Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

Opening StatementsBy the term "constructives", I'm not sure if that allows rebuttals in this round. However, this debate is whether a hypothetical action should take place which forces me to make rebuttals, if not list other methods to combat the current situation. My apologies if these rebuttals weren't meant for this round, but my position in the debate forces me to make them. Regardless, I will keep my rebuttals as low as possible. The People's Republic currently is not under any actual evidence that the data stolen was by perpetrators acting under orders of the government [1]. In the world of digital technology, there exists a location masking entity of the world of proxies. Proxies can be used by any hacker to hide themselves from being tracked, and when tracked, they have the potential to broadcast a location of their choice [2]. This makes finding solidifed evidence of cyber-attacks by an actual government, virtually impossible, and any other nation or group of people known for having hatred towards the US (such as Anonymous [3]) to create false tensions. If the United States makes a congressional move to create their own cyberwarfare strategies, with their own congressional hearing, the US would be under a tremendous amount of evidence of an actual action condoned by the American government. My opponent made statements that China stole information, but as I just stated, there is no actual evidence that the Chinese government was behind it. My opponent has stated that the US should "retrieve" this stolen information, although, in the world of computers, (Not to mention back-ups), the US didn't actually lose their information, neither if they did, could they even hope to find it in the digital ocean of China [4]. In order to advance the debate, I agree with all definitions provided by my opponent. StandardIn this section of the debate, my opponent made the argument that the privacy of the American government and its susceptibility entitles the US to protect her privacy by the plan of "trace that hack, retrieve the information, delete it, and possibly find the person responsible". In the manners of the practice of cyber-attacks, tracing a hack, especially from someone who had the potential to hack the American government, is more than expected to have the fundamental knowledge to mask their identity through a proxy. By retrieving the information, I assume my opponent believes that the information of ours was deleted after being intercepted. A hacker would want anonymity from their attack and can be expected only to copy the information, not destroy it. Especially when the US government can have their information on a back up, their information wasn't stolen, it was copied. My opponent also states that in the plan, the information would then be deleted, but you can expect the hacker to make copies and back ups that aren't connected ensuring their digital security, making it impossible for their newfound information to be destroyed. As for finding the person responsible, refer to the practice of proxies. What I had just stated is virtually the fundamentals of any form of anonymous digital attack, or even in piracy, although if my opponent doubts, I do back my statements up with sources [5]. InherencyThe source my opponent quotes regarding PLA affiliations with traced hackers is, by terms of the government of China, unofficial and the US can't prove otherwise [6]. Especially since the source my opponent used also states that the Chinese government has made attempts to crack down on these international cyber-attacks by quoting Xi, and uses the term "allegedly" when regarding the traces. As Fortune is an economic website, and an independent one as well, the viability of them making statements that the Chinese government is directly behind these attacks is comparable to a tabloid making sure they don't use solidified verbs in their accusations as Fortune did not use solid verbs to link the claims (Refer to Source 6). The next source regarding the "online cyber army" is nothing short of ridiculous, especially when the secondary link goes to a non-national website of local news. The simple click-bait for website views shouldn't be taken as seriously as my opponent says. The next argument regarding a Chinese official saying so is a lie. Please look at the sources yourselves, because my trust for Fortune. com has also dropped. Concluding this argument, my opponent only makes assumptions of blackmail, but as I pointed out before, you can't "blackmail" this information, because the USFG still has it and China hasn't been directly tied, nor would they want to. HarmsMy opponent manipulates the wording a little regarding his source, Time, also does not use solid and direct verbs on the Chinese government. You must be wary of the term, "accusations", and "allegedly", especially since the other links provided by Time leads to other opinionations made for the process of click bait, and no direct investigations. In the second argument of my opponent, I smell plagiarism [7]. Word for word, and taken from a less than reputable site, from the first 3 paragraphs. This site offered no secondary links to any of their claims, and in their website is full of Pro-Republican propaganda against anything Democrat or lax in foreign policy. As for nearly the rest of the argument of my opponent, there seems to be confusion on what exactly a cyber-attack is or how do you combat it because once the enemy has it, you can't trace their exact computer back nor implant any sort of Trojan virus on it, to delete the information they already have. I should also state, the other arguments that I seemingly left behind has actually been rendered null from my solidified statements of a lack of direct link. SolvencyThe primary argument of my opponent stating the US should make retaliatory strikes can no longer use the world retaliatory, because the US has been on the offensive for as long as China has been doing so. It was never retaliation, it is already a back and forth [8]. The reason I took up this argument is because the claim is "hack-backs" and retaliatory, but in this situation, hack-backs can't be attempted. Other MethodsConcerning the high relations that can be between two major powers [9], obvious congress approved cyber-strikes against a nation would be fatal to advancement of relations. The United States has technically made the first violation because since cyber-crimes is not a recognized war-fare tactic by the United Nations or any other organization China is a part of, the Budapest Cyber-Warfare Convention that the US has signed would make the US the perpetrator [10], or the continuum. Instead of fighting fire with fire, the United States can draft personal cyber-treaties with China [11] and if China does deny, there would be a diplomatic link to Chinese involvement for digital protection of interests which would include evasion of international justice. Otherwise, the United States could introduce material political sanctions. Sources[1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...(group) #2013. E2.80.93present[4] . http://www.internetlivestats.com...[5] . https://blog.udemy.com...[6] . http://fortune.com...[7] . http://freebeacon.com...[8] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] . http://www.cfr.org...[10] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] . http://www.usnews.com...[12]https://en.wikipedia.org...