Resolved: The PRC Should Grant Tibet Sovereignty

I'm unsure about the premise of your arguments. Of course it's good for China--why else would they have invaded it? However, I feel that arguing that a policy is good for a country is not really an argument. I could argue that the Nazi occupation of Poland was good because it helped Poland's economy (I don't know if it did, this is just an example). Yet the Nazis built some of the most notorious concentration camps, such as Auschwitz on Polish soil. Yes, we know it benefits China. But my question is, is benefiting China a good thing? Is providing a nation that constantly bullies weaker countries and has an atrocious human rights record with additional resources, money, and protection really that great? I certainly don't think so. Thank you for your extended history. Not sure why this is relevant, but it's an interesting thing to know. Perhaps a bit of clarification? Also, your point about Hawaii and Mexico is a red herring fallacy. It has no relevance to what we're debating and I never said I supported or opposed either of these annexations. Your point about life expectancy is interesting, but there is nothing in your source that implies causation. Can you point to a specific policy, perhaps, that proves that the rise in live expectancy is a direct result of the Chinese occupation? Also, how much of this rise can be actually attributed to the PRC rather than advancements in technology and medicine? Until you give me more information, this is also a fallacy--the fallacy of the single cause. [1]I never said that China was commiting genocide, and the population increase in Tibet is because ethnic Chinese have overwhelmed the area. The rise in population is not because of more Tibetans but rather more Chinese. [2] In addition, the PRC has been forcing nomadic Tibetans from their way of life and traditions they have held for centuries and far away from their homeland, where they are made to live in "urban settlements" that look more like barracks than homes. [3] So the rise in population is due to Tibetans being forced to leave and many more Chinese flooding in to replace them. Your argument about the Dalai Lama is good, but the context seems to be mainly economic. Again, the Chinese may be helping Tibet's economy, but at the cost of its age-old tradition, religion, and culture. This is also a fallacy--appeal to authority. I will only have a short response to your first arguments, as it is mostly statistics and whatnot. China has been ruthlessly extracting Tibet's resources, at the cost of its environment and the livelihood of the Tibetan people. [4]Your final argument doesn't really make any sense. First of all, I see no circumstance in which India and China could become hostile, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that it happens. View this map: . https://www.google.com...;If an Indian army wished to attack China, it would make no sense to move through Tibet. The Indian army would have to somehow march over some of the tallest mountains in the world, and then move thousands of miles through the arid, desolate Tibetan plateau until it finally reached lowland China, which is where all the population centers are. Instead, they would most likely start in far eastern India (keep in mind that the little spur between Bhutan and Bangladesh is also India), take a short march through Burma (Myanmar) and end up right in eastern China, and thus its population centers. This argument, I have to say, doesn't make much sense. Thank you for the debate and eagerly awaiting your responses! Sources1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://freetibet.org...3. . http://freetibet.org...4. . http://www.freetibet.org...