Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

US Containment Policy to China RFD

Amedexyius
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 4:39:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Before I start, let me say that one argument may be stronger than another, ex; (x+x<y). I base my decisions based on material foundations and solidified statements not personal agreement or reliance on assumptions. My RFD will address the arguments, accordingly.

Economic Containment; Round 1/2:

Pro's first arguments have regards to the concerns of Chinese economic interests that challenges American infuence from building stronger economic ties with China's developing neighbors. Pro makes the arguments that China is taking advantage of establishing anti-free trade alliances which would alienate American interests from effectively penetrating the Chinese sphere of influence.

Con's argument is a powerful strike to Pro considering the economic statistics of nearly absolute dependency on China to ensure economic continuinity. This dependence on the ties between the nations establishes a certain tolerance for any questionable Chinese actions. The argument is continued with the certain cultural and educational exchanges from the coutnries.

Economic Containment; Round 2/3:

Pro creates arguments that economic containments does not equal absolute lockdowns and trade abolishing. The arguments are dependent that China is simply too poweeful to allow to grow without containment which would eventually challenge the US role as the worlds superpower, simply creating a rephrasing of the previous arguments stating that Con may have misunderstood.

Con's rebuttals state that the Chinese economy is simply too powerful to contain at their stage of power. He also states that inhibiting growth is an absurd idea as it creates further economic competition and the American dependency on China would drop the US as China would themselves, the purpose of containment. The financial strains on the Chinese economy is virtually an anchor chained to the American economy. There is also the argument of a fallacy that China is not against free trade and the Chinese economic hooks to their neighbors are far too powerful to convert.

Economic Containment; Round 3/4:

Pro's arguments are composed of stating that Con's BoP is not fulfilled because he targeted the fact that the United States simply doesn't have the capacity to create a containment policy towards China, which unfortunately, seems to drop the ball to Con's arguments. He also argues that economic containment does not mean aggression, especially when the goals of the US are targeting greater relations with China's developing neighbors.

Con's arguments points out the errors of Pro's arguments. The system that Pro offers is not a form of containment, as agreed to by the definitions in the beginning of the debate. Instead, the arguments that Pro makes is an inneffective form of scraping the arguments of Con. This round was able to seriously damage the structure of Pro in this debate and the win would be given to Con.

Conclusion of Economic Containment Arguments:

The first 3/4ths of the argument was very well defended and attacked by both sides. Pro's strongest arguments was that there would be a greater alienation of American interests in the region, although there was elements of assumptions in the argument. Con's greatest arguments of the section of this debate was indubitably, the fact that the United Sttes is far too interdependent towards Chinese economics and production too try and contain their growth as both nations are monetarily cuffed to each other, wherein, as one falls, the other will too.

Geopolitical Arena/Military Actions; Round 1/2:

Pro's argument was that the Chinese military and political alliances with other nations that share anti-American ideals forfities the global push against American involvement in the geopolitical arena. Pro is able to use the arguments that coexistance is not a goal of China as recent cyberattacks have shown and been traced to the Chinese homeland with belief the government is behind it.

Con's arguments are that American military action towards a powerful China can expect a violent response, in kind. He uses the USSR as an example to show unnessecary containment expenditure and the diplomatic and monetary cost. These arguments eventually lead up to the primary point that confrontation would be disastrous in more than one sector of a nation's interests.

Geopolitical Arena/Military Containment; Round 2/3:

Pro's arguments targets the fact that China is, without a doubt, the aggressor in many events that would include the US. Pro argues that it would be a reasonable American response to position military forces and assumptive to say that China would respond with violence, as Con was making his arguments towards.

Con's arguments shows that the United States would not have the military capacity to confront China militarily or her alliances. Confrontation from one major power to another is not helpful in any relations, and an economic response by China could hurt the US, if not military. Con states that Chinese espionage is true from containment cannot stop espionage and China shouldn't be economically punished for hacking allegations.

Geopolitical Arena/Military Actions; Round 3/4

Pro's argues that military confrontation was not a point of his containment policy but he also DID NOT specify or defend his rebuttals of the military po strategy against Chinese naval incursions he pointed out in prior arguments. He uses the argument that Chinese industries uses the information products of their espionage, and for this, containment should be necessary. This argument is not a rebuttal to the previous argument that containment cannot stop espionage.

Con makes excellent points on what geopolitical military actions are, which these arguments effectively render null the military containment arguments of Pro which simply consist of positioning the American navy. The argument from Pro was put down, cause by a lack of depth in planning which should compose a large part of the debate.

Conclusion of the Military Containment Argument:

This argument was always leaning towards Con, the BoP was against Pro under the military containment argument. The factors regarding the power that China wields compared to the United States makes any form of confrontation as avoidable at all costs. The tolerance the United States should have, especially considering the current interdependent relations between the countries, must be aligned to the same tolerance the PRC has for American involvement across the world. The lack of depth in detail by Pro and the tilt of the BoP gave the argument to Con.

Absolute Conclusion:

The arguments provided by Pro was not enough to fulfill his BoP. Con was able to make very powerful arguments for both sections of the debate, and these arguments were enough to cast enough doubt that any risk the United States would take that could result in absolute confrontation would not be worth the unintended consequences. There were contemporary examples that Con provided regarding the USSR, but they were rendered null by Pro considering the current situation is unique, but these examples were able to prove that the United States could have used a blossoming nation (Regardless of differing ideals) for mutual benefits, rather than attempting to subdue the entitled competitor, as the United States is exempt from the violations they themselves commit. If I had any suggestions, I'd say Pro should have used more arguments regarding the potential threat from China (Such as the South China Sea) or like their own backyard incursions into the United States, such as the donations that China offers to South America and massive investments into other developing countries like Brazil. As for Con, the arguments provided were very effective, the only suggestion I
Amedexyius

Member of the Voter's Union
Amedexyius
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 4:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
[Continuation]...I can think of would be to create more emphasis on the increasing support that China is as an economic pillar to the United States, and especially that the United States has committed their own powerful cyberattacks against China (I had my own debate on that) or that the Chinese government hasn't been directly linked to the cyberattacks. I should conclude with the fact this debate was very entertaining to read and both sides made powerful arguments but Con was able to overpower this debate and I am convinced the win should go to him.

This RFD was brought to you by the Voter's Union
Amedexyius

Member of the Voter's Union
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 4:42:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
You should place this in the misc forum.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...