US Should(Must) Systematically Embargo China

Sorry about the forfeit I was out of town for a while and thought it would give my opponent time to catch up on the debate and add legitimate sources. But for this round I will just go over the same points as last time as they seem to cover all of the arguments in this debate well. 1: opinion of the US My opponent provides a Chinese student as his sole source and claims that is the entire country of china"s opinion of the US (even though he himself said it is the governments opinion that matters not the people). Not only has my opponent not provided a legitimate statistic on Chinese opinion of the US, but he evaded the real attack and that a countries opinion has no effect on the US. We don"t just stop trading with people who don"t like us. He states that china has the potential to threaten everything but the fact is, until they start threatening the US militarily or economically (they aren"t) we should not care. 2: corruption The majority of my opponent"s offence rests on the fact that china is corrupt and can"t be dealt with. For the sake of argument let"s assume china is really corrupt and is really funding oppression more and more. this is no reason to embargo china for several reasons. First: look to my opponents own evidence, if we were to not deal with corrupt nations and were to be against all of them we would be hostile to the vast majority of countries. This is a foolish foreign policy that gives us no soft power internationally not to mention economic suicide. But second and more importantly, the government is not a moral entity, what obligation does the government have to intervene in other nations internal matters? The reason we have so many countries that hate us is because we believe we are the world"s moral policemen. Bin Laden himself said he did 9-11 because of our intervention in the middle east. My opponent advocates that we should continue this self destructive and self righteous foreign policy and I do not. Last I want to bring up the point my opponent said about how we can"t expect china to deal fairly with us. The reality is that the US benefits greatly from trade with china (see economic evidence) it"s an undisputed fact. 3 should we be hostile toward china My opponent states his reasoning for the embargo and says "I just don't find it wise to let them make money off us just fund more weapons, aggression, and oppression, and gain legitimacy for their illegitimate government." Oppression legitimacy and aggression toward other countries I have already proven are not reasons for us to embargo china Militarization: my opponent ignores the fact that they still are less powerful than us. According to Newsweek Chinese military spending is only around 8% of our military spending. The reason that china is modernizing is that they feel threatened by our overwhelmingly large military"s global threat (The Economist Dec 2010). If their militarization is scaring the US, the appropriate thing to do is militarize the US as a deterrent. This is irrational grounds for a direct hostile reaction like an embargo. Aggression toward the US: lets look at my opponents warrants "They have threatened Japan and Philippines. PLA generals have spoken of how they would nuke LA in the event of a war." These are all hypothetical examples that china has not acted on witch according to my opponent himself, are not reasons to be hostile. An embargo on china has a massive negative impact on both countries weak, hypothetical and indirect threats are no reason to embargo china. And so my opponent once again has only one real status quo threat: cyber attacks, with no direct proof and no magnitude to weigh this argument. The fact is cyber attacks are not a big enough reason to embargo china Sure china may show that they are volatile by attacking other nations but that is not applicable to the US given that we have far more military capabilities and that we are a large chunk of their economy(according to Forbes 176% of their trade surplus was related to the US). This brings me to my last point An embargo would begin hostile relations with China. if China wants to attack us as much as my opponent thinks they do (just for arguments sake) than an embargo would cause the US to get attacked. The biggest reason china would not and is not attacking the US is because of their massive economic dependence on us. (See Forbes evidence above) we should keep economic relations with china to keep them dependent on our economy, there are no signs of China taking steps toward economic independence so keeping economic relations would in fact save us from war if my opponent is right about his theory that china wants to attack us. For these two points (my entire case) that my opponent dropped I am not going to add much so my opponent can catch up and attack them. Just look at my previous arguments for both of these I will just summarize below 4: economic benefits (dropped) China"s export market and cheap labor is very beneficial to the US economy. I have proven how china has decreased the cost of living, has helped keep investment rates low, has grown the profits of businesses, and is crucial to our export market. China is a huge asset to our economy as we are to theirs. 5: similar foreign policy (dropped) We should not be hostile toward china because their foreign policy is bolstering our international goals of global stability and counter terrorism.