The Instigator
TheOpposition
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lemonfiz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Without the United States of America, China could not become a superpower

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 4/7/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 51844
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

TheOpposition

Con

I challenge you to the debate over China's superpower capabilities without the US. I will be taking the side that believes China could become a superpower without the United States.
I've put the character and time limits on max to allow for flexibility and thought-out arguments. I hope you will accept.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is how the debate will go:
Round 1: Acceptance only. No arguments can be presented.
Round 2-4: Debate starts. Free debate from round 2-4.
Round 5: Debate ends. Conclusion only. No new information may be presented during this round.

I would also like to provide some definitions, just so that we are clear and are talking about the same things, are on the same terms, etc.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Superpower:
"A state with a dominant position in international relations and is characterised by its unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the means of both military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence." -Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

USA/US: The United States of America. Not its allies, comrades, friends, partners, or any form of brotherships with other nations. The United States in a singular sense. Just the United States, not anyone else. The United States does not include any of its overseas bases, etc.

China: China. Includes Hong-Kong and Taiwan. China in a singular sense. Just China, not anyone else.

The EU: The European Union. You seemed to be mistaken on what this actually is in the last debate. You compared its power to China, which was a mistake. The EU is a collection of countries and doesn't act as a country. It works more like an exclusively European United Nations. Yes, it has elections and its own justice system, but so does the United Nations. I would think it is obvious that the United Nations is also NOT a country, but a collection of countries. However, this does not exclude the possibility of the EU being a superpower. I just wished to clarify this, since you appeared to be mistaken in your previous debate. Anyways, I'm not here to rant on about the EU and I'm certainly not challenging you to a debate about it.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The most important word: "without". This was the part that confused most challengers in your previous debate. Here is how we will treat this term in this debate:

For this debate, we will assume that while the United States still exists, it has become so militarily, economically, and politically unstable and unimportant that it can no longer intervene with any issues that are not outside its borders.

That means it pulled back all its troups, its support funds, its trading agreements, yadda yadda yadda, EVERYTHING. It no longer supports any country other than itself in any way whatsoever, and has no impact on any country.

That means if the United States were to ask another country to do something for it (ie attack China or something along those lines), that country would no longer listen because the USA does not hold international influence.

Again, I hope you accept this debate, I hope the definitions are to your liking, and I wish you luck if you accept. You seem like a good opponent and I wish you the best.

:)

*Note: If you don't agree to any of these conditions, just comment instead of declining. I can edit/change the conditions if need be.
Lemonfiz

Pro

I formally accept and acknowledge that I will be arguing in affirmation of the resolved: Without the United States of America, China could not become a superpower
Debate Round No. 1
TheOpposition

Con

TheOpposition forfeited this round.
Lemonfiz

Pro

Lemonfiz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheOpposition

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I wish you luck.
Also, voters, please consider my opponent for better conduct. He noticed that I ran out of time and was essentially forced to forfeit, and instead of taking advantage of the situation, he also forfeited (thank you for that).

This house believes that China could become a superpower without the United States. For this debate, I shall be referring to the definitions above. I will begin by describing how China could have economical power without the United States, then move into why they would have political power without the US, and finally why they would have a strong international influence without the US.

Firstly, China would still have great economic power without the United States. The country's GDP per capita is exceptionally high, along with the average income. The country's economy is already robust, and without the US it would become bullet proof. Without the US, there would be less demand for products. However, this would benefit the country. The decrease of product demand from the US would allow the wages for the average worker to increase, which would increase the GDP per capita and the average income. It is common economical knowledge that the increase of both these statistics is highly beneficial to countries. The reason for USA's economical powerhouse is its GDP per capita. If China were to experience a gain in GDP, it would become the new US in terms of economy.

Second, China would gain political power. Without the US, China would undoubtedly gain power because there wouldn't be much to stop them. The only reason there is political unrest in China is because its citizens have gained knowledge of the outside world. One of the largest contributing factors to this knowledge is the United States. The US is one of the only powers in the world to be know to get involved with other country's political situations. Their policy is that the American way is the only way, and are basically the only anti-communist power. If the only anti-communist power in the world were to be silenced, then China's political situation would stabilize extremely fast, and there would be no interference from external forces.

Lastly, China would gain a lot of international influence. As I have stated in my previous argument, the US is one of the only countries to interfere with other countries. If they were to be silenced due to their instability, it would be highly unlikely that any other countries would interfere with China's plans. Furthermore, due to China's economical powerhouse, and their increased political power, they would be a force to be feared on the international stage.
Lemonfiz

Pro

Lemonfiz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheOpposition

Con

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited the previous round. Due to this fact, I will not make any new arguments against him since he was generous to me in the first round. Furthermore, the final round will now include new arguments if needed along with the conclusions.

Thank you.
Lemonfiz

Pro

Lemonfiz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheOpposition

Con

TheOpposition forfeited this round.
Lemonfiz

Pro

Lemonfiz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheOpposition 3 years ago
TheOpposition
Well, this sucks. I ran out of time :(
Posted by Lemonfiz 3 years ago
Lemonfiz
When I say soft, hard and economic power I'm talking about international influence.
Posted by TheOpposition 3 years ago
TheOpposition
Yes, a superpower must have these things, but they must also have international influence. Otherwise, they're just a power. I think we should define a superpower as:
1: The country must have Political Soft Power
2: The country must have Political Hard Power
3: The country must have Economic Power
4. The country must have international influence
Posted by Lemonfiz 3 years ago
Lemonfiz
I will accept this debate when I get some time on my hands to hash it out. It shouldn't be too long. The EU of course is not a country, but for the purpose of debate I will treat it as such because it's economic, soft, and hard power can be directly compared to a country since the EU acts, behaves, and will continue to act and behave like a country. I got a little carried away with this definition and will admit that it is not actually essential to the resolved. For simplicity reasons I would like to break down the definition of superpower into the three key criteria being
1: The country must have Political Soft Power
2: The country must have Political Hard Power
3: The country must have Economic Power
No votes have been placed for this debate.