The Instigator
Wang
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
paul_tigger
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

THBT we should boycott the Beijing Olympics for security

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 79
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

Wang

Con

This debate is about whether or not, the booming economy, and military expenses in China impose any security threat towards USA or the international community.
paul_tigger

Pro

It is not so much that China's booming economy is a threat, rather the negligence that China has shown towards its economy in the means of the exorbant amounts of pollution they produce that effects their own people and the world as a whole. For example, China has polluted its own lakes, streams and rivers all for the sake of development without heeding to the will of the Chinese people that happen to live by these water sources. Furthermore, they exacerbate the air pollution problem by cutting down trees and allowing the formidable Chinese deserts to create more air pollution that affect their Asian and European neighbors alike. Moreover, the Olympic Committee expressed grave concerns about the quality of the air in China as it would cause adverse health problems to the many tourists visiting China. What kind of message is China sending to the world in an Olympic events that promotes mutual respect for the citizens of the world when they choose to ignore the plights of their own people? How much can we believe of a nation that purged its brilliant scholars, its doctors and other academia during the Cultural Revolution?
It must also be noted that China's military posturing and its rapid expansion of its naval fleet, the creation of satelite destroying missiles, the development of a rapid response fighter plane and its continued hostile tones towards Taiwan do not create a message of friendship of which the Olympics wish to convey. If anything, the above examples indicate that at some point China wish to flex its military capabilities in one manner or another. It must also be expressed that the Tianammen Square Massacre of 1989 has not been forgotten. Any nation that uses its military to squash the peaceful protests for freedom is a nation that does not wish to engage in unity events. The thought of using tanks, armed troops and transport carriers to roll over, oppress, and decapitate students and professors should remind us that China will resort to force whenever they deem necessary.
In conclusion, individuals as well as nations representing the voice of freedom and democracy must boycott the Olympics in China until they, the Chinese government has acknowledged the rights of their citizens as well as address the ever ominous pollution problem. In addition, until China creates an accurate account of their military expenditue of recent military hardware, nations can only assume that the Chinese plan to exercise their military capability sometime in the near future which run contrary to what the Olympoic and its organizers want toc create.
Debate Round No. 1
Wang

Con

Hey Paul! Glad to meet you and I appreciate your ideas!
Hope the debate goes well!
My English is poor, pls bare with me

There are several issues and underlying assumptions that I would address

Firstly,The opposition basically informed us that global warming and the emission of CO2 can lead to security threat towards the international community, which doesn't stand. Because China alone doesn't contribute the majority of pollution, and if we calculate the Co2 output per capita, it's not even in the top 10 polluters in the world. Additionally, as we know that majority of the Chinese companies/ factories in China are not Chinese owned, but rather foreign invested. So blaming the Chinese Government for this is rather inaccurate. In fact, majority of the pollution that came from China are directly used for the soaring production of goods and supplies which are sold all over the world, such as automobiles, plastics and clothing. I.e. the Chinese are not using the energy for purpose of enjoying and entertaining themselves but rather produce what's needed. Therefore there is no reason to boycott China on economical growth and Pollution

We believe that China had been trying to create a well developed economical and political relationships with both rich and poor nations. In fact, these common interests are beneficial multilaterally for nations in term of financial surplus and capital exchange. Japan and Taiwan alone enjoy over 150 billion trade surplus per year and it's expected to accelerate quickly over next few years. So the Chinese economical development doesn't create any security issue.

I agree to the fact that Beijing's air quality is not as superior, which is actually cause by chronic weathering desertification from the western China, which dehydrated air molecules and forms dust. However to boycott this ecological disorder, which is not going to be solved in short period of time, will be fruitless. In fact, the Chinese Government had been heavy handedly dismissing a majority of industries before and during the Olympic games which ensures and standard of air quality within the region, On the other hand shows that there is a significant political will towards combating for better air quality. However, we need to understand that it's not easy for the Chinese Government single handedly monitor every river, every forest being damaged and of course the protection is currently in progress through law enforcement, which is within the status quo. Thus again, this is not the reason to boycott the Olympic.

