The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

US Should(Must) Systematically Embargo China

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,292 times Debate No: 34649
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Sorry for the long title, but essentially this is an economic/ethical/political debate on the countless reasons why the US should no longer do business with this country.

Primary reasons will center on things like:

1. China is an authoritarian country, their leaders use their growing wealth only to fund more oppression, cement their rule, justify themselves, and fill their pockets all at once. Doing business with this entity is essentially like doing business with a mob or some other body that should be shunned and not supported out of principle alone.

2. China has shown itself to be internationally a near rogue state incapable of having modern rational interactions with their neighbors. China has engaged in cyber acts of war, military provocations, and wild rhetoric for not only the last several years but decades before. (with the exception of cyberwar) China is also the common denominator in almost every single regional spat for some time, a great deal of this can be traced to their xenophobic holier than though attitude and ideas of entitlement because of CCP propaganda of inflated ancient imperial glory.

The list of countries china has encroached on and threatened for pure nationalistic expansionist reasons is something not seen since WWII, this alone should be enough to have China blacklisted from the global community.

These are basic reasons really, the second part aside from the reasoning would be the PRACTICALITY/IMPLEMENTATION.

1. For this area I would essentially point out only 20 years ago no one needed China for anything, and the ONLY thing truly special about china was the en mass cheap labor, labor that is now less en mass and less cheap, thus forget about how we could clearly do fine without them before and that there are places with even far cheaper labor now that are better options, but the factors that pulled us there in the first place are no longer there anyway.

(I would also argue the only way these economic condition existed in the first place anyway was through CCP exploitation and abuse of their rural, basically serf, population anyway and it something we should be ashamed of supporting with our money of all things, Corruption and Oppression in China will end when we stop showing them it pays, pure and simple)


Because I do not want to ruin what many (including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton) consider the most important relationship in the twenty first century, I don"t think it is a good idea to embargo china

Reason 1: similar foreign policy objectives

China"s efforts to stop global terrorism align with ours:
NBEN group wrote
"Minister of Foreign Affairs Lu Janchao said that the Chinese government opposed terrorism in any form and intended to strengthen cooperation with international community to carry out counter terrorist mission. In his words such position of China is definite and invariable. China is a member of SOC, foreground task of which is the struggle with terrorism, separatism and extremism. About 6000 military men and more than 1000 weapons from Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, China and Uzbekistan took part in these drills."

China"s international goals are also the same as ours
The economist magazine wrote:
"China and America have a lot in common. Both benefit from globalization and from open markets. Both want a broadly stable world in which nuclear weapons do not spread and rogue states, like Iran and North Korea, have little scope to cause mayhem. Both would lose incalculably from war." This is seen by their current efforts to crack down on North Korea and sponsor peace talks with Iran

Reason 2: economic benefits

China"s export market provides substantial benefits to Americans
Annalyn Censky of CNN wrote.
"U.S. businesses exported a record $104 billion in goods to China last year, nearly double the amount they exported just five years earlier. Growth in exports to China is critical to the government"s plan to double exports overall by 2015, a witch will create jobs at American manufacturers."

China also helps to Decrease the cost of living:
Robert Capp and Associates, a firm that advises American companies doing business in China says "low prices are the greatest benefit American consumers receive from China. "China produces products that Americans consume at large quantities, at prices lower than Americans would have to pay if the product was made elsewhere," he says. "American consumers' cost of living was moderated by the lowering of retail prices of goods produced in China."

Daniel J. Ikenson of the wall street journal explains
"Sanctions on china will cause higher prices on American consumers, thereby reducing Americans" real incomes. Higher prices at Wal-Mart and Target " two of the biggest retailers that bring Chinese goods to U.S. customers " will be felt especially hard by lower-income Americans. Trade sanctions would in effect amount to a regressive tax."

And Last, China's investment into our economy is beneficial
The congressional research service in December 2012 stated
"Given its relatively low savings rate, the U.S. economy depends heavily on foreign capital inflows from countries with high savings rates (such as China) to meet its domestic investment needs and to fund the federal budget deficit. The willingness of foreigners to invest in the U.S. economy and purchase U.S. public debt has helped keep U.S. real interest rates low."

