The Instigator
Con (against)
21 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,660 times Debate No: 93633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (128)
Votes (5)




I would firstly like to thank Bsh1 for starting this tournament. This is currently the first tournament that I have participated in, so hopefully it should prove interesting and enjoyable.

I also would like to thank my opponent and friend, MrVindication, for accepting this debate topic, and would like to wish him luck for this debate, and the remainder of the tournament, should he proceed onward.

The resolution of this debate is - "Resolved: the U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China".


Containment (n): the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power. [1] We will also add that containment is a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system.

China - People's Republic of China (PRC).

It is assumed that by the term "U.S." it is referring to the branch of government that deals with foreign affairs, being the United States Federal Government, or USFG. Either the terms USFG, United States Federal Government, or U.S. can be used interchangeably, unless otherwise stated in specific.


1. No forfeits.
2. No semantics.
3. No kritiks.
4. BOP is shared.
5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.
7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter.

(Rules are courtesy of my opponent's debate with Bsh1 on Jury Nullification. I have put them up as requested.)


R1: Pro Opens.

R2: Con Opens, Pro rebuts.

R3: Con Rebuts, Pro Defends

R4: Con Defends, Pro waives.


Failure to meet these rules and guidelines will result in a forfeiture.



First of all, thanks to my opponent for being patient while I construct my case. Secondly, I would like to thank Bsh for hosting this tournament; DDO is past due for unique topics concerning a variety of subjects. Without further ado, let the debate begin!

This debate revolves around the question of why we should or shouldn’t adopt a policy of containment in regards to China. Essentially, a policy of containment would mean preventing or attempting to prevent the spread of Chinese influence to other nations, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. As the burden of proof is shared, it is my job to show why we must contain the influence of China, and it is the job of my opponent to prove that we should not contain Chinese influence. Now that the burden is clearly defined, I will proceed to make a few clarifications before I introduce my first argument.

Foreign policy is defined as [1]: “the study of the management of external relations and activities of state.” This includes, “goals, strategies, measures, methods, guidelines, directives, agreements, and so on.” Basically, a country’s foreign policy is the guide on how to deal with other nations. However, one nation cannot use the same policy for every foreign nation, and each situation requires a tailored approach. Take the previous U.S. containment of the USSR. Preventing their rise to power was of the utmost importance to our government, and we did so by countering their influence abroad and inhibiting their economic growth. Presently, we face a situation in which China’s growth is detrimental to our own interests abroad. However, we cannot use the same policy to handle nations past to address this issue. Instead, we must adopt our own approach and go forward accordingly. In this debate, I will explain why China needs to be contained, and suggest things we can do to counter their expanding influence.


Future of Asia

The future of Asia can go two ways: restricted U.S. involvement in a trade theatre to be dominated by the unstable behemoth that is China, or free U.S. involvement to facilitate capitalistic self-determination. This all relies on our ability to keep lines of communication open with Asian nations and continue to trade with them on a regular basis. However, the goal is distorted as China creates institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [2]. In an attempt to control commerce in the region, disbarring the fundamental principles of international trade, we could not only lose access to developing nations in the region but they may create an economically distorted trade theater with potentially damaging consequences for the future of the region and, by extension, the world. One common argument for not containing China is that it is better off for us to invite them to the world community with open arms than to expel them–yet, how can we do so when China views the U.S. with contempt and adopts an “us or them” mindset? How can we open our arms to theatric monopolization of the SoE variety? We can easily see, by their heavy investment in nations which have been “forgotten” or “overlooked” by U.S. foreign policy, that in the past few decades they have been attempting to create deals on the Asian continent that facilitate the development of an anti-American and anti-free trade sphere. In order to counter with an environment promoting truly free trade rather than a distortionary false one, and to ensure the United States remains relevant in the region - we must continue to partner with developing nations in the region [3], like India, maintain strong relationships with our allies in the Pacific, and prevent Chinese influence, particularly SoEs, from creating geopolitical situations in which the United States and the free world is alienated.

Why does this justify a policy of containment? The future of Asia is economically and militarily vital to U.S. interests. Our allies often rely on us to stand up to Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, and there are billions of dollars flowing back and forth from the United States to Asian nations, we get [4] approximately $77 billion in bilateral trade from Japan alone. If commerce is going to flow between Asia and the U.S., China can not be allowed to dictate trade and investment in the region, and we should proactively seek out trade deals with Pacific nations and those on the Asian subcontinent, especially developing ones, so that our relationships foster into a mutually beneficial alliance in trade, and perhaps technologically/militarily. Ensuring a spot at the table in future world affairs is a vital part of American foreign policy, and it can best be done by containing the reach of the increasingly powerful influence of China.




On the World Stage

A common argument to be made in favor of letting China rise freely is that we can coexist as superpowers and work together to bring about positive change in the world. There are several reasons why we should not coexist with them, and why that is not on their agenda. I will elaborate in this contention.

China, while attempting to expand their sphere of influence on the Asian continent, has gotten close with countries that the United States has tenuous or flat out horrible relationships with, such as Russia [5] and North Korea. These nations are opposed to U.S. interests in the region and allowing China to draw smaller nations into their sphere of influence with the likes of Russia and North Korea. Not only is this ideologically and socially detrimental to the region, it will generate an area in Asia in which China asserts dominance, which is detrimental to free trade and poses a potential militaristic threat in the future to U.S. allies in the region. Actively working to prevent the expansion of Chinese influence by asserting some of our own is the best way to go about ensuring the longevity of a peaceful and prosperous Asia.