Secondly we also argue that the Chinese military power can not and does not impose any security threat and it had been over exaggerated through media. In fact, the technological advancement of weaponry is still years away from the super powers, such as Russia, USA and many European nations. We also have to understand that history did teach China to protect itself, its citizens and wealth. Before reunion of China, in 1949, it was completely tarred apart by western nations; recall the unequal treaties being signed by the Chinese Government after losing battle against other nations. This teaches Chinese people to defend itself better. But on the other hand, China does not wish over take counties with its military superiority, which we can see through the war in India during the 1950s. Thus it's justified for an economically recovered China to protect itself.

Conlusion, Majority of your arguments are based on long term stability of the China, such as poverty, rights and etc, which can't be solved through boycotting. China is developing but still poor; however, it's opening itself up, for example accepting ideas & opinions from other nations, Involvement of international affairs and supporting nations which needed help. This clearly shows that China is progressing itself without the catalyst of boycotting the Olympic and trust me this act would not do any good, but rather create distrust between nations.
China is trying it's best to present itself in the international community and to solve the problems ahead.

This debate is about weather or not china is moving towards the right direction, and certainly China is.
paul_tigger

Pro

Warm salutations Wang:

There is no need to apologize for your English skills as I believe they are quite good. I believe we will have a truly exciting debate. Now let me address your remarks.

First you mentioned that the companies that are contributing to the pollution are foreign owned and that blaming the Chinese government is inaccurate. I disagree. No foreign company may enter into Chinese territory without the consent of the Chinese government. Companies must follow standard business protocals set up by the Chinese government and the officials who are in charge of monitoring the situation. TO say that foreign owned governments are solely at fault is for you to admit that your government either does not care about what these companies do or they lack the power to enforce rules and laws of business on Chinese territtory. To do so means admitting that the Chinese cannot govern their own country and if they cannot govern their own country, does the world want an Oympic event in a country of uncertainty?

Yes it can be argued that most of the goods manufactured in China are for the consumption primarily for people outside of China, yet once again, it was the Chinese leaders who agreed upon to enter into these ventures into the first place with these companies. The polluting standards, policies, procedures and enforcements i.e. penalties and fines China has for companies is far more lenient than those of other countries which make China a natural selection to invest as they do not necessarily have to spend money on eco-friendly technology. To draw money into China which in turn is used to expand their military and space efforts, the Chinese government chose to overlook their own environmental concerns. They chose not to carefully examined the possible ecological risks incurred by their decisions.

As for your comment that China has been mutually beneficial for both rich and poor nations, well the only examples you gave were of two nations that were already developed. As for the trade surplus argument, it only entails that the Chinese people also have a taste for material goods, the same goods you mentioned that the foreign companies were producing and likewise if we were to use your argument that these products are being used for only those outside China, well we run into a brickwall here.

As for my opinion on whether it aids smaller nations China undermines organizations like ASEAN and other poorer nations simply because China has an overwhelming underpaid and populace labor force. Furthermore, scandals of sweatshops, of prison inmates being used for labor and simply low cost laborers give China an incredible economic edge for the smaller nations to compete on the global market therefore stifling efforts for greater global improvement upon the smaller and poorer nations.

The desertification process is a Chinese problem and now a regional Asian crisis because the growth of the Chinese economy has created an overabundant need for lumber as well. The government's decision to chop down forest intensified the expansion process of the desert as there were no trees to block the foreboding advance of the desert. You cannot excuse the notion that China has a short period of time to resolve the crisis as I believe the announcements that China was to hold the Olympics was 1,4440 days or 4 years. I believe that China has had more than ample time to respond to the crisis. It is simply a matter of too little and too late.