On to my opponents case

First, to china being authoritarian
First attack: Sure china may be communist and may have a bad history, but ultimately what we need to look at is the status quo. China"s middle class has been growing and middle classes tend to hold more democratic values (Seymour lipset"s modernization theory) this is seen in many ways:

One example: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao declared, "Tomorrow's China will be a country that fully achieves democracy, the rule of law, fairness, and justice. Without freedom, there is no real democracy. Without guarantee of economic and political rights, there is no real freedom

Also: Nancy Qian, an economist at Yale University, has shown that the introduction of democratic village elections in China has improved accountability and increased expenditures on public services

In addition to that: According to 2003 surveys cited in How East Asians View Democracy, edited by the researchers Yun-han Chu, Larry Diamond, Andrew Nathan, and Doh Chull Shin, 72.3 percent of the Chinese public polled said they believed that democracy is "desirable for our country now," and 67 percent said that democracy is "suitable for our country now." These two numbers track with those recorded for well-established East Asian democracies, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

Second Attack: ultimately, the United States needs to look to its own interests when making policies. The bottom line is oppressive or not, the way china treats its citizens has nothing to do with the US and this point has very little weight

Now onto my opponent"s second point: china is volatile.

First Attack: the only weight that this argument will have is if my opponent can prove definitively that china is somehow hurting the us with its so called "rouge actions"

Second Attack: actions in previous decades are an irrational thing to punish the current leadership in china for so these examples must be recent

Third Attack: my opponent must prove that the threat of china is big enough to sanction and give up all of the economic benefits.

Fourth Attack: looking at china, we see a leader (Xi Jinping) who has stated that China will never pose a threat to another country, because the country needs a peaceful, stable and friendly environment for its development. Just refer to my democratization evidence, this idea my opponent has of china simply does not seem to be reality.

And last my opponents practical point.
Sure, we did not need china 20 years ago, but today we heavily depend on china. China owns about 10% of our national debt and our economy benefits greatly from trade (refer to offensive point 2). My opponent claims that it would be "fine" if we stopped dealing with china. Maybe it will be "fine" in that we won"t cease to exist, but cutting ties with china would be a devastation to the financial markets and thus consumer spending and it would decrease the quality of life for everyone by increasing the cost of living in addition to hurting businesses(as I explained in offensive point 1). In other words we would likely deepen our economic depression and hurt our people severely if we were to cut ties with china.
Debate Round No. 1


Reason 1: similar foreign policy objectives

China"s efforts to stop global terrorism align with ours:

So does Russia’s efforts, the point is they do this to curb the Muslim extremist threat within their own borders as a ward against separatism. The Chinese are paranoid of the Uighyers and the Russians have had problems with Chechens. They care nothing about if terrorist attack or threaten us in the US.

Via Danwei: A Chinese student interviewed on Phoenix TV says he was "overjoyed" at the news of 9/11 because it was "caused by American hegemony". But he's still applying to make a trip to the US of A, and hopes he can stay there. Hopefully someone from the US Embassy is reading this.”

This kids attitude sums up China’s attitude perfectly. He enjoys that the US is attacked and suffers, but would like to still use us to his advantage. While we are fighting wars in the ME weakening terrorist, China gets a double benefit and still has us buying from them. Allies? Not at all. They are just hoping we grow weaker while doing the dirty work for them.

Of course you shouldn’t expect them to want to shout this off a cliff, but the fact is Chinese feel they are the superior people who deserve to be #1. You should learn about Chinese arrogance, and their propensity to rewrite history so as to make themselves seem either the center of the world or a total victim.

"China and America have a lot in common.

What is in common? While the US and EU has embargoed Iran China is still buying, the ONLY REASON NK even exists is thanks to Chinese autocrats sacrificing 1 million Chinese.

They are part of the reasons these problems even exist, forget about common objectives. Chinese are known liars, corruption is a staple of their society, you must have never been to China to trust this so openly.

In the meantime they are assaulting/hacking weapons projects and infrastructure plans for multiple countries including the US. We can say their objectives align with our when they act like it, not when they merely say so while acting otherwise.