Containing China is the best way to go about preventing the spread of their influence because they do not want to coexist as a superpower on the world stage with the United States. In fact, what they want is quite opposite of that, and they have taken actions to show it. For instance, cyber attacks on U.S. corporations have continued despite a mutual agreement reached by the two nations [6]. The NSA has compiled a graphic representation of corporations within the United States who have been on the receiving end of Chinese cyber attacks.

When we look at this picture, you can really put the magnitude of Chinese incursions into the privacy of American corporations into perspective. China is performing these attacks to gain critical information about infrastructure around our country, including but not limited to electrical power, telecommunications, and the backbone of our basic internet structure [7]. Espionage on this large of a scale perfectly represents my point: they are actively stealing the technology and secrets of American corporations, not for the sake of co-existing with us, but to produce what we have themselves. They have stolen and replicated goods and services from around the world [8] only to distribute said goods and services themselves. We cannot allow China to steal tech from around the world, reverse engineer it, and then sell it as their own. This is a huge detriment to trade and the flow of commerce around the free world, and China will be free to distribute stolen and reproduced goods on their own terms, and it is harder to ensure the safety of intellectual property.

Increasing economic influence, combined with gaining a geopolitical edge on the Asian continent, poses a huge threat to U.S. interests and its allies. This contention ties into my case because it is crucial that we prevent China from having a trade monopoly or creating a situation in which they control the flow of commerce in the region. Having economic control of a region is only the beginning, and it can lead towards one nation having control of a specific region in militaristic and political respects as well. In order to guarantee the economic, political, and militaristic well being of Asia, and to protect the specialty industries of nations around the world, we must use a policy of containment in regards to China.






China and its spreading influence in Asia poses a direct threat to the interests of the United States and its allies. Attempting to wrest control of the region economically, making deals with nations ideologically, economically, and militarily opposed to the U.S., and posing a threat to intellectual property and specialized markets around the world more than justifies the use of a policy of containment. If the Asian continent is to remain open to free trade and unrestricted trade policies, the U.S. needs to be working abroad to ensure that Chinese influence does not attempt to undermine those principles. It is vital that the United States plays a role in Asia in the future, and we cannot allow China to impede upon that goal.

I have fulfilled my burden by highlighting why the United States needs to instate a policy of containment and what justifies it, and I am awaiting my opponent’s argument. Back to you Neg!

Debate Round No. 1



As previously discussed, our term of reference will be Containment, which is defined as
the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power; a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system.

From this, it can be logically deduced that a containment plan for the People’s Republic of China will revolve around the complete economic, political, and military containment of Chinese interest in the fields of international politics, trade, military and strategic alliances, etc.

First Prong of Containment: Economics

The most important argument that can be made against the idea of containment is the mutual need for American and Chinese trade, as well as the external factors of burgeoning Chinese trade with important American allies in the region. In the case of Australia, a significant ally of the United States due to their cultural ties as well as economic and military dependencies, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remarked “and I think all of us in the region, particularly those of us who are long-standing allies, have a joint responsibility and obligation to try and produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force”[1]. In response to such a remark, the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer remarked “Our relationship has its own dynamic, we have our own issues. We have a very good and constructive relationship with China”[2]. This clearly shows that, on top of the already growing Chinese investment in the Australian economy [3], the nation currently holds no reason or need to aid the United States in a policy of containment.

As shown by the following graphs, in the fiscal year 2012, the United States saw vast amounts of importing and exporting from Asia and the Pacific. All graphs are from source [4]

As it can be seen in the following graphs, the economic ties of the United States to Asia is far greater than the economic ties of the U.S. to Europe, both in importing and exporting. The United States relies heavily on Japanese technology and machinery for automobiles, which would be severely impacted as China has far more pressure on the Japanese than the United States does. In addition, the naval capabilities of the Chinese in the Asian Pacific region can match the naval capabilities of the United States in the Asian Pacific, and thus there may be an issue with trade. As seen from the 5th graph, the United States saw far more economic output in Asia than it did with the European Union or Canada and Mexico. With Canada being a large trade partner in addition to South America and Europe, Asia proves itself to be considerably small when adding all of those regions together. However, when taking into account the fact that Asian exports are larger than exports to any single nation or region, it proves itself to be a formidable trading partner, most importantly in the case of China and Japan, as well as India. Ending or harming trade with Asian nations in order to slow down Chinese expansion would be a severe ramification on us as well, and it is near impossible to field a force that could stop trade with China and India, as China is India’s largest trading partner, as well as China being Japan’s largest trading partner.

As seen in the 2nd graph shown, the United States imported $981 billion from Asia Pacific, and thus, a policy that would jeopardize such an economic system would not only harm American consumers as the demand for cheap goods grows, it would also harm Asian economic systems and thus have the consequence of lowering economic investments in the region, while adding to a slower growth of infrastructure, jobs, and a high level of poverty, lawlessness, and a lack of basic goods and services.

Additionally, as stated in source [5], “Last year alone, the United States imported US$466 billion in Chinese goods and welcomed more than 274,000 Chinese students to US universities. One out of every three foreign students now holds a Chinese passport.”

