The Current Tension in the East China Sea Islands Dispute is Japan/US fault.

I will offer explanations, responses, and a summary in this round. No new evidence will be presented as Pro asked. "China domestic politics or its disputes with other countries is not relevant to This Debate. i'm not debating that China is a Saint. or that China actions on other disputes. "It is relevant because China attempts to distort information abroad and domestically. "I"m appalled by your attempt to downplay World War 2/ Sino-Japanese war as "irreverent" due to different government system. All the currents states of PRC, Japan and Taiwan are the successor of their rightful historic past. Disregarding such history as simply a thing of the past is exactly why the people of China, Korea, Taiwan and other member of the international communities are angry with the Current Japanese government. "I'm disgusted with the multiple times my opponent has attempted to manipulate and distort the resolution which he provided. Did he not say "The Current Tension in the East China Sea Islands Dispute is Japan/US fault? " It says current tension. If pro is going to bring up historical facts he must show how they are relevant to the current tension. I say he did not even show such correlation. "Con has failed to prove evidences that suggest that the Chinese military strategy had intentionally been directed at the current East China Sea islands before Japan nationalization of the islands. "I never made a claim stating that the Chinese military startegy was directed towards the East China Sea islands. Pro is either misunderstood about what I said or is intentionally misrepresenting it. " A nation sea trade route is an legitimate reason for defense. it's not a act of aggression. Also i must once again remind Con that the US intervention in Taiwan a relevant reason for Chinese defenses. This event had nothing to do with Disputed island as the status quo of 1972 lessen the tension. Also your own source ". http://english.peopledaily.com.cn......; points out the Japan is Military allying themselves with US and for a nation that has pacifism embedded its constitution to think that there is debate to remove it is worrisome indeed. "Yes, it is relevant to the debate because it describes the current character of the paritipcants in this dispute. Do they have the credibility to claim defense? China does not have the credibility nor the facts to claim defense. It is an act of aggression on China's behalf. Who would deny that China has claimed Taiwan? Is this not an act of aggression? To claim something one does not possess? Japan's constitution has nothing to do with the disputed islands. Perhaps it has to do with the Japanese military buildup in recent years but that is it. "Con once against forgets the historical past of imperialism before 1895. In 1894 the Sino-Japanese war ended. it's convenient that Japan annexed the current disputed islands a year after of winning the war against China. Islands that were debated by Japanese military command on the Qing dynasty ownership of islands"This debate is not about historical events that are not relevant. The debate resolution said "The Current Tensiont," not past tension. So why should we discuss events in the 19th century that are not the result of the current tension. "Any nation have the legitimate reason to defend their perceived territories as Japan purchase/nationalization of the disputed islands is the point of aggression. China and Japan had their bumpy ride but the current tension over the islands is restarted by Japan point of aggression. Regardless who had admission control, the sovereignty of the islands is disputed. ANY Political Move towards the islands adds to tension thus japan purchase of the island is a shift away from the status quo of the 1972 solution. "China did not control those islands. They can claim as they wish. They may imagine as they see fit. But the Chinese government does not control those islands and neither did any Chinese government in the last hundred years. How can one claim what one does not possess? "Con fails to make the case that by nationalizing the disputed islands the tension has arisen because of japan. Regardless who had admission control, the sovereignty of the island is disputed. Any political move towards the islands adds to tension thus japan purchase of the island is a shift away from the status quo of the 1972 solution. "Pro has attempted to act as if Japan is responsible for the tension. But did the resolution of this debate not say "The Current Tension in the East China Sea Islands Dispute is Japan/US fault? " It says current tension not past tension. China has instigated the current tension and that is an undeniable fact according to the evidence that I provided. Pro attempts to use history to somehow push the responsbility to Japan. This is not true and even the Chinese government has admitted responsibility for the current tension as I showed in the links in Round 2. "Con attempts to shift of the point to the lack of freedom of speech in China. This is irrelevant the current debate. The insincerity of the Current Japanese government and Right wing authors towards the victims and history of World War 2 involving that of its neighbor country is relevant and despicable. The current acts made by the Japanese government is direct insult to those whom support pacifism in Japan and Chinese/Korean people that died due to Japanese aggression. "Pro has attempted to deny his own claim. Did he not bring this claim of freedom of speech in Round 2? "The Freedom of Speech is a wonderful gift of the modern era, but this gift has also allow Right Wing authors, politicians to storm up the Chinese and Korean nationalism. As they attempt to down play and/