Reason 2: economic benefits

Of course any economic relationship brings benefit, but not anymore of a reason to engage with tyrants, liars, and thieves.

The point is do we need to do business with this disreputable state? I don’t think domestic prices would rise, we need to shift production out of China anyway. It is a matter of time, and thus the gradual approach I said. (In fact it is China that would suffer, the majority of the major exports are designs made by others and sold under other brands. Without designs and brands of their own Chinese are very screwed. This has been the major flaw for them, and why they are now making acquisitions.)

Your other point is about their market, which is in contradictions to your first point. If their wages grow then the products they make for us also grow in price. So you have to choose one or the other.

I would argue their market is pointless while the CCP is in power, they have not fulfilled all the obligations to the WTO the originally promised, they have chased companies like google out because they are protective, and they demand designs and trade secrets from things like car companies .

This should be an outrage, the Chinese let foreigners only compete as much as the CCP likes and tries to short change everyone that they can for their own benefit. Think the Japanese in the 1800s, lots of foreigners’ are allowed in, treated well, paid, then booted out on the quick once no longer needed.

On to my opponents case

First attack:

I would argue a growing middle class does not define the status quo, spending on internal oppression is at an all time high, and the government is notably more strict now that it was a few years ago. And more aggressive.

Instead this middle class is being used to JUSTIFY the CCP by saying since they are the first to create such wealth in China (they didn’t create it) they are fit to rule.

Fact is Chinese care more about wealth and status than democracy and freedom, look at their imperial history for proof. Your middle class and growth will bring democracy idea has been clearly out of date for a LONG time. That was the speech as far back as the 80s.

Also: Nancy Qian, an economist at Yale University, has shown that the introduction of democratic village elections in China has improved accountability and increased expenditures on public services

I mean its hard to not find a way to improve what is the most corrupt political party in the world. It has not happened on any meaningful level.

Second Attack:

I would argue a country that cannot even treat its own people properly will certainly be worse when dealing with foreigners. Also there is the question of Tibet, and the brutal things that go on there. The same logic you just used could have been said about the Nazis in the 30s and their eugenics and jew hunting. It’s preposterous to ignore an evil government so you can fatten your wallet a little. Am I the only one left with principals?

second point: china is volatile.

First Attack:

There have been reports from too many diverse sources about China stealing military data, and that related to power grids, water piping, etc for it to be ignored.

China has had a near bellicose stance with almost every neighbor it borders, often engaging in military provocations. In the case of Japan and the Philippines these are a direct threat as conflagration would very likely draw us in due to our promised commitments. Even more important is the nationalist, racial, expansionist motive behind these outbursts.

China has engaged in the largest military arms race since the early cold war, and is now dragging the rest of the east pac region with it.

How many warning signs do you need exactly? Do you expect them to scream things for everyone’s benefit?

Second Attack:
Not at all, because China is not a democracy. The current leaders have direct lineage of authority passed to them from these leaders, not the peoples sovereignty. They are from the same party and see themselves continuing that legacy.

Third Attack:

I have a counter attack, how overt does China have to be before you see a problem? I think the Trajectory OF THEIR HISTORY makes a fairly clear case for how they see things. So does all the recent aggressive behavior.

Will anything short of them starting a nazi like war or us finding a copy of their plans to take over the world convince you? Cyber assaults are already by law a declaration of war.

Is your plan to wait till the last second while they use you up for their own benefit till they no longer care to play nice with you? Doesn’t seem like a good idea, instead the gradual effect of what I propose would give them plenty of time to straighten their act if they are sincere.

Fourth Attack:
He says that, then sends soldiers into India in the deepest most provoking intrusion in recent memory. Right after/during major spats with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Japan, ALL that they instigated.

I can scarcely believe by opponent is deciding to go off the words from the leader of the most corrupt body in the world rather than his actions. This is unconscionable.

And last my opponents practical point.

China owns 8% of debt .My opponent goes at length about how we will suffer without China. But he does not say how or why very well.

As I pointed out everything but china’s market can be replaced. There are now other emerging economies growing faster than China undercutting their wage. There are no Chinese domestic products we need, mechanization and having production NEAR markets is the new big thing. All reason we will not suffer half so much as my opponent leads you to believe.