Seeing as containment would equate to economic aggression, as well as using force and political power to end the growth of the Chinese economy, it can be deduced that containing China economically will be a net negative for China, the United States, our allies, and subsequently, the world. This can be tracked in receding investments, lower stock market growth, ending of trade deals, instilling of tariffs and other economically destructive policies, and a sharp increase in prices of consumer goods and services. On this front, a containment policy against China is asinine.

In conclusion, source 7, written by Melanie Hart, Director of China Policy at the Center for American Progress,On the commercial front, Chinese companies are venturing outward, which creates new partnership opportunities, most notably in China-to-U.S. direct investment. For many Americans, China-to-U.S. foreign direct investment, or FDI, projects provide their first opportunity to directly engage in and benefit from the U.S.-China economic partnership. Many of those projects are providing jobs for American workers: More than 80,000 Americans are now directly employed through a Chinese investment project in the United States. Economic competitiveness has always been an issue in the relationship, including U.S. concern that American jobs will migrate to China. Now the reverse is happening: Chinese companies are finally creating jobs in this nation—a trend that leaders in both countries should support.”

Second/Third Prong of Containment: Diplomacy/Military

According to The Diplomat, “Given the current situation, even the slightest possibility of U.S. military involvement may push Beijing to alter its expectations and act more decisively and consistently regarding the enduring dispute, all while still trying to prevent the situation from getting worse. After all, recent joint U.S.-Japan military exercises demonstrated to China that the U.S. has already prepared several operation plans for possible military assistance. In fact, China is concerned not only about the probability of U.S. military intervention, but also about the long-term impact of this reassurance toward Japan and the complexity it may add to the current Sino-Japanese standoff.” [6]

This adds to the argument of a possible military altercation, which would be disastrous for both the United States, China, and the remainder of the developed world, as China proves itself to be a key ally for developing Asian nations, while the United States is a key partner of developing South American nations.

In addition, the source goes on to state that “The same policy and approach will not necessarily work for an emerged China under completely different international conditions. And that’s not even mentioning the challenge of confronting two great powers (China and Russia) simultaneously. However, the current situation suggests that the U.S. is in danger of falling into the “containment trap” – the more it loses its global supremacy and the more it expects support and assistance from its traditional allies, the more obligated the U.S. will feel to push forward hard-line policies toward China. Meanwhile, the U.S. should not underestimate China’s strategic determination and counter-measures to containment.” [6]

When looking at policies, we must first find a time in history in which these policies were implemented, match the conditions, and then judge their ability to work in present day. Containment of the USSR led to massive government spending, a failed war in Vietnam, a stalemate in Korea, and alienation of a key power, China. The main point of containment, as it is with China, was to end communist influence and its general spread to neighboring nations, and in the case of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Cuba, and China, it was a massive failure.

What is most interesting to note is that the more peaceful the West has been toward China, the more open they have been to trade and friendship with the West, primarily the United States. It was a direct result of American and Western investment into the Chinese economy that sparked the great industrial growth of China, and it was their own trust in Western investment that led to their market reforms in the 1970s. In addition, these same policies have allowed for trade and movement policies with Vietnam, as well as an easing of tensions with Cuba. [11][6]

As stated by [7], On the positive side, China is showing an increasing willingness to play a leadership role among nations outside the highly industrialized democratic block. China played a key role in the Iran nuclear negotiations, helping the process through shaky moments, and Chinese nuclear experts helped Iranian officials redesign the Arak plutonium reactor so that it will never produce nuclear fuel. On climate change, China’s willingness to issue bold climate targets with the United States last November challenged other developing nations to follow suit and knocked down a firewall that has hindered global climate negotiations for decades. China also appears to be leaning harder on North Korea. China supported the U.N. Security Council effort to sanction North Korea in response to that nation’s February 2013 nuclear test. On all of these issues, Beijing’s ability to speak to a different audience and from a different angle than the United States has made China a valuable diplomatic partner.“


A containment policy with China would prove disastrous, in economics, diplomacy, and military engagements.




Throughout my opponent’s argument, he seems to misinterpret the meaning of containment.

Containment of a nation does not entail severing economic ties with them or canceling our bilateral trade, it is simply a policy that prevents expansion of Chinese influence, in a militaristic, diplomatic, and economic respect. As agreed to in the definitions, this “policy of containment” entails a comprehensive plan to keep an unfriendly government from acquiring more power, and this translates into economic, militaristic, and diplomatic containment. The only thing containing entails is to limit influence in those three areas, not make acts of aggression. I would like voters to take this into consideration.


My opponent alludes to the fact that containment really means a complete militaristic, economic, and diplomatic containment of the nation. He also stated that this entailed containing them in the field of international politics, trade, military, and strategic alliances. This is all correct, but I do not think my opponent understands that the main goal of a containment plan is to reduce the amount of influence emanating from a certain nation. This isn’t a USSR style lockdown, but a stern plan to keep the country of China from expanding their influence on the Asian continent and across the world.


