The Instigator
WesternGuy2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Eca3101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

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

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 44115
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

WesternGuy2

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate
I hope we have a great debate!
Evidence is only to be presented when asked for
Last speeches, no new evidence is to be presented
1st speech- opening
2nd- rebuttals
3rd- more rebuttals
4th- summary
5th- Closing statement
Good luck!
CON- Case
First some definitions:
The Rise of China is the process of China is changing from a developing country to a developed one, especially in the last ten years.
The interests of the United States should be defined as the favorable foreign policies, security, and well being of the US as a whole.
Standard- Since this topic contains the words, "on balance" we have to look at this topic at a net benefit scale based on benefiting the interests of the United States.
With that said, we have a few main arguments
Contention 1: China"s military rise is a threat to United States
According to defense.gov:
China is modernizing its military technology.
There are now ICBM missiles that can fire about 11,000km, a missile capable of reaching almost all parts of the continental United States
According to The Atlantic Monthly:
Presently, China is focusing on humiliating the United States in specific missile and submarine encounters
For example, if China sends a missile into a US carrier, even if it did not sink the ship, the effects would be as politically and psychologically catastrophic to the United States as the Al Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers.
US policy makers should be very concerned with Chinese development of long-ranged missiles.
These dangers are coupled with the South China Sea crisis that is occuring as China"s rise gives way to more Chinese military aggression in the area. According to the Council on Foreign Relations:
The risk of conflict in the South China Sea is significant.
The most likely and dangerous contingency is a clash stemming from U.S. military operations within China's Exclusive Economic Zone that provokes an armed Chinese response.
The impact is clear. China"s rise threatens the United States security. With more money at hand, China will increase military spending, threatening American safety.

Contention 2: China steals American manufacturing jobs & intellectual property
The loss of manufacturing jobs to the United States caused much unemployment of US citizens.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Between 2001 and 2011, the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S. jobs, over 2.1 million of which (77%) were in manufacturing. These lost manufacturing jobs account for more than half of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between 2001 and 2011.
Intellectual property is also lost to China harming trade and other factors.

According to the Heritage Foundation- The PRC is the world"s biggest thief of that kind of property. Chinese firms and individuals frequently ignore patents and other legal guarantees, or even steal trade secrets. By illegally taking our ideas and our technology, China undermines our biggest advantage in trade, making trade less beneficial. This is why so many Americans see trade with China as harming our economy.

The impact if clear- If China is stealing not only our manufacturing jobs, but is also stealing intellectual property. Due to this, unemployment goes up and trade becomes less beneficial harming the interests of the United States
Contention 3: The rise of China hurts the environment
China hurts the environment
According to The Guardian News- China has overtaken the US as the world"s largest CO2 emitter, emmitting around 22% of deaths in the United States.
According to the New York Times:
China"s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history; its pollution problem has shattered all precedents
Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
According to the Medscape Daily, the Pollution in the US is Blamed for 3% of American Deaths.
The impact is that China is creating a lot of pollution due to its rise causing deaths, including in the US, harming the interests of the United States
Eca3101

Pro

A lot of people don't realize that China isn't a threat to the US, instead it's more of a competitor. And like a business, competition is good because it pushes both companies to be better than the other, thus making a better product for the consumer. Now instead of a product, nations produce an economy for their citizens to live and thrive off of. The US remained the number 1 economy for a big portion of the 20th century and still is. However now that it is threatened by China, the US will need to step up its game by fixing it's economy instead of just sitting back and doing nothing (which is kind of what Bush did).

China's largest importer and in turn it's largest income is the USA, and without the states China will loose a lot of it's income. And without income you cannot have a large/modernized army. Even if China sends a missile to a Naval ship that belongs to the US, it will have retaliation from not just the states, but its allies too. The US and it's allies could fire back either economically (sanctions) or militarily. That will also have an effect on China that will hit it hard. The US will most likely put economic sanctions against China on top of a military strike which will hurt its economy, and once again loosing it's budget for an army to fight the US. China will be unable to fight the United States and its allies and will most likely loose the war. This benefits the USA by strengthening the nations trust in its armed forces and its government.

As for the South China Sea crisis:
I don't really believe that Chinese aggression will actually benefit China. If the Chinese aggregation does lead to war with any involved nation (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia etc) China will most likely win, however if the US and its allies manage to join in on the war against China, it will not be able to defeat the US. Now you may be saying "yeah but Vietnam has a really bad army compared to China, they won't do a thing", I agree with you but terrorists also have a low-budget minimal training army, and yet the Afgan war has been going on for 13 years.
Debate Round No. 1
WesternGuy2

Con

Thank you for a timely answer.
First, I will go over my opponents case, then go back to my own.
My opponent's first argument is competition, and that the US can only be better than China in a competitive relationship.
However, we are talking about the interests of the United States, and it is not in the interests of the US to be dependent on another country to increase its economy and other problems.