What he says might be true if we stopped COLD TURKEY, but that shock treatment was never what I suggested. And I think he is really underestimating the abilities and resourcefulness of the companies that went to china to find a way to do the same elsewhere.


In this speech I am going to go over the main issues in this debate

1:China's opinion of the US

My opponent has brought this up a few times. most notably when he refers to an isolated example to show how china likes the US suffering. There are two things wrong with this
First: this is an obvious radical isolated example. there are people all over who radically hate America and people all over the world who radically love America but those people do not represent a entire nation's opinion. large scale polls are the way to determine favorability and my opponent provides none

Second: favorable or unfavorable, China's opinion of the united states is not a sufficient reason to be hostile back. unless china's hate is actually harming our country, which my opponent has not proven there is no reason to embargo them and hurt both US and Chinese people.

2: china's corruption

First my opponent offers no evidence or sources to prove that china is corrupt and oppressive so this argument cant stand

Second, what we need to see is that corrupt or not, the US is not being harmed by china being corrupt. since we are looking at a US policy, this round should be weighed on a cost benefit analysis on the effect it has on the US. my opponent mentions that we should be "discussed" by the way they act however, we cannot just be malicious to other countries and our own people just because we don't like the way others act, its impulsive. we need to think rationally and preserve the most important relationship of the twenty first century.

Third: in the status quo, china is becoming more democratic and less oppressive. In the status quo, the middle class of china is indeed growing. it has grown from 3% of the population to about 40% since 1985 and is predicted to reach levels of about 60% by 2025 according to the National Bureau of Statistics on China. and to back up modernization theory that I mentioned in my last constructive, the Pew Research Center study found that in 13 middle-income nations from regions around the globe, compared with poorer people in emerging countries, members of the middle class assign more importance to democratic institutions and individual liberties, hold more liberal social values, and express more concern about the environment. this is reflected in the fact that the Chinese government has recently been passing civil/human rights bills. so yes there is a democratic effect in the status quo and china is expected to become even more democratic in the coming years. you can extend all my democracy evidence that I brought up because it was not attacked (other than the village election example)and see that china is becoming more democratic. that is the status quo, and once again china's history is not a reason to embargo them.

And last, my opponent states that china"s leader sent troops into India and thus it is volatile. first, I don"t se how that is possible given that XI Jinping has only been the leader since February. and second, I don't see what china's dealings with other countries has to do with the US and its interests.

3: china wants to declare war on the US

I would be perfectly fine to weight until china becomes aggressive towards us. why? because it would be foolish to attack now given there is literally no reason

first: the only real threat my opponent has given is cyberattacks which, we don't really even know comes from china. assuming china is actually the ones hacking us, my opponent has not described the magnitude of the attacks which makes this argument impossible to weigh and thus irrelevant compared to my evidence.

second: what about their history that my opponent mentions that shows that china is not only willing but capable to turn on international powerhouses like the US who make up around half of their GDP?

Third: a military arms race does not really matter because 1: they are not racing us 2: we are still way more powerful then them and 3: they are not threatening us at all

Fourth: we could make a similar case for just about every nation that they might possibly attack the US that does not mean we should preemptively attack every other nation. An actual attack, not a potential attack, is what justifies action.

4: economic benefits

my opponents primary attack is that we should not do business because they are liars and tyrants there are two things wrong with this

1: China is not full of tyrants and my opponent has failed to prove this

2: we need to look at what benefits America most, so even if china is this tyrannical nation like my opponent suggests, cutting trade would not be beneficial to America in any way.

my opponent also suggests that since china has not allowed some of our companies to produce in their country than we should stop trade altogether. lets look at this logic a little bit. china is essentially not allowing some of our companies to produce in their country to help their own businesses and this is "unfair" to some of us producers therefore we must forbid all of us companies to trade. but the fact is we do the same thing. America uses tariffs and other methods in order to give their own companies a competitive edge over foreign companies. this is not a logical reason to stop trade