Trade is mutually beneficial with China and nations on the Asian continent and the Pacific. Cutting economic ties and abolishing bilateral trade with China does not belong in a policy of containment like the one we are arguing about. Simply countering the ability of China to expand their economic influence throughout Asia should be the aim of a containment plan. Appealing to the authority or foreign knowledge of Condoleeza Rice might be misplaced, given the fact that 10 years after the Iraq war [1], she reaffirmed her approval of a total foreign blunder. Maintaining good relations with a nation who is willing to cooperate and work with us is a great thing, however I have proved previously that China has no interest in sharing the spotlight with us on the Asian continent, and on the world stage for that matter, and we should therefore instate a policy of containment from preventing their influence from encompassing the Asian continent. This debate is not about the state of our allies’ relations with China, or their willingness to participate in the establishment of a policy of containment. I am arguing for the justification of containment, not a coalition of our allies. Goods flowing from Asia to the United States is a huge net benefit to the economy. This is why we cannot allow China to dictate the rules of commerce and trade in the continent by the passage of trade deals and establishment of institutions without the involvement of the United States that only broadens the economic influence of China throughout the Asian continent. Actively working with the developing nations and up and coming world powers such as India to create a mutually beneficial relationship of trade and commerce will allow us to continue to have a spot at the table in Asia and ensure that China does not write the rules for the future of the continent. As we can see from a study done on the increasingly large role of China in Asian politics [2], China has an offensive diplomatic and economic strategy for the region. Not only do they want to have their influence reach the four corners of the continent and beyond, they want to create an Asian hegemon with themselves sitting on the throne; an Asia devoid of U.S. involvement. Not only does this not bode well for our interests in Asia, it is detrimental to our relations with our allies in the region if we cannot promise our assistance should the need arise. My opponent suggests the notion that ending or slowing trade with Asian nations is necessary for a policy of containment with regard to China. This is fundamentally incorrect, because it is other nations in the region that we need to be more involved with in order to stop the growth of Chinese influence. In order to counter the shifting balance of power in Asia, we should not halt or slow down trade with crucial nations like India, we should work as hard as we can to spur increased involvement with these nations, economically, diplomatically, and in some cases, militarily. Any point my opponent brings up about containing the economic influence of China in the region being harmful is moot, given that countering influence entails INCREASED involvement with these nations that already provide a large portion of our bilateral trade. I argue that economic containment does not involve directly severing or damaging economic ties in the region, this is absurd. Instead, we need increased cooperation with the nations targeted by an offensive Chinese policy of diplomatic and economic involvement. The economic aggressions my opponent suggests comes with a policy of containment are ludicrous, and this would most definitely harm our economic ties in the region. However, containment is about limiting the power, the influence, of China diplomatically, economically, and militarily. By supporting containment, I am not arguing for the destruction of economic ties with China, I am advocating for increased involvement with Asian nations to ensure that Chinese influence does not spread to the point that they are able to remove us from the table, which is detrimental to our interests. In fact, decreased involvement like my opponent suggests would allow China to exert their influence on the region freely and possibly establish a hegemony without U.S. involvement, which is detrimental to the interest of the U.S. and its allies.




My opponent significantly downplays the impact of Chinese expansionism in the region, going so far as to suggest the slightest bit of military involvement would push China over the edge. This perspective is completely incorrect. When we analyze the position of China in the Pacific region through a geopolitical lens, they have backed themselves into a corner by aggressively expanding outwards into waters owned by several other nations, and sometimes encroaching upon the territory of U.S. allies [3]. This has given them a bad reputation on the international stage. Clearly based on Chinese expansionism in the region, we can see that they have utter disregard for international waters and the territory of other nations. The U.S. Navy needs to continue sailing their ships through these waters, sending the message that these waters are not available to be absurdly claimed by China, which in turn guarantees that these waters in the South China Sea and East China Sea remain a safe place for commerce beneficial to the U.S. and nations in the region. It is also important to note that military exercises with our allies is important, so that we are to guarantee their safety in case of a military confrontation. China shouldn’t feel threatened if they have proven time and time again that they are in fact the aggressors.

The claim that the United States is a key partner with South American states is misguided. South America has been relatively overlooked by American foreign policy in the past decade [4], and China has become an increasingly large investment partner with nations in South America as of late [5]. This just goes to show that China is not only looking to replace the United States in areas of importance, but is also dedicated to reaching out to regions overlooked by U.S. foreign policy. This is also detrimental to U.S. interests, because like John Kerry said [5], “South America is our backyard.” Chinese influence posing a threat so close to home is troubling, and this could permanently damage relations with South American nations for decades to come. Before China gains economic control of the South American continent, much like they are attempting to do in Asia and Africa, the United States needs a revitalized approach to the region that entails increased economic and diplomatic involvement. By doing so, we are containing the rise of Chinese influence to maintain our interests abroad.

I have issues with this final contention in my opponent’s case. He attempts to argue that we should model our future approaches abroad after policies that were implemented in the past. This is incorrect, and our foreign policy needs to be adapted to fit every situation we come across, as each situation is unique, no matter how similar it may seem to previous events. Containing China like we contained Communism in the decades past is absurd, and our debate is about containing the power and influence of China. A policy of containment towards China requires a fresh perspective, and I would argue that this perspective entails increased involvement with nations subject to increasing Chinese influence, which would in turn counter the influence we are working to contain. While progress that the Chinese have made in regards to climate talks and increased trade involvement with Western nations may seem like China has a pristine record, it is their expanding influence in Asia and regions around the world that needs to be contained and is detrimental to our interests/





I have challenged my opponent’s arguments about the negatives of containment, as severing or harming economic ties with other nations will not accomplish much in regards to containing China’s influence, while increased involvement with nations subject to increasing Chinese influence can counteract an aggressive economic and diplomatic strategy employed by China. A thing for voters to recognize is that I have actually described scenarios of rising Chinese influence, I have justified a need for containment, and I have shown how to go about doing so, through advocating increased involvement in regions of increasing Chinese influence. Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 2



While my opponent is able to lay out some of the issues that the Western world and the United States, in particular, faces from Chinese expansion, he is unable to provide rational arguments in reference to our ability and desire to contain the spread of Chinese influence militarily, diplomatically, and economically.