Because China now holds leverage over the US, because of the growing trade deficit, the US is now dependant on China. IT IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE US to be dependant on another country, as the US wants to maintain THE world superpower and THE world hegemon. In fact, For EVERY 15% increase in trade deficit with China, the US increases dependency on China by about 5%. Since 2001, using this model, the US has increased dependency on China by over 90%.

My opponent's second argument is about how China, without US could lose it's army. Without an army, there could be no missle attacking the US/allies, angering US + allies, where US will strike back showing hegemony in the area.
However, my opponent doesn't realize that the missile China is planning to build with the money they get from trade with US is in fact going to be so damaging, that instead of allowing the US to show hegemony, it will lower trust in US seeing that China can attack them and there is nothing US can do to stop them.

My opponent's third argument regarding the South China sea crisis is that China has no interests, and US will win if involved. However, it is not in US interests to be invovled in a war, and their military operations near China might provoke war with China. Due to it's big military, China will be more likely to attack with the mindset it has a similar military to US.

Now, to my arguments
First, China is a big threat to US hegemony.
Second, China steals American manufacturing , causing a loss of 2.7 million US jobs, and intellectual property.
Third, China's pollution causes pollution in US which is blamed for 3% of American deaths.
Thank you, and please vote CON
Eca3101

Pro

Ok, real quick before I move on:

-The US CAN benefit from the competition as it is trying to stop China from become the world superpower, the only way to do that without getting a lot of backlash from the UN and causing a 3rd world war, is by beating it economically and politically. This will actually HELP the states to increase it's economy's standing so it can stop the rise of China.
-Yes, I do agree that it is not in the interest of the USA to be dependent on another nation, however that alone is motivation to the states to get a better economy, again, that's competition
-Yes, I do understand that China is building its missles from the money they have, but with the NATO allies alone, the by FAR can easily outnumber the Chinese number of missiles. That's not to say China won't cause havoc, however the states (ignoring all human rights in this case) can easily beat the Chinese, not to mention what the NATO allies could do.
-Even if China had the same military as the USA, the US still has a lot of allies which are almost if not equal to the states army (the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, just to name a few). So even if China went in with their allies, they'd still be not match for the USA

Moving on:

China is a threat to US hegemony, however to have hegemony, other nations must see that you are the superpower of the world, now I highly doubt that if China tried to threaten Germany, for example, Germany will not comply. Neither will many other nations across the world. China may have a hegemony in Asia, but so does the states. This is also an example of competition, the US needs to step up their game when it comes to other nations and politically.

Also, China's economy is NOT immune, and is not going to ruin america, just read this (http://www.globalpost.com...) article, I'm not saying it's going down, I'm just saying it's slowing down, which can lead to decline.
Debate Round No. 2
WesternGuy2

Con

Thank You for a timely response
I will be going over my opponent's arguments.
Their first argument is that the US can beat CHina econonomically and politically with competition.
However, there is a major flaw in this argument. If the US wants to stop the rise of China, how can China rise in the interests of the United States. This is contradicting my opponent, and should be disregarded.
Also, my opponent shows no evidence stating if competition with China will actually increase the US economy at all.
My opponent's second refutation is that US dependenecy on China will cause competition. Unfortunately, this is not refuting my point at all.
I am saying that competition causes dependency, and my opponent is just stacking more competition on top of that. It seems this is the only argument he has to refute any of my arguments. He shows no way in how competition CAN be produced from dependency. Judge, you have to rule this false.
My opponent also goes on to talk about how with NATO and other allies, US can outnumber Chinese missiles. That is not the point. Even if we can outnumber them, it is still another war we are getting into, and it is not in the interests of the US to BE in another war, even if we have the ability to win. As this debate is about the interests of the US, not winning a war against China, you have to vote this argument to the CON.
My opponent also says that China is a threat to US hegemony, however, this argument flows to my side since this is about how the rise of China is NOT in the interests of the US. He is contradicting himself.
Lastly, my opponent says the China is not rising at all, however, we have defined rise as the switch to industrial to service oriented economy, and China is currently making that switch (CIA). My opponent also gives an article about China's economy going down. However, this is dated in May of 2012. A lot has changed since 2012, so the evidence is outdated and shouldn't be used in this round.
Thank you, and please vote CON
Eca3101

Pro

Eca3101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WesternGuy2

Con

Extend All Arguments
Eca3101

Pro

I would like to say sorry as my internet was down and intact I'm using broadband portable wifi which is really slow. So sorry about that.

