The Instigator
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
B0NEDUDE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should Taiwan declare independence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,975 times Debate No: 44710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (6)

 

Jifpop09

Con

I will be taking the stance that taiwan should not declare independence.

1. Acceptance

2. Opening Arguments

3. Rebuttals/closing
B0NEDUDE

Pro

Yes they should.

Communist China does not recognize any pre-existing rights which are self-evident for the people of Taiwan.

There is no freedom of speech, religion (unless state sponsored), land ownership, political parties, self-defense or freedom of press. They systematically hunt citizens down in the streets to kidnap & execute them without fair trial or jury of their peers.

I could go on & on...
Debate Round No. 1
Jifpop09

Con

At first, like my opponent, believed that ROC should declare formal independence, and be free to play a part in international international affairs. Over time my opinion change on the matter. I now believe that the ROC should maintain the status quo, and reunify with China only if when the PRC makes significant democratic reforms.

1: The ROC could not defeat the PLA without serious repercussions.

In accordance with the anti-secession law, if Taiwan declares independence, China will use non-peaceful means to reunify Taiwan with the mainland. Given the small size of Taiwan, and it's distance to the mainland, any war with China would most likely prove disastrous. Reasons include...

Army Size- Given China's large army in relation to the ROCA, any successful landing on the island would inflict massive damage. It's small size would allow the PLA to bomb nearly anywhere they choose. The casualties from such a invasion would be enormous.

Navy and Air force Strength- The PRC has a huge navy and air force compared to the ROC. The PLA navy could easily surround and blockade all of Taiwan using only a fraction of there fleet. The size of there navy and air force will allow them to shell or bomb any area of Taiwan. Even if the ROC won the war, the damages would have long term effects.

http://www.nationmaster.com...
http://www.nationmaster.com...

2: Things are working the way they are.

A popular phrase is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This ties in perfectly with this situation. Taiwan is currently self governing with a growing economy. The only thing declaring independence would change is inciting the wrath of China.

3: Taiwan has no allies.

Taiwan has hardly any formal relations with other countries. They are only recognized by a couple of Caribbean and Central American countries. They also can't appeal to the UN as they are not a member. Even if they were, China would use it's veto powers.

http://www.mac.gov.tw...
B0NEDUDE

Pro

You bring up basically the main problems with "declaring independence" but what about UN recognition? Would that count as declaring independance and why/why not???

It is obvious that Taiwan could not defeat China "toe to toe" but as I understand, America & Japan would step in on their behalf making quick work of a Chinese offensive (or defensive). China is no where near American military power and Japan would not even have to step foot inside the country because of it.

The other option Taiwan has militarily is to fight a guerrilla war agianst mainland China. Believe it or not they would have the upper hand given the structure of China's dictatorship. A few snipers and suicide bombers would change everything. They would have a vast underground consisting of Academia, rural poor, religous, Tibetans and everyone else disenfranchised by the Regime.

"If it aint broke dont fix it". This is your strongest argument. China has changed to a certain degree and perhaps it will transition into something more "democratic". Taiwan on the other hand seems to be doing fine in its ambiguous existence, however, this IS a broken picture and needs be fixed somehow.
Debate Round No. 2
Jifpop09

Con

You bring up basically the main problems with "declaring independence" but what about UN recognition? Would that count as declaring independance and why/why not???

The ROC cannot receive UN recognition as China exercises veto powers. It has been tried and failed. This would not count as full independence for many countries.


It is obvious that Taiwan could not defeat China "toe to toe" but as I understand, America & Japan would step in on their behalf making quick work of a Chinese offensive (or defensive). China is no where near American military power and Japan would not even have to step foot inside the country because of it
B0NEDUDE

Pro

"It is obvious that Taiwan could not defeat China "toe to toe" but as I understand, America & Japan would step in on their behalf making quick work of a Chinese offensive (or defensive). China is no where near American military power and Japan would not even have to step foot inside the country because of it. "

(jiffpop) I think you underestimate China's military. Since post WW2, Japan has not had a conventional armed forces. America is also unlikely, as the US does not even have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan. They probably wouldn't want to go to war over this anyways. The US has strong economic ties to the PRC so I doubt they will risk hurting there relationship. Regardless of any allies they might scrounge up, it would not be justifiable, because of the damage and casualties. The only chance they would have would be if they got a major naval power to dedicate practically their whole navy. Which is also unlikely.

BD- "Conventional" by modern standards is rated by the technology, not man power. We are just passing the "Missile age" of warfare where standing armies mean little too technological super powers. America has a way of justifying just about anything ("f*ck yeah") but would the cost outweigh the gains?

"The other option Taiwan has militarily is to fight a guerrilla war agianst mainland China. Believe it or not they would have the upper hand given the structure of China's dictatorship. A few snipers and suicide bombers would change everything. They would have a vast underground consisting of Academia, rural poor, religous, Tibetans and everyone else disenfranchised by the Regime. "

(Jiffpop) Guerrila warfare is highly unlikely. Guerrila warfare is an offensive tactic, and in the case of declaring independence, they would be on the defensive. Guerrila Warfare can take decades to show results in many cases. This slow process would not deter the PLV from sacking Taiwan. They would have to find a way to successfully funnel guns past the PLV navy, and establish a network on the mainland. Given that China has few resistance groups, and the governments history of quickly putting down uprisings, this would take a miracle to work.