First Contention - Sophistry

The first mistake made by my opponent is his belief in the ability to contain China, as well as the idea that we must inhibit their growth. What he fails to realize, in effect, is that China has already grown to a size that we are not able to contain. Their vast economic influence in Asia, as well as in the American import economy, in addition to the Chinese military capabilities and expanding technological prowess shows them to be a nation with formidable strength and influence.

In fact, the central argument made by my opponent is the belief that "The future of Asia can go two ways: restricted U.S. involvement in a trade theatre to be dominated by the unstable behemoth that is China, or free U.S. involvement to facilitate capitalistic self-determination." The issue with this statement is the fact that its factually incorrect, as the future of Asia is already dominated, and has been for some time, by Chinese influence. It is illogical to state that the United States, without incurring great financial burdens, could contain a regional superpower in its own territory. In fact, our reliance on Chinese exports in a 5:2 ratio with their reliance on American exports shows that any financial strain on the Chinese economy would impact our own as well. [1]

In addition to this inane argument, my opponent states that "This all relies on our ability to keep lines of communication open with Asian nations and continue to trade with them on a regular basis. However, the goal is distorted as China creates institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank." What my opponent fails to understand is that the United States government specifically requested American allies, which most of the Bank is comprised of, to simply not join. The opposite of this occurred, with the United States being left out of a financially profitable investment feature that could have brought enormous wealth to property owners and allowed for great investment, and thus more American influence, in Asia.

In fact, the AIIB, as it was argued by the various American allies that joined as founding members, was going to launch anyway. Allies such as Japan and South Korea refused to join, but nations such as Britain, Germany, Russia, India, Thailand, and Australia have all signed up as founding members, totaling the Bank to be 37 members strong. According to The Economist, "Despite the obvious need, America has, either by design or ineptitude, turned the AIIB into a test of diplomatic strength. That has proved a disaster. Its officials have, anonymously, rebuked Britain for its “constant accommodation” of China—and many observers would agree that they have a point. But that its closest allies have proved so keen to court China’s favour and so willing to flout American views suggests America picked the wrong fight." [2]

Contention 2 - Free Trade

My opponent fails to understand the definition of free trade, and this is a downside to his argument, as evidenced above. The Chinese economy benefits greatly from free trade deals, and will continue to benefit from the flow of capital into the Chinese economy. Therefore, it's in their rational self interest to stay cooperative and continue their free trade policies, as they have been for quite some time.

In addition, what my opponent fails to understand is that making economic ties with nations in Asia, such as India, is not a form of containment. In fact, China is India's largest trading partner, and our economic involvement in India will not be met with an Indian withdrawing from Chinese trade deals. In fact, it will only bolster India's competitiveness and ingenuity, and thus will create more demand for investment companies in rich nations, such as China, to invest into the growing economy of developing nations, due to their larger margin of return on financial investments. In totality, it will always be that the land connection of the Chinese economy to nations such as India and Russia will benefit them greatly, and will be impossible for the United States to stop as it would violate sovereighnty of various nations. In addition, the Chinese are spending over $1 trillion [3][6] to rebuild the Silk Road, which will make a large connection between China and its Asian partners. This is a boon for China and the United States, as the higher standard of living in Middle Eastern nations allows for safer investment from Western powers as well as an ease on radicalism and fundamentalism in the region.

For the United States to intervene and stop Chinese investment, it would have to have ties to the Middle East, which it does not, as the U.S. is seen as an Imperialist nation, as well as being the regional superpower, which it is not, as the Chinese have far more influence.

Third Contention - Bilateral Trade

The following will be in reference to these remarks - "Why does this justify a policy of containment?... Ensuring a spot at the table in future world affairs is a vital part of American foreign policy, and it can best be done by containing the reach of the increasingly powerful influence of China." (Meaning all words from 'Why' to China')

Firstly, my opponent provides incorrect information, which should be held against him by the individuals evaluating his argument, as I shall do myself. He states that we have approximately $77 billion in trade with Japan, when in fact this is not the case. According to [4][5], in 2015 we exported $62 billion worth of goods, while we imported over $160 billion in goods. Therefore, our trade partnership with the Japense is far more important, and any aggression to the Chinese will impact the Japanese as well, since the Chinese have far more influence over the Japanese economy.

In addition to this, my opponent states that for our own economic sake, the Chinese cannot be allowed to dictate trade in the region. What he fails to realize is that the Chinese are and will always be able to dictate trade in Asia, as they are the dominant superpower, and the Asian economies are far more dependent on the Chinese economy than they are on the American economy. Therefore, it is foolish to state such naivety as was said by my opponent, since our economy does not falter from Chinese leadership of the Asian financial sector. In fact, the Chinese leadership has allowed for Western consumer products to drop in prices, all the while allowing for much faster and more efficient production of these consumer goods. It's financially irresponsible, might I add, to believe that we must be the main dictatorial power in Asia in reference to trade, as this is both an impossibility and an over-extension of our jurisdiction.