my opponent than ignored the entirety of my evidence and brushed passed it by writing "I don"t think domestic prices would rise, we need to shift production out of China anyway." of course this is contradictory to my Robert Capp and Daniel J. Ikenson of the wall street journal evidence and his claim is not warranted at all. so prefer my evidence because it is coming from experts.
Just to briefly restate my evidence and the economic significant of our relationship of china
first: us companies gain hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with china
second: our export market to china is crucial to the government's plan to to double exports
third: our trade with china and china's low prices decrease the cost of living and help the middle and lower class and decrease the cost of living while increasing disposable income of consumers
and last: china's investment into our economy decreases interest rates (which stimulates the economy)
the us economy objectively benefits massively from trade with the Chinese economy

my opponent also requested for me to prove why cutting trade with china will cause a deeper recession, here you go. economic recessions are caused when there is a drop in consumer spending in the economy(this is the accepted opinion amongst the majority of modern economists). one way that consumer spending will fall is the increase cost of living I described. Americans will have less disposable income with a higher cost of living thus an embargo on china will restrict consumer spending. second the interest rate will increase if we stop trade with china as I previously mentioned. a high interest rate makes it so less people will get loans and less spending will occur. therefore stoping trade with china will make our recession deeper

5: similar foreign policy

first: counter terrorism
my opponent ignores the fact that it is the US's goal to combat global terrorism. China helps counter global terrorism so we ought not to harm china because they work internationally toward their goals

second: international goals
my opponent dropped my evidence which still stands and mentions that china is the cause of the Iran and NK problem.

A) Iran: yes china trades with Iran but it is because they are granted the ability to do so by the UN. china's trade with Iran is providing teeth to the sanctions because china's cheep products make it impossible for a week economy like Iran to sustain itself. also china's relationship with Iran helps the US because they act as a mediator between major world powers and Iran by sponsoring peace talks.

B) North Korea: china is actually threatening to break ties with north koria if they continue their nuclear tests thus china is still inline with the US international goals.
Debate Round No. 2


To preface, my opponents most consistent complaint is that there is not enough proof. Which I could say for most of his points, but rather than not having proof I can’t actually respond to his VERY long post AND include articles within the 8,000 character limit. If you need more specific proof keep a shorter focused post please.

1:China's opinion of the US

My opponent is misrepresenting my provided quote. The purpose was to show that China is using the US and that we in fact DO NOT share the same goals.

My opponent tries to discredit my quote by saying I didn’t provide polls. I can only wonder why my opponent thinks polled opinion in an authoritarian country matter. We have seen that they are willing to run over polls/people with tanks, polls are irrelevant in China. It is not a democracy and the people’s opinion and well being are SECOND to that of the corrupt party aristocracy; get that point down pat before you continue.

We don’t care about powerless radicals, this is not the case with Chinese xenophobic nationalism. This is japan 70 years ago with a MUCH BIGGER chip on its shoulders and bigger sense of entitlement, and frankly, more potential to threaten everything.

2: china's corruption

I feel the need to educate my opponent. He is obviously not familiar with the very nature of society and culture in current China. He should look into the cultural business relations of the Chinese known as ‘guanxi.’ Their entire business culture revolves around corruption, nepotism, and cronyism. This came from the corruption within the CCP, which has now disseminated into almost every corner of society. Corruption is the Chinese standard. Anyone who has done business in China before knows they need their manufacturers to be observed closely or they will cut corners to pocket money and deliver an inferior product. I’ve worked at no less than 3 such companies.

The fact he has to ask for proof of something a simple google search will find for him is telling of his ignorance of Chinese facts. Here is a map, look on the wiki page I got it from for plenty for facts and details
If you know much about stocks you would know that Chinese stocks are generally not trusted since their finances are known to be fudged fairly often. Many countries besides the US also say the Chinese lie on their defense and internal security budget. Which is very likely. so since you trust Xi at his word why not trust several more countries with better reputations on their reports? No logic if not.

Second, what we need to see is that corrupt or not, the US is not being harmed by china being corrupt.
If they are corrupt with their own people how do you possibly expect them to deal fairly with you? No logic. And it is immoral to ignore someone’s evils just because they don’t touch you.

Third: it has grown from 3% of the population to about 40%
My opponent is entirely incorrect. This is a report that refences the Chinese bureau’s directly as only having 23% middle class population, almost HALF what my opponent claimed. article dated to this year.

