Choose a public forum topic.

That being said, let's move in to the arguments. I'll be splitting the hegemony impacts into two sections. Resource SecurityMy opponent has essentially gone non-responsive to my prior rebuttal. He continues to push that China will implement green policies, but remember that this was already responded to. There is a difference between what China says and what China does. China has consistently pledged to reduce emissions, thereby curbing oil consumption, over the last decade. Yet, these policies are rarely implemented. My opponent has failed to show any actual impact that has resulted from these supposed policies. He mentions that it is a long term point, but he doesn't show how the future is going to be any different. My opponent is showing that they may curb their rate of growth for oil consumption, not their actual consumption. If China's rate of consumption drops from 10% to 5%, then it's true that green policies are making a difference - however, 5% growth is still a net harm. As stated previously, my opponent must show that green policies could reduce Chinese oil demand to levels below what it would have been without their rise. He has failed to do this. Remember, the impact from my first round was never contested. If I should win this point, then we will see an economic collapse as a result of a failure to maintain energy security, a decline in economic hegemony, and a direct harm to millions of Americans who rely on oil every day. Power ProjectionAgain, my opponent has gone non-responsive. He drops the fact that China's rise harms already strained relationships. His only response in this last round was to attempt to outweigh this point with a potential benefit to relations with other nations. That being said, let's look at the three reasons why this point flows con. My opponents benefit doesn't actually happen. Remember my response: Pro has shown no benefit to relations with these countries. The evidence he cites in his last round mentions that nations "have the option" to do so. Again, there is not a single example cited as to how, when, or where this is actually occurring. Have relationships with Japan been improving? Not yet, and our opponent cites no reason as to why they definitely will in the future. Have relations with Russia been improving? Nope. What about India? Nope. My opponent provides no link to the rise of China. Again, this response was not responded to. The majority of these countries are already on good terms with the U. S. relationship. Any changes in relations, which he never even cites, then must be attributed to the rise of China. He has not done this. My impact outweighs. Remember that, since he only tried to outweigh, you can automatically vote off the fact that my point was dropped. Improved relations with Japan won't matter if we lose military bases in the Middle East. As we lose power projection, we can't prevent adventurism from hostile nations. We can't carry out counterterrorism operations if we lose bases. The higher probability, higher magnitude impact outweighs my opponent's point. InstabilityLike my opponent, I'll address each country individually. First, Iran: My opponent's response to this point was that China does not explicitly help Iran commit anti-U. S. actions. However, I never once claimed that this was the case. As stated in my case, Iran is a threat to U. S. interests. Chinese investment in Iran allows for the country to maintain itself without collapsing. The increase in funding to the country grants them more money to spend on their nuclear program - which, remember, my opponent agreed is a substantial threat to U. S. interests. Thus, China, while it may not spent explicitly to harm U. S. interests, still spreads instability nonetheless. Second, North Korea: Evidence was brought up within my case showing that China has been increasing trade relations with North Korea. Here's the link: . http://blogs.cfr.org.... My opponent claims that this trade promotes dependency, yet nowhere does he show that China is actually using this to its advantage. He claims that China is denouncing the regime - we see no effect. He says that China has agreed to U. N. sanctions - again, we see no effect. In fact, we actually see the opposite occurring. Thus, regardless of what increase in "dependency" may exist, we see that this increase provides no benefit. Instead, it funds North Korea's nuclear program and keeps the rogue regime afloat. EconomyBefore I separate this into two of my original points (IP theft will be dropped), I'd like to respond to a statistic brought up by my opponent which claims that we've gained 512,000 jobs: There's no link to China, so drop that response. First, let's look to the trade deficit. My opponent pretty much had one response to this, claiming that the rate of export growth exceeds the rate of import growth. This may be true, but the rate of growth is irrelevant - we should be looking at the actual numerical value. Using the very source cited by my opponent, we see that the actual numerical value of our trade deficit has been consistently increasing over the last few years. A percentage change fails to give the whole picture, and looking at the whole picture shows this point flows con. Let's look at the impact. Remember, 100 million Americans have their wages lowered, and we lose 2.7 million jobs. This outweighs anything my opponent has brought up relating to China. Second, let's look at interest rates. You'll notice my opponent has no specific response to this in his last round. Thus, since I already explained the link to the rise of China in my previous round, we're just going to look to impacts. Remember my third contention: The low interest rates, depressed as a result of China, were the largest factor in the U. S. and worldwide recessions around 2008. Again, this outweighs any harm cited by my opponent, as we lost hundreds of billions of dollars, million jobs, and a global economic leadership position. InnovationMy opponent claims that there is not a limited amount of innovation. This is true, but I never claimed otherwise. Remember the response from last round: China gaining power in these fields erodes U. S. dominance in high tech fields. The spread of technology away from the United States, regardless of whether or not there is a finite amount of innovation, is responsible for over half of the U. S. ' relative decline. This is not specific to China - however, it does prove the spread of technology is harmful, regardless of my opponent's analysis. Additionally, remember that I already outweighed my opponent's impacts. He mentions how they may lead the world in green energy, but I already showed that there's still a net harm to the environment as a result of China's rise. He brings up coal, and the same response can be extended. He brings up biomedicine, but he has not shown any actual examples of innovation, or breakthroughs; he simply says that more money is being spent on research. These low-probability, low-magnitude, extreme-timeframe impacts are outweighed by the concrete loss in global high tech leadership which I brought up in my last round.