The Instigator
ChrisMandelaJunior
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
TheChamp
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or dip

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
ChrisMandelaJunior
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,523 times Debate No: 87473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

ChrisMandelaJunior

Pro

We cannot have a policy of economic stagnation between two countries. With this period of economic interconnectedness, China's economic problems are our economic problem, and vice versa. Right now, viewing China as the Big Bad Wolf is not a correct position to take. In actuality, it is not even a grown-up position to take. If we allow ourselves to become friends and cooperate with China, who knows what problems could be resolved. In particular, the problem of North Korea could be easily flushed out if we became China's allies, because they almost totally depend on China. With arguably the two greatest world superpowers working together, we as a nation would achieve so much more. So, this is why I believe that we should have better economic and diplomatic relations between our two countries.
TheChamp

Con

I think we should blame China.First off what affects China affects us as well.China's market is going down the drain and that is affecting America in a very bad way. It is making our markets drop as well.
Debate Round No. 1
ChrisMandelaJunior

Pro

In this rebuttal I shall address my opponents arguments and try to prove them wrong.
So, my opponents stance seems to be that since China's market is going down the drain, it is making our markets drop as well. Well, my first refutation is, who is to say this is not because of us working together and having better diplomatic relations? Because we almost seemingly refuse to engage with trade with them unless our hands are tied our back, we will not work with them and trade with them. If we engaged with an alliance with them like we did with the UK, then both of our economies could be bolstered with this. Secondly, is china's market really going down the drain? While's china's transition from investment to consumer spending may have caused a stuttering of economy in the short term, in actuality it's growth of GDP is going up above the average, from 3.2 percent to 3.5 percent, says Goldman Sachs in this article "http://www.goldmansachs.com...; In actuality, China's market is going up, not going down, and wouldn't it be better for us, as Americans, to do the best for our people and attach ourselves to their rapidly growing economy.
TheChamp

Con

So are you blaming America for all of this?
Debate Round No. 2
ChrisMandelaJunior

Pro

I'm sorry, but it seems to me like my opponent is not reading my arguments. I am not blaming America for anything. Instead, I was responding to your point of how china's market is going down the drain. Well, if you refer back to my second post and the Goldman Sachs article along with it, you can see that China's market is not going down the drain, instead it is growing above the average for countries and it's change from investment to consumer spending is actualy going to make it go up more in the long term. What my point was is that since you are saying that China's bad market is affecting America in a very bad way, and that is why we should not trade with them, that instead China's market is going up at a very steep rate, and it would be beneficial for us to exchange in trade and other activities with a country like China whose economy is going up at a very large rate.
TheChamp

Con

TheChamp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con misunderstands the debate. The debate is whether the USFG should increase its economic or diplomatic engagement with China. Con concedes that "what affects China affects [the US] as well." Pro basically turns this against Con, and argues that the US should not maintain an economically isolationist policy and should seek to deal with China. Pro refutes Con's assertion that China's GDP growth is reducing and substantiates it with a strong source supporting the same claim. The refutation further says that China's economic growth should be used by America to further grow its own economy. Con then entirely straw-mans and misinterprets Pro's position, asking Pro if Pro is "blaming the U.S.," and Pro clearly establishes that they aren't blaming anyone. Pro's R1 is very unclear about the probability of benefits, merely arguing about"possible"benefits, which isn't sufficient. But Con drops Pro's offense largely. Pro wins on economic growth. Thus, I vote Pro.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter examines several arguments made by each debater and comes to a clear decision as a result. Thus the vote is more than sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
[Add-on] It doesn't seem like Pro has much offense, since Pro only discusses *possibility* not *probability* but Con didn't fulfill any part of their burden (since the burdens are shared) and Pro (via the argument from China's economic growth) fulfills some bit of Pro's burden. That's why I voted Pro.
Posted by ChrisMandelaJunior 1 year ago
ChrisMandelaJunior
I'm 13, and it astonishes me how bad TheChamp is at debating.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ChrisMandelaJuniorTheChampTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
ChrisMandelaJuniorTheChampTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con misunderstands the debate. The debate is whether the USFG should increase its economic or diplomatic engagement with China. Con concedes that "what affects China affects [the US] as well." Pro basically turns this against Con, and argues that the US should not maintain an economically isolationist policy and should seek to deal with China. Pro refutes Con's assertion that China's GDP growth is reducing and substantiates it with a strong source supporting the same claim. The refutation further says that China's economic growth should be used by America to further grow its own economy. Con then entirely straw-mans and misinterprets Pro's position, asking Pro if Pro is "blaming the U.S.," and Pro clearly establishes that they aren't blaming anyone. Pro's R1 is very unclear about the probability of benefits, merely arguing about possible benefits, which isn't sufficient. But Con drops Pro's offense largely. Pro wins on economic growth. Thus, I vote Pro.