Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

Standard:My opponent is correct in stating that I strongly believe in American privacy, but then he states that he does as well. I don’t think I entirely agree that he believe in American security by letting a broken system continue to be broken and doing nothing to reform it. Actually, according to the site on foreign relations, they were able to trace the exact group such as Deep Panda, a government run organization. We were not able to go past the retrieval of information because according to the US-China relations report which I posted earlier is against specific US laws and therefore was not allowed. Congress thinks we can go ahead and achieve this task. The funny thing is that everyone of my sources ties the hackers to the Chinese government. He never provided you a link stating that they were not related. Again referring to the US-China paper, looking at the graph, all of those were Chinese backed organizationsInherency:Yes, my fault for not posting the link and I apologize sincerely for that. (. http://money.cnn.com...) He says that he typed it in online and that nothing came up. All you had to do was type Mike McConnell hack corporation and a whole bunch of things would have come up. Once again though, I do apologize for forgetting to post the link. My opponent will also find the 100,000 hackers here in this article that were recruited by the Chinese government for cyber espionage. The case Cendrowski was talking about said that it drew links between the PLA and the hacking initiative, but here is another link which shows that at the end of a 3 year investigation, the PLA was confirmed as hackers who hacked over 115 US companies (. http://www.thedailybeast.com...) In regard to Kumar, he deals with tech every day in his life, but once again I will refer my opponent to Mike McConnell who backs up S. Kumar when McConnell states that they have over 100000 people working for China in the Cyber espionage effort. Harms:So here is what my opponent failed to realize. These were Chinese immigrants, but they passed the info they STOLE onto the Chinese government. I once again point my opponent to the Time article cited in the first round. I was summarizing what he said and to call the opponent should not be allowed in a debate round especially when it was just summarization of my opponent’s point which still stands. He never refuted the impact it had on American business which is not a lie. All you have to do to see that I am not lying is check under the second paragraph of round two. One cannot say, I have refuted one harm, therefore all the harms don’t stand. It is a logical fallacy and since I don’t have any further speeches, I ask my opponent not to respond to the impact on American businesses and for the judges to count this as dropped and award that argument to the Affirmative. Solvency:First off, my opponent is once again referring to his Wiki articles which are not credible in a debate round. The usage of Wiki articles in today’s debate, I ask once again, should be stopped. Even though China has had no leaks, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. Not only caught, but direct links tied to them and their officers. My opponent has been going throughout this entire debate with blinders on. He doesn’t see the true facts. The links drawn, the people caught, etc. If my opponent refuses to take these blinders off, we will never get anywhere in this debate. I was quoting a different source than the US-Chinese report, but how about we take a look at that real quick so my opponent will stop calling my claims fallacious. In April of 2015, the OPM was hacked putting over 22 million Americans personally identifiable information at jeopardy as well as millions of sensitive and classified documents. Let’s look at one more example. The USPS Espionage in November of 2014 put the personal data of over 800,000 employees of the US Postal Service at risk including the Social Security number as well as their addresses. I urge the judges to take a look at this chart when considering their decisions. (. http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) The Chinese government can be found in both the site I mentioned previously as well as S. Kumar. I think my opponent also didn’t read the graph from the report I posted which had MANY different examples of the Chinese government hacking into US companies. Other systems: My opponent is once again confused, China was found supporting the hacking that was taking place two weeks after the peace agreement. (. http://www.v3.co.uk...) When we wanted to talk about it and the news had questions, what did China do? Refuse to talk (. http://www.cnbc.com...) The sources of Crowdstrike will also be found in both of those links. Political sanctions would be a bad idea. “One U. S. official said that sanctions imposed on individuals or companies would effectively cut them off from using the U. S. financial system, which could be a death-sentence for a serious business venture. ” Implementing political sanctions is a horrible idea which should be thrown right out of this round. My opponent has still failed to say how we violated it with a good source. The top of the page even says that the Wiki article needs correction. This argument must be thrown and did fall under the wiki argument brought up in the last round. In response to the Wiki response, I ask my opponent why he did not quote the cited articles? The point still stands that Wiki is not credible and that if he thought it was credible, go to the secondary link and cite it their where the author actually has some credentials. Conclusion:I have refuted all my opponent’s points and since I have no further time to refute, I ask for no new arguments and no new arguments against dropped arguments such as the Impact on businesses. I care about the protection of your information, and the way we can protect it is by retaliating against China and getting it back.