Contention 4 - Co-Existence

My opponent states that we must intervene militarily to trump Chinese militarism in various regions of Asia. What he fails to understand is that not only is this idea hypocritical and contradictory to the values set beforehand, but it's also inane. The capacity for the United States to stop Chinese alliances and ties with the Russians and North Koreans is very slim, as we do not have the ability to dictate to such a formidable power what alliances they must and must not enter into. The consequences of American actions pertaining to China and Russia drive these nations to be far more diplomatic than before, and simply believing the Orthodox stance of "their ideology and goal is bad, therefore they must be stopped" is simply naive.

Historically, American diplomacy with the Chinese has been far more benefitial for both parties involved, as well as outside factors, such as developing Asian economies and the Western financial sector. Our continued diplomacy and friendship with the Chinese is far better than militarism and belligerency.

Contention 5 - Espionage

While my opponent is correct in stating that the Chinese, whether government sanctioned or not, commit espionage on American corporations, he is incorrect in his drawing of an irrelevant conclusion, which is fallacious. Intellectual property rights, and property rights in general have become far more commonplace in China and the rest of the developing world, as they have realized that investment and the flow of capital occurs best when property rights and not infringed upon. For our own sake, as well as the sake of the Chinese, it is monumentally idiotic to state that we must contain the Chinese as a result of their espionage.

Containment has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese espionage, and the policy will not help us either. In fact, less economic and diplomatic ties with the Chinese will have the opposite of the desired effect, as their lack of American investment and innovation will create demand for more espionage and more theft of American technology to fuel their own technological gap, that could be easily filled with American capital and investment.

In addition, diplomacy with the Chinese, as it has been for the past 40 years since Mao died, will be far more beneficial for American interest than militarism and containment.

As shown by the following source [7], the TPP is yet another example of American idiocy in trade,“This zero-sum approach to U.S.-Chinese relations leads China to respond in kind. To counter TPP, China is pursuing a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and an APEC-based [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] free trade agreement".

Therefore, I have proven to my opponent why containment of the Chinese in these particular ways is idiotic and foolish.




In the beginning of the debate, I laid the groundwork for a perception of containment, and I justified my framework in my argument and tied it to my contentions. I have proven why we need a policy of containment and what the policy would entail, and I have justified my reasoning. In contrast, my opponent states that containment means aggressive acts towards China and even some nations in the region. He simply states what containment is without backing it up with real evidence, reasoning, and logic. I urge voters to take this fact into consideration: my opponent attempts to highlight what containment entails and why we need to employ such a policy with baseless rhetoric and insults directed at me. To expand on this point, I am appalled at the conduct of my opponent. He calls my contentions asinine and downplays my arguments as idiotic and foolish, yet he does not provide any reasoning for these attacks beyond the insults themselves.

Sophistry (lol)

The first problem with my opponent’s rebuttal arises when he states that we are not able to contain China. He cannot fulfill his burden without justifying why a policy of containment should not be used. Simply stating that we are unable to do X isn’t fulfilling the BOP. China has been growing over the past few decades technologically, militarily, and economically, but it is not a lost cause—the region is still vital to U.S. interests, as we have many allies in the region and there are impressionable developing nations that could evolve into hugely beneficial trading partners. It is important that we involve ourselves with these nations so that the influence of China cannot spread across the region to a point that poses a threat to U.S. interests.

My opponent’s next contention relies on his belief that containment would entail aggressive economic acts towards China. If we are trying to stop a nation from accumulating power and influence, the best thing to do is make ourselves a spot at the table in trade negotiations and develop extensive diplomatic relations with the countries in Asia subject to increasing Chinese influence, which effectively negates their influence and is therefore a policy of containment. This is not an uncommon theme in my arguments, and I have repeated it over and over again. My opponent has failed to produce his own justified idea of what containment entails, while I have, and my entire case rests upon it. This is problematic because my opponent cannot effectively negate the resolution while relying on an incomplete and unclear containment policy.

Indeed, the United States requested that their allies stay out of the regional projects spearheaded by China, specifically for the reason that they did not want China writing the rules of the region on matters such as trade and the flow of commerce. The United States and their allies stayed out of this organization because they did not want a Chinese-made institution in which China could dictate trade terms. To successfully employ a policy of containment we should coax nations in the region into becoming more active partners with the United States and maintain steady diplomatic and economic relations with them so that the threat of Chinese influence is successfully removed from the equation.

In contrast to what my opponent mistakenly suggests, the United States deemed it in their best interests to stay away from Chinese-led institutions and focus on maintaining safe and steady relationships with countries in the region. Concession in the face of threatening influence is not the way to ensure that Asia remains a place where the United States can readily trade with for decades to come.

Free Trade

There is no doubt that it is in the best interest of any nation to pursue bilateral trade with others. In the case of China, they have displayed a willingness to forgo coexistence with the United States and have implemented an aggressive expansionist foreign policy in the waters surrounding their country and Pacific nations. We must counter the influence of China in a way that prevents them from totally controlling the region economically and diplomatically, and that will be achieved through increased involvement in the continent.