You mention that China needs to create an advance army to protect itself nor does it position itself as a country that would take over other countries. Yet China continues to state that Taiwan is a renegade nation, when those who deem themselves native of the island considered themselves seperate from the Chinese people. Countless of times has China threatened to use physical force if the nation of Taiwan were to declare themselves free. China threatens and postures itself against other nations who even mention to aknowledge Taiwan as a legitimate nation.

Furthermore, you cannot ignore China too had and perhaps has had ambitions towards other Asian countries Chinese expanded into areas like Mynamar, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Korea. Your history is also inundated with stories of warlord conflicts and emperors like Shi Huang di and also that of the Han Dynasty were they killed their own people as well as of neighboring countries to expand their territory.

In addition, China's new development of a fighter craft is one that is an attack craft and not one for self-defense. China'a Jian-10 heralds a new movement in China's desire to advance and explore possible military means by which they can bully their neighbors. Their launch and successful attack on a weather satellite to which neither the Russians and the US have done shows an aggressive posturing towards nations. Why create a satellite attack missile to kill satellites if China has nothing they wish to hide? China also has the world's largest conventional force and on a regional basis can overpower any nation around them. The unwillingness for China to open to the public and for that matter to the world how much they are spending on their military adds more mystery and doubt as to what they plan on doing with all the money they are using. (http://www.comw.org...).

And if China is truly growing economically for the benefit of its people and not its military, well why then is there still a great deal of poverty as you mention there is? Various reports and indicators indicate that China is said to possess the second largest economy after the US and most like will be the largest in the upcoming future. With such wealth, one cannot imagine why the general population of China still suffer in poverty unless for some reason or another, the Chinese government is allotting their money for other strategic purposes i.e. the military(http://www2.goldmansachs.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Wang

Con

Wang forfeited this round.
paul_tigger

Pro

Hello Wang:

Since there is no rebuttal, I will await your next response. I am under the assumption that you must either have been busy with work or school. I hope to see you soon on debate.org to continue our discussion.

Paul
Debate Round No. 3
Wang

Con

Wang forfeited this round.
paul_tigger

Pro

Hello Wang:

I hope things are ok in your neck of the woods. I hope to see further arguments from you regarding this subject matter. Hope all is well.

Paul
Debate Round No. 4
Wang

Con

Wang forfeited this round.
paul_tigger

Pro

Hello Wang:

Last of the rounds. I wish to say that I had hoped to finish this tantalizing discussion but it appears you are absent. I hope that you will return one day to continue the discussion. Thank you for entertaining the subject and best regards.

Paul
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
Hey, lets not debate here but at the chat.
Posted by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
Ha Ha Ha TO:Yoon who is still confused with himself

I did not copy and paste and a little reminder couldn't hurt could it? And you also said "suspicious" if you look that up in the dictionary, you will find that the word means "distrustful or tending to suspect" You can imagine what ever you like but please don't say anything without proof.
Posted by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
Hey Daniel, I don't need to remind you that you did it too. I'm also saying that Paul teacher might (or have) copied. As you always say "suspicious".
Posted by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
To: Yoon

May I remind you that you copied and pasted too. I don't mean to be rude, but you really did copy and you know that paul_tigger did not copy. I read the arguments that paul_tigger wrote and I don't think I saw any copy and paste. See you later!
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Hardy har har Yoon. Copy and paste huh? Please illustrate where my arguments where cut and paste arguments. You may test my writing by going to any plagiarism web sites and determine if anything to which I wrote was copied and then pasted. The proof of burden is upon you young Jedi apprentice.
Posted by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
I think that 5 rounds are a little too much, even for your "copy and paste" That's why people quit before you can finish your debate.
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Hello Wang:

You must have been busy. I await your reply in order to establish an appropriate response.

Paul
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by d-bate241 9 years ago
d-bate241
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by skyjune01 9 years ago
skyjune01
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by KoreaRocks 9 years ago
KoreaRocks
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by paulsckwon 9 years ago
paulsckwon
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by JohnnyAppleseed12 9 years ago
JohnnyAppleseed12
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Wangpaul_tiggerTied
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