So you want to plan the next decade of foreign policy on both the assumption that the middle class will grow that fast AND that it automatically means it will bring democracy? I find both arguments unpersuasive since Tiananmen Square. China’s middle class in not going be that big, the GOAL is 40% for 2020, forget about 60%. Read the article.

Also my opponent should provide clear proof for why we should believe it will lead to democracy, passing of proxy bills and rights for appeasement is standard authoritarian practice. All the political, economic, and military power is still completely in the hands of a corrupt few. Everything else is merely lip service, that can be revoked when they feel like it. They have no constraints on their power, no constitution, anything and everything is given at their leisure. You are assuming they operate on the same system as we in the West, so wrong.

I am unconvinced by my opponents claims that the status quo is a shift towards democracy, he is making heavy assumptions about the values of peoples a world away from him, he is also not considering the facts I pointed out.(higher spending on oppression, tightening of censoring, and still no freedom of association, and the CCP still has a death grip on every aspect of everything)

The CCP have gain legitimacy by opening up trade, in combination with Chinese fear of the unknown and LONG history of just bowing(kowtowing) to tyrants, there is no reason to believe democracy is any closer to realization. Instead we have seen democracy activists be harassed and some chased clear out of China. A blind lawyer, Nobel prize winner, and a world renowned artist. Just to name a few.
My opponent states that china"s leader sent troops into India and thus it is volatile. first, I don"t se how that is possible given that XI Jinping has only been the leader since February.
Yes, he took power in Feb, and the intrusion into India was 6 weeks ago. What do you not see as possible?

3: china wants to declare war on the US
I never said this, rather I would say they will never declare war until they undermine us sufficiently. I refuse to let that happen, and this is exactly what they are doing. Thus the embargo.

I would be perfectly fine to wait until china becomes aggressive towards us. why? because it would be foolish to attack now given there is literally no reason
I never proposed an attack, and I’m fine with waiting for them to attack us or someone else too. But I just don't find it wise to let them make money off us just fund more weapons, aggression, and oppression, and gain legitamacy for their illegitimate government.
first: the only real threat my opponent has given is cyberattacks which, we don't really even know comes from china.
Unless my opponent refuses to believe reports by independent corporations, and a decently long list of countries, we do know the units responsible originate in China. Moreover, our own intelligence has pointed out the PLA unit they accuse of being responsible for these attacks. Based in a complex in the suburbs of shanghai.
Why do you seem so flatly willing to take one known corrupt leaders words at face value then ignore a plethora of far more reliable sources? Is everything but what the Chinese tell you suspect?
Third: a military arms race does not really matter because 1: they are not racing us 2: we are still way more powerful then them and 3: they are not threatening us at all
My opponent is ignorant. The development of China’s weapons have been aimed SPECIFICALLY at US. Area denial, anti carrier, and anti SAT missiles are all an only Anti-US weapons. Even china’s choice of decision of the j-21 suggests a plane meant to quickly and stealthy bomb key US targets.
But are you going spoon feed them, pay them, and let them steal our military tech until they do catch up? I mean com’on….
They have threatened Japan and Philippines, might as well have threatened us unless you mean to break our promises we made over 50 years ago. PLA generals have spoken of how they would nuke LA in the event of a war, even though china has said it has a no first use policy. Threats a plenty my friend.

Fourth: we could make a similar case for just about every nation that they might possibly attack the US
No we could no make such a case, there is clear perceived motive in China, and actually VERY FEW countries that are not our allies have any potential at all to attack us. And you are again straying from the point of this debate, to embargo china, not declare war.

Unfortunately I have pretty much hit my 8,000 character limit, even after I had to shorten my responses I gave above. There is much more I could add. I will try to hit on the remaining points I did not get to in another round if the oppurtunity presents.


mcgrif15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


LaughingRiddle forfeited this round.


Sorry about the forfeit I was out of town for a while and thought it would give my opponent time to catch up on the debate and add legitimate sources. But for this round I will just go over the same points as last time as they seem to cover all of the arguments in this debate well.