In response to my opponent’s claims about India, I have already proven that they are starting to grow more and more dissatisfied with one of their largest trading partners. Since India is growing very fast and could be of great use to the United States as a trading partner, we need to capitalize on that opportunity by opening discussion between the leaders of India and the United States to hopefully achieve an economic and diplomatic partnership that can endure into the future. Innovation is not something that will come from close cooperation with China, nor will ingenuity in products. China lacks innovation on all fronts [1], while the United States continues to stay ahead of them. The United States needs to become an increasingly large trading partner with nations such as India so that mutually beneficial trade partnerships are established and Chinese influence is prevented from spreading throughout the region. Only increased involvement can negate increasing Chinese influence, and I have proved this time and time again.


Bilateral Trade

I correctly named the nominal monetary amount of goods to and from Japan, and I do not see how this contributes to my opponent’s case or to the resolution. The Japanese are our ally, and the point I was making is that it is paramount that for their sake and for the sake of other allies in the region, it is important to counter increasing Chinese influence lest they are able to dictate the rules of Asia.

My opponent completely ignores the fact that I justified a policy of containment and tied my contention directly to my framework of what containment entails. He did not respond to my perception of containment that I laid out clearly: instead he tries to attack with faulty reasoning, saying “China is the superpower in the region.” I have clearly explained why this is detrimental to the U.S. and its allies, and I have outlined how we can go about preventing the spread of Chinese influence. We do not need to dictate trade in Asia, I never said such a thing. I did however prove that it would be detrimental to our interests to allow China to dictate the terms of trading and the flow of commerce, which my opponent yet again fails to refute. It is not a matter of our jurisdiction, it is a matter of protecting the interests of the U.S. and its allies abroad.

Co-Existence & Espionage

I never stated ever that military intervention should be used to counter Chinese influence. That goes directly against my framework. which my opponent consistently ignores. They must be contained because they reflect values that are very different from the ones the first world holds dear: general freedoms. If they are allowed to dictate trade and commerce in the region, it is detrimental to the United States because we might not have a place at the table in the future.

Espionage pertains to containment because we cannot allow the Chinese to corner nations around the world in their respective industries because the Chinese have stolen their technology. Containment is justified because they pose a direct threat to the greater economies and political sphere of the free world.


I have justified a policy of containment, what it entails, and why we need it. My opponent has not done his job and has not fulfilled his burden. He has laced his arguments with inappropriate remarks and baseless reasoning. He ignored my framework and continues to make statements about how military force or economic aggression equals containment, which I have refuted. In other words, I have successfully fulfilled my burdens in this debate, and my opponent has failed time and time again. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3



My opponent makes several claims, most notably in his opener, that are either a diversion or simply semantical. My opponent states that "This isn’t a USSR style lockdown, but a stern plan to keep the country of China from expanding their influence on the Asian continent and across the world." What he fails to understand is that the very definition, that both of us agreed upon, of the term "containment", entails a USSR style lockdown of China, which he seems to be obediently diverting from. I would like the voters to take into consideration my opponent's clear diversion from the subject matter, and his rather deconstructive way of asserting his various points. By no means was the agreed upon definition, which is stated in the first round.

In fact, I would like the voters to strictly consider the fact that the entirety of my opponent's arguments are based upon a definition that we did not agree to. It can be inferred that by the statement "deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system" does not refer to simply containing the spread of influence, but also of ending our current ties, as the "denial of the spread of influence" is quite literally the ending of ties, both diplomatic and economics, with China.

In addition to this, my opponent also alludes to "limiting influence", rather than "mak[ing] acts of aggression". What my opponent fails to understand is that the forceful limiting of the spread of influence, in any case, is an act of aggression.

Contention 1: Economics

My opponent states that "Trade is mutually beneficial with China and nations on the Asian continent and the Pacific. Cutting economic ties and abolishing bilateral trade with China does not belong in a policy of containment like the one we are arguing about." This is, quite literally, already a diversion. In fact, my opponent mentions various diversions such as these quite frequently throughout his argument, and it's a shameful tactic. As the rules said, our agreed definition of the policy of containment was quite clear, and this is the same definition that my opponent is refusing to acknowledge, or even use, for that matter.

In addition to this, my opponent fails to understand that trade agreements, which he wants to keep, are by their very nature an expansion of influence. For this to be realized, it would mean that the economic argument that my opponent has given me is either a show of complete hypocrisy and blatant contradiction, or he decided to be in full agreement with on the subject matter without knowing. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and assume the former. In this very case, it is rather disingenous to state that "influence", but its very nature, will not spread through these trade deals.

As trade is not constant, rather, by its nature, being expansionary or deflationary, Chinese influence, if quantified, will either increase or decrease, depending on the market forces and their actions in this regard. This means, that if we wanted a complete and blanket end to Chinese influence economically, we must end these trade deals, which my opponent agrees with me as being a ludicrous action.

Furthermore, my opponent's incessant need to end economic influence from China as well as its expansion is met with swift rebuttal by various economists and statisticians, as the effect of ending ties, or limiting them, would be disastrous for the American lending industry, and even the USFG itself. To quote, it is estimated that the ending of Chinese lending to the USFG, which is a tactic easily expoloitable by a Chinese government that sees us as aggressive, would be "Worse, the negative consequences wouldn’t stop with construction. They would spread to the largest sector of the US economy, consumption, as household real incomes will fall. “U.S households would suffer a real income loss of $330 billion (1992 USD), 5.2 percent of 1992 U.S. GDP, compared with a scenario in which the saving glut had never occurred. That is, the total cost of disorderly sudden stop would be 16.1 percent of 1992 U.S GDP, or over $1 trillion ($689 billion plus $330 billion)." [1]

My opponent remarks that "Simply countering the ability of China to expand their economic influence throughout Asia should be the aim of a containment plan." What he fails to understand is that the economic expansion of China in other Asian nations is both impossible to contain, as it would mean violating international law and various treaties, but it is also a good thing for the remainder of the world. Not only does China reap the benefits and allow for a better economic system for their own people, which in turn raises standard of living, but it also means that Chinese capital can be freely used by the nations where it is invested. This is beneficial for the West and the United States in particular as the free flow of capital in Asia means for less regulations on U.S. investment, as governments, upon realizing of the benefits of free trade, will lessen the regulations, but it also will help to bolster American consumerism and deflate prices on American goods and services.

