Ghost Ship. China Eastern tribe missiles, has both nuclear and can do all kinds of range, power and have made, you can flexibly and effectively applied to a variety of strategic, tactical battlefield, effectively defeating the enemy"
This is all technology the real superpowers had 30+ years ago.
It is a fact that they are outdated. China is on the right track and that is it. They have lots of troops that are poorly trained. Size means nothing. That is prove through history Sun Tzu agrees "Other conditions being equal, if one force is hurled against another ten times its size, the result will be the flight of the former." [1] Meaning if all being equal the army 10 times the size will be the fleeing army.

Conclusion. Their military is a great power but not a superpower

2)Population
It is a prove fact that China has a huge population. Their population is backwards though. They have 4 grandparents and 2 parents for every 1 Child. If they want to be a Superpower they have to have a population that is young not old. If they want to be a superpower it is not a 5 -15 year long deal to be a superpower you have to stay powerful for quite awhile. China's population is not only unsustainable but they are very poor and will have a very low workforce percentage.

Conclusion.
They have a huge population that is old or will be old and reduces their workforce percentage. They are also very poor and their size is unsustainable. Their workforce will be to low to support a superpower.

3)Economy
I don't have to argue with my opponent. His sources do for me. They all state how is some way they are to dependant on the U.S. or other countries. "Half of the world's economies are linked to that of the United States and investment by its entrepreneurs. Again, the United States leads the world in technological invention, which is the key to economic progress and development. Most of the manufacturing hubs in China are established by the US-based companies and any sanction by the government of that country can create problems for the Chinese economy."[2] You also state they are the largest exporter. Which on the surface sounds good. I pointed out earlier how that is a negative though. It is good to export usable products but China doesn't they export U.S. goods. Not food, not medicine...toys and clothes. Not only that their economy is on the decline I showed many stats that showed you can only grow so fast and they are hitting their peak. You can't use the past to judge the future. Their economy is on a decline while India's is going up. Their 4-2-1 will kick in and they will launch back down. They make have a lot of money but they only make 4,000 per capita! Also your 10 trillion dollar GDP number isn't a fact it an idea. 2011 isn't over that is one mans opinion on what it will be. As of right now it is 3.175 trillion.[3] Halfway through the year. Do you see a 10 trillion dollar outcome with that?

Conclusion
I can't believe we are still talking about their economy. It is prove it can't be sustained with their population, its not possible! They make $4,000 per capita! that isn't enough to buy each person a car. A large portion of their civilians still live in huts. It doesn't matter if their GDP is super high if they can't support their own people! They are controlled by other countries (why being a huge exporter can be bad) If NATO stops trading with them they literally make nothing.
The argument about their economy is dead in the water.

4) Nuclear Power
My opponent states "This is not necessarily a characteristic, but an indicator of great military power. As only a relatively few highly powerful nations have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. China has a nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no debating this"
This statement is utterly false states with nuclear capabilities (not including for energy) " Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea
Unacknowledged: Israel
Abandoned: South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up."[4]

Would you consider these countries superpower? No, terrorist can get nuclear bombs. They are not a superpower. Nuclear capability proves nothing for superpower status. Just that they want a big bomb.

Conclusion
My opponent is simply wrong. Nuclear bombs are easily obtained in today's time. Many countries and terrorist organizations can get nuclear bombs and they are not being considered superpowers. Even more countries have nuclear power plants and can easily make a nuclear bomb. Nuclear has nothing to do with a superpower status anymore.

5)Global Influence
Like I said in Economy. They are controlled by other countries. They can't be too influential or the major countries will pull the rug out from under them. They can exert their will as long as the major countries will deal with it. Just like now the business owners are sending business to Mexico and India and the U.S. is punishing them!

Conclusion
Their influence is limited by the countries they are dependant on.

Final Conclusion
1)Military
Their military is a great power but not a superpower. It is a fact their technology is out of date. My opponents sources agree with me. They do have a huge army but their skill is more important. Not only does history prove it Sun Tzu who wrote the Art of War wrote it down.

2)Population
They have a huge population that is old or will be old and reduces their workforce percentage. They are also very poor and their size is unsustainable. Their workforce will be to low to support a superpower.

3)Economy
Any country that boasts a GDP per capita of $4,000 is not a superpower. Any country dependant on another countries technology is not a superpower. Any country with a vast margin of their civilians still living in dirt floor huts are not a superpower. China is all of thee above.

4)Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is irrelevant in modern day times. It is too easily obtainable and can be packed into a suitcase. They teach the fundamentals to high school kids and terrorist and small countries have the capabilities.

5)They are just as influential as none superpowers and their influence is limited by the countries that control them.
Their influence is at a minimum.

I thank my opponent for a fun debate and causing me to get no homework done!

[1]http://classics.mit.edu...
[2]http://www.ezega.com...
[3]http://nextbigfuture.com...
[4]http://www.infoplease.com...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Pro I'm not sure what you think I meant. When I said you only had 1 legit debate on this topic, I was responding to Kethen, who implied that you shouldn't debate me on the topic because you've debated it a lot already. But all of your opponents have forfeited, except this one. Hence the 1 legit debate.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
This was the best debate I have read I want to debate this topic now!
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
I'm a high school debater. I've had hundreds of debates. This one was one of the most enjoyable debates I've had. You criticize me without knowing the whole picture Blackvoid.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Well he's only had 1 legit debate on it...
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
Kethen- I should made the debate for 5 rounds! Great debate
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
You want him to debate it AGAIN!!!!!!
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Pro when you're done I'll still take this with you if you're up to it.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
I know, regardless, this is still one of the most fun debates I've ever had on this site. For the record.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
It is all good! I have a feeling no one is going to want to read all the way through this
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
For some reason, none of my sources copied correctly. I apologize and will recopy all sources for the next round.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by googlemabob 5 years ago
googlemabob
GWindeknecht1KethenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments were about even in my opinion, but Pro used more sources, and had better conduct imo.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
GWindeknecht1KethenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Great debates guys. population wise India is almost equal to China so that i feel doesnt influence a superpower, nuclear potential is everywhere so I feel that doesnt apply either, but that still left pro with 3 good points that con provided good evidence against. Pro's sources did check out and I know what its like to put up with the copy/paste annoyance. Great debate to both sides
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
GWindeknecht1KethenTied
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 agree with Con, China is a paper tiger as pro's sources confirm.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
GWindeknecht1KethenTied
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: Con posed his case better, and pro didn't define as much, and china's military sucks, more doesn't mean better.