1: opinion of the US

My opponent provides a Chinese student as his sole source and claims that is the entire country of china"s opinion of the US (even though he himself said it is the governments opinion that matters not the people). Not only has my opponent not provided a legitimate statistic on Chinese opinion of the US, but he evaded the real attack and that a countries opinion has no effect on the US. We don"t just stop trading with people who don"t like us. He states that china has the potential to threaten everything but the fact is, until they start threatening the US militarily or economically (they aren"t) we should not care.

2: corruption

The majority of my opponent"s offence rests on the fact that china is corrupt and can"t be dealt with. For the sake of argument let"s assume china is really corrupt and is really funding oppression more and more. this is no reason to embargo china for several reasons.

First: look to my opponents own evidence, if we were to not deal with corrupt nations and were to be against all of them we would be hostile to the vast majority of countries. This is a foolish foreign policy that gives us no soft power internationally not to mention economic suicide.

But second and more importantly, the government is not a moral entity, what obligation does the government have to intervene in other nations internal matters? The reason we have so many countries that hate us is because we believe we are the world"s moral policemen. Bin Laden himself said he did 9-11 because of our intervention in the middle east. My opponent advocates that we should continue this self destructive and self righteous foreign policy and I do not.

Last I want to bring up the point my opponent said about how we can"t expect china to deal fairly with us. The reality is that the US benefits greatly from trade with china (see economic evidence) it"s an undisputed fact.

3 should we be hostile toward china

My opponent states his reasoning for the embargo and says "I just don't find it wise to let them make money off us just fund more weapons, aggression, and oppression, and gain legitimacy for their illegitimate government." Oppression legitimacy and aggression toward other countries I have already proven are not reasons for us to embargo china

Militarization: my opponent ignores the fact that they still are less powerful than us. According to Newsweek Chinese military spending is only around 8% of our military spending. The reason that china is modernizing is that they feel threatened by our overwhelmingly large military"s global threat (The Economist Dec 2010). If their militarization is scaring the US, the appropriate thing to do is militarize the US as a deterrent. This is irrational grounds for a direct hostile reaction like an embargo.

Aggression toward the US: lets look at my opponents warrants
"They have threatened Japan and Philippines. PLA generals have spoken of how they would nuke LA in the event of a war." These are all hypothetical examples that china has not acted on witch according to my opponent himself, are not reasons to be hostile. An embargo on china has a massive negative impact on both countries weak, hypothetical and indirect threats are no reason to embargo china.

And so my opponent once again has only one real status quo threat: cyber attacks, with no direct proof and no magnitude to weigh this argument. The fact is cyber attacks are not a big enough reason to embargo china

Sure china may show that they are volatile by attacking other nations but that is not applicable to the US given that we have far more military capabilities and that we are a large chunk of their economy(according to Forbes 176% of their trade surplus was related to the US). This brings me to my last point

An embargo would begin hostile relations with China. if China wants to attack us as much as my opponent thinks they do (just for arguments sake) than an embargo would cause the US to get attacked. The biggest reason china would not and is not attacking the US is because of their massive economic dependence on us. (See Forbes evidence above) we should keep economic relations with china to keep them dependent on our economy, there are no signs of China taking steps toward economic independence so keeping economic relations would in fact save us from war if my opponent is right about his theory that china wants to attack us.

For these two points (my entire case) that my opponent dropped I am not going to add much so my opponent can catch up and attack them. Just look at my previous arguments for both of these I will just summarize below

4: economic benefits (dropped)

China"s export market and cheap labor is very beneficial to the US economy. I have proven how china has decreased the cost of living, has helped keep investment rates low, has grown the profits of businesses, and is crucial to our export market. China is a huge asset to our economy as we are to theirs.

5: similar foreign policy (dropped)

We should not be hostile toward china because their foreign policy is bolstering our international goals of global stability and counter terrorism.
Debate Round No. 4


LaughingRiddle forfeited this round.


Vote for me because:

1: sources
my opponent provided three sources in the entire debate witch did not support his case very well. I sited most all of my evidence and used reliable sources through this debate to prove my case.

2:my opponents case
My opponents entire case was predicated on the idea that china hates the US and that china is volatile and corrupt. I have proven that all of these are not reasons for creating hostility in the most important relationship of the 21st century via embargo. china is not a national security or an economic threat because of their dependence on the US and the fact that they hate us means nothing if they are dependent on us. last I showed how the government is not a moral entity and should not intervene in china's social problems like corruption.