-The rise in China creates competition, and like I said, competition whether politically or from a business point of view, pushes things forward and thus creates a better by product (in this case a better economy). And since the US does want to stop the rise of China, again, more competition. This proves that my opponent misunderstood my argument and thought that I was contradicting myself, so his argument is invalid.
-My opponent also said that my answers of 'competition' are repetitive and that they are invalid, where as the whole world is driven my competition: empires rise and fall by competition, technology gets better because of competition, athletes train because of the competition, the same thing goes for economies, and in fact guess what drives an economy? Competition (Who can make the better product for the cheaper price etc).
-Also, completion does NOT cause dependency, the only time it does is if you lose to your competitor (that's if your around, of course) thus my argument is still perfectly valid
-My opponent says that it's not in the interest of the USA to go to another war. Well this is half true (I'll explain in a bit), it's also not in China's interest to go to war either, so it's not a smart move on both sides to go to war. And even if China did go to war, they would lose money as America is China's biggest importer of goods and thus their biggest income. Also, America might (and probably would) put a trade embargo against China, and thus the allies of the States which make up a MASSIVE portion of China's income, would disappear. And yes China does have missiles in stock, but once an embargo is in place and all the missiles are shot, no more missile buying for China (and in fact no more spending at all for China, that includes ammo, guns, war ships, fighter jets etc)
-For the hegemony I saw this coming. No nation or company likes to be competed with. Even if it's good for them they still don't like it, no argument there. However, I REALLY worded the hegemony argument wrong. Here's the cleared up version: China is a threat to US hegemony, however (here it goes) it creates competition to gain that hegemony back. That's something called motivation for the US to stop mistreating other nation (mainly 3rd and developing nations). I know I said competition a lot but it really fits here, competition motivates one nation to be better than another nation. Thus America needs to step its game up to gain back all of it's hegemony. Sorry for the confusion before.
-Ok, that article is outdated, but here's 2 more that are dated 2013 (since 2014 is a relatively new year, 2013 articles still count): http://www.reuters.com... and http://wallstcheatsheet.com...
Like I said, China's economy is not bullet proof, and can slow if not crash eventually.

And for the other arguments I didn't reply on:
-The rise of China hurts the environment.
China and no other nation alone can ruin the environment unless they do something VERY stupid (like dump a bunch a nuclear wast out in the open, for example). I have 3 articles here that say that global warming is natural: http://www.drroyspencer.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... and http://www.express.co.uk... so china's really not THAT big of a threat to the environment
-I just so happened to find the article you were talking about (http://www.theguardian.com...) and it's dates 19 June 2007, allot has changed since 2007. I couldn't find anywhere that around 22% of deaths in the US are caused by the CO2 emission. Thus your argument is invalid
-Of course China's rise has no parallel in history. Neither did England when it rose, same with the USA. The rest of your argument I answered above.

Once again I would like to apologize for my internet crashing.
Please vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
WesternGuy2

Con

Thank You
I understand that some things DO happen, such as the internet going down.
So, let us agree that the last round never happened.
So, back to the debate.
I will first refute my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own.
Now, my opponent is not giving any clash in this debate AT ALL. Any argument I make in this debate against my opponent's arguments are ignored. My opponent essentially extends their arguments without refuting my refutations. This is what debate is all about.
So, again, my opponent shows no evidence stating if competition with China will actually increase the US economy at all.
My opponent also shows no way in how competition CAN be produced from dependency. If you are competiting, my opponent is essentailly relying on China's capability to be better than the US for competition to ensue. If this is not called dependency, then I do not know what is.
My opponent says that China will not go to war. However, my WHOLE SECOND ARGUMENT says why China will go to war, and how it will be deveastating to the interests of the US.
My opponent rewords their hegemony argument.
However, this argument is still flawed. As the US is the most powerful country in the world, how is the rise of China, which barely has any hegemony compared to the US, be competitive against the US's hegemonic powers. It doesn't work.
My opponent gives more recent articles about how China is falling. However, compared to previous economic growth in the early 2000s, the economic growth of 7% is still high. However, we are talking about the rise of China, and the rise is given in the resolution, so it should not be debated at all.
Lastly, we will talk about the enviornment.
Seems that the article I cited is not there anymore.
However, I found an article with a graph from the Guardian (http://co2now.org...;) (http://image.guardian.co.uk...;)
This says that China is about 20% higher in CO2 emmissions than the US.
Sorry about the confusion, however as the evidence was my opponent's only argument against it, my argument still stands.
For all these reasons, please vote CON
Thank You
And, don't worry about the forfeited round. These things happen all the time
Eca3101

Pro

Eca3101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 2 years ago
LaughingRiddle
China is without a doubt a problem and not at all a benefit to the world.

It is the country we have to thank for the NK nightmare, it is utterly dishonest in all its dealings, and tries to short change everyone it does business with.

It has a xenophobic violent expansionist single party autocracy in place.

It is engaging in the largest arms race since WWI. And dragging the enitre pac region with it.

This a country with no morals, a government known for doing whatever it takes for its own poltical survival, if WWIII was in the interest of the party you better beleive they would wage it.

It cares nothing for human rights and would stop at nothing to see the world be centred around China.

It's leader are corrupt pigs whose children pour acid on your daughter if she doesn't go out with them.

China has been commiting genocide it Tibet for over 50 years.

I could go on forever, bottom line, China is as bad as Nazi Germany ever was.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I believe it's not "resolved" if it's "on balance." Resolved refers to taking a policy or action on the part of This House, while "on balance" refers to the various pros and cons of something, but not on whether an action should be taken.
No votes have been placed for this debate.