Lastly, I would like to reference a statement by my opponent that most literally is his defeating point, and is a reason why his argument on economics is very fallacious. He states that "Any point my opponent brings up about containing the economic influence of China in the region being harmful is moot, given that countering influence entails INCREASED involvement with these nations that already provide a large portion of our bilateral trade." What he forgets is that free trade does not simply appear, and capital cannot be created out of thin air. In fact, he is able to achieve two different mistakes in this statement alone. First, he assumes that wealth can be created from nothing, which it cannot, and secondly, he assumes that these nations, which already are more involved with the Chinese than we are with these nations, will simply end their trade deals with China and continue trade deals with us. This is fundamentally wrong, as the Chinese are far closer and far more profitable with, due to emerging markets and higher return rates, than the United States, and the labor standards are far more regulated in the United States than in China, making China a more lucrative trading partner than the US, due to their closeness and ease of doing business for large corporations, which are the main influence of these trade policies.

Contention 2: Military/Diplomacy

My opponent starts his assertion on the topic with verbiage that is full with mistakes and bare assertions. He argues that "The U.S. Navy... fact the aggressors."

Firstly, my opponent's statement, as shown above, makes the mistake of assuming that containment is simply the act of sailing ships near China's waters, which it most definitely is not. Containment is a tactic that is far more aggressive and vastly more militaristic than simply sailing in international waters, especially when we have not engaged Chinese naval craft nor does our current adminisration, which does exactly as my opponent asserts, admit that we have a containment policy with the Chinese, which we most certainly do not. [2] To reference this source directly, President Obama reassured diplomats that "We do not seek to contain China’s rise. On the contrary, we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations.” This proves my above point that we currently do not have a containment policy, but are doing the very same thing that my opponent advocates for. If that act was containment oriented, then we would be ushering in this policy. By logical deduction, my opponent is thus far wrong.

In addition, my opponent claims that "The claim that the United States...By doing so, we are containing the rise of Chinese influence to maintain our interests abroad." (I am referencing the entire paragraph).

This is definitely a misstatement. Decidedly, the act of increasing influence in the South American region is not an act of containment. What my opponent misregards heavily is that both Chinese and American influence can exist in South America, and simply assuming that our own influence somehow lessens China's is exemplary of mercantilism, which is an outdated and disproven system. It is baseless to assume that South American nations will somehow back the Chinese over the United States, as we are far closer to their culture, have far more of their ethnic inhabitants within our borders, and are far more economically involved with them than the Chinese are, and this will not change. Their simple increase bodes no risk to the American domination of South American markets.


I would like to point out to the voters that my opponent has used constant remarks of deviation from the definition at hand, which is most definitely a violation of the rules set forth. In addition, he has stated half-truths in reference to economics, and his logic falls flat when met with the economic facts that wealth is not a zero sum game, and the improvement of Chinese economic influence is not going to be a direct destruction of our own. In effect, this means that my opponent believes that influence is measured on a basis of numbers, and that their rising ties means our lowering ties proportionally, which simply is not true.

I would also like to note that my opponent has used various sources to back his claims that I am unable to access, and thus I cannot verify as being correct or credible. Therefore, all points with which this was deduced are moot, and rescinded. This source happens to be source 5, being [;].

Therefore, as a result of my complete rebuttal of his economic arguments, as well as his constant diversion from the definition at hand, I would like to implore to the voters that they cast their votes in my favor, as I have stayed in line with the rules, while my opponent has not.




Good debate! Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
128 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 2 months ago
Ignorance of the DDO law is no excuse.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 months ago
I don't care if you didn't know the rules. You still broke one.
Posted by fire_wings 2 months ago
Hey, that time I didn't know the rules that it wasn't allowed.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 months ago
Lol that's such a stupid excuse Fire. Read what Omni said and you will see why.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 2 months ago
But you could have just... not voted for him. If a kid tells you to egg someone's house, you can't just say "oh he made me do it."
Posted by fire_wings 2 months ago
It's his fault, not mine.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 months ago
Exactly, he said for you to vote for him. This is good evidence now, because I can go (and probably will) report the vote that you sent because the guy directly asked you to vote for him, which is against the rules. Fire, you should think stuff through before giving it out lol.
Posted by fire_wings 2 months ago
I didn't say to vote for me. CodingSource said that. I did like skim through it.
Posted by famousdebater 2 months ago
Fire, you can get into trouble for doing that.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 months ago
@fire I hope you realize what you said can be taken in a really wrong way...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by someloser 2 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD:
Vote Placed by Omniscient_Debater 2 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 2 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD Link Here: []
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 months ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is located here. This vote has been brought to you in part by, the DDO Voters' Union.