BD- I would say Guerilla fighting is niether offensive or defensive. It is what it needs to be. Yes China would most likely sack Taiwan on the announcement but Guerrilla fighters would not have an issue on the ground obtaining what they need, there are too many bordeing neighbors who would glady supply them with or without their blessing, I think however that once PLV realizes how vulnerable they are there would be round ups & killings.

""If it aint broke dont fix it". This is your strongest argument. China has changed to a certain degree and perhaps it will transition into something more "democratic". Taiwan on the other hand seems to be doing fine in its ambiguous existence, however, this IS a broken picture and needs be fixed somehow."

(Jiffpop) You're right, it is a broken picture, but war is not the answer. Thank you for debating this with me, and I trust you will make sure people see this. --- Jifpop09

BD- No prob. What this boils down to is "quality of life". I would say war WAS the answer during Moa's psychotic rule and the world should be ashamed of itself to let the communist regime murder out of control. Today, all that is left in China is the ruling class and the slave labor. Taiwan has won a Moral war against China that will hopefully be recognized as such.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Neither of you acknowledge that this war, if it ever occurs, will be a nuclear war. Such was the Cold War as well...the Cold War was less a war about ideology than it was a war that predicated that neither side directly engage each other out of fear of nuclear escalation.

China is the same. Once it fully develops ICBM technology and fields its own Armageddon arsenal, it will only become more true.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"Nukes would be wasted on ground forces if they could take out the countries C&C first because that is where the decision is made to use NBC weapons, technically."

There are tactical nukes, and strategic nukes. You seem to only think there is such a thing as a strategic nuke, when there isn't.

---

"Yeah, nuclear warfare should not be brought into a serious debate."

No, it's the fact that neither of you discussed nuclear war when China and America are nuclear powers that renders this debate to not be a serious debate.

---

"Is it a possibility? Yes, but I doubt China would risk a universe-ending nuclear war on Taiwan."

They have made statements to that effect. There's not much reason to think they are bluffing. Else, the US would have stationed troops in Taiwan as well along with Japan and SK.
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
Apparently it took on a new meaning under the new circumstances surrounding the inernational threat concerning terrorism, north korea and china.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
But bone dude, in the Japanese constitution, it says that Japan will not partake in any aggressive actions. Which is why they only have a defense force. You can not use the argument that they will build a military. We do not know when it will be built or how strong it will be. You also did not provide evidence on how this army would most likely support Taiwan.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Yeah, nuclear warfare should not be brought into a serious debate. Is it a possibility? Yes, but I doubt China would risk a universe-ending nuclear war on Taiwan.
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
Warfare is more about terminating "command & control" ASAP. Nukes would be wasted on ground forces if they could take out the countries C&C first because that is where the decision is made to use NBC weapons, technically.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"If Taiwan was the 13 colonies & China was England, would you support the revolution?
To me it is the same difference."

There is an element of truth to this, which is why Taiwan still considers it.

The main reason this is overwhelmingly false is because the power differentials are markedly different. Taiwan is about 1% of China. The distance between Taiwan and China is not much larger than the distance between England and continental Europe. Had England ever faced a united continent, then more than likely England would have capitulated a long time ago...indeed "balance of power" considerations has always been a part of an English political calculus, as opposed to a continental one.

Bottom line, the comparison between America/England and Taiwan/China only has qualitative logic behind it...any attempt to quantify it would find it almost absurd.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"Nuclear weapons are overated from the cold war. Militaries around the world have simulated wars with nulcear weapons and it is not a decisive option."

This is inaccurate to a nearly incalculable degree. Conventionally, America could have easily won both Korea and Vietnam. America could have easily escalated both conflicts to involve a limited, punitive war with China at little cost, indeed plans were drawn to engage in exactly such. The main deterrent barring conventional escalation was nuclear holocaust.

Nukes are why Russia invades Georgia and Afghanistan and not countries covered by the US's nuclear umbrella. They are why the Cuban Missile Crisis was seen as an Armageddon event.

One tactical nuke can destroy an entire carrier fleet. It can destroy entire divisions, and render ineffective whatever defensive position the army had taken.

To say that nukes are irrelevant and that somehow conventional forces stand any sort of chance in the face of a nuclear onslaught is akin to saying that an ant has a chance in "defeating" a boot.

---

"I don't think they would have used nuclear weapons,but I should have put it as a possibility. I doubt they would bomb what they claim is there own land, or risk breaking deterrence by bombing other countries."

You don't necessarily have to nuke Taiwan...only the US navy defending it.
Posted by B0NEDUDE 3 years ago
B0NEDUDE
Yeah, but guess what? Just the other day (litterally) Japan said it will build a new Military.
This only strengthens my argument now.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
@Bonedude- When I said Japan lacked a conventional military, I meant they only have a defense force. They rely on other nations for protection.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments backed up by reliable sources. Con won this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more convincing because, despite Pro's criticism, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" IS a valid argument, and it wasn't even Con's only argument... Sources to Con because only he cited any.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, Con gave better reasons for Taiwan to not go independent. They would have no relations other than China. They have a good stable economy,etc. doing so would cause retaliation.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was shared, S/G shared, sources goes to Con for obvious reasons. Arguments were tricky, but I feel like Con's were stronger.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Jifpop09B0NEDUDETied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made many assertions, U.S and Japan involving in war and Taiwan going "guerilla" warfare. Con did not make sufficient arguments in R-3 and I could not understand Pro's stance in R-3, Pro's stance in R-3 was totally confusing, therefore I'm not counting R-3 into accounting. As Pro failed to provide any Sources, I'm awarding sources to Con. I'm not rating the other areas.