3. My case
my opponent left my case and my evidence un-attacked even though he had five rounds to attack it. he touched on it in the second round (which I refuted) but he really was just evading the facts. I brought up several cards that prove how china is bolstering our economy through trade and that they are helping with our global goals therefore we ought not embargo them for our own benefit.

just read through the debate and you will find that I had better conduct and more convincing arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 4 years ago
Like I said, I've worked at 3 companies that had a lot of dealings in China. My opponent ignores not only their feelings and motivation, their corruption and untreatable authoritarian rule based on censorship and oppression, but the real hard threats embodied in a clear military armament strategy, economic strategy, and cyber/espionage strategy all targeted at the US.

I'm busy, I didn't feel like wasting my time talking to someone who clearly doesn't know very much about china or these things themselves, and preaches something that while based on a respectable principal is naive and ignorant in face of the facts. (Remember how he cited china's middle class as almost 100% larger than it was)

His common mantra is the 'important relationship' that he parrots from Hillary Clinton. This is ironic, because Hillary Clinton as one of the most outspoken and critical members of US government on China. Point, the importance of the relationship is not an excuse to all it to be abuse and used as a weapon by authoritarian rulers who are always ever capable of violent unpredictable actions, and have caused all the worst wars.

The CCP is descendent of Mao, a man who ranks with Stalin and Hitler and the worlds 3 greatest destroyers of Human life.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 4 years ago

The USA "is an authoritarian country, their leaders use their growing wealth only to fund more oppression, cement their rule, justify themselves, and fill their pockets all at once"

this is laughable, the US is the only country to have setup free democracies that have become model world countries. An authoritarian country does not do that, look at how the USSR put puppets in eastern Europe and China took Tibet, and tried to establish their own puppets.

(at worst the US has puppets until a legitamate democracy takes over, and before you mention Iran, a democracy based on religous extremist law is not a valid democracy, its just a theocracy)

"With only slight modification this also applies to USA
The USA "has shown itself to be internationally a near rogue state incapable of having modern rational interactions with their neighbors." The USA "has engaged in acts of war, military provocations, and wild rhetoric for not only the last several years but decades before. "

Not at all, the US is the undeiniable champion of justice from 1940-1964, vietnam is a smear, as is iraq. But honest mistakes, with no obvious imperial, or rogue motives, the US is has engaged the in the most just wars opf the century in examples like the korean war and 1990 gulf war.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 4 years ago
Why would it be stupid? Rather only idiots think cheap chinese labor is a must, real idiots.

By systematically I mean gradually, start putting up tariffs and raise them steadily. companies will find ways to keep their business profitable and adapt, they will almost certainly be able to produce the same or higher quality products, little of importance is done in china, mostly unimportant ASSEMBLY.

20 years ago we didn't need need cheap chinese labor, mechnization is growing, importance of having your production near your markets is growing, and chinese are less attractive to work with.
Posted by JohnnyC 4 years ago
Embargoing China would be utterly stupid. I don't know if I should bother arguing this.
Posted by gordonjames 4 years ago
What exactly do you mean by systematically (if you can answer without giving away your debate strategy.
Posted by gordonjames 4 years ago
This debate round made me laugh. The world opinion of USA might include . . .

The USA "is an authoritarian country, their leaders use their growing wealth only to fund more oppression, cement their rule, justify themselves, and fill their pockets all at once"

With only slight modification this also applies to USA
The USA "has shown itself to be internationally a near rogue state incapable of having modern rational interactions with their neighbors." The USA "has engaged in acts of war, military provocations, and wild rhetoric for not only the last several years but decades before. "

I think this is the nature of being the "big boy on the block" where you need to protect your interests from outsiders
Posted by LaughingRiddle 4 years ago
Nah, just ship the factories we own and employ in China to Vietnam, Philippines, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, and many others.

We can keep everything we own, and the Chinese can give us back the designs we gave the right to produce for our domestic corps.
Posted by effimero89 4 years ago
Then send back 99% of the things you own....
No votes have been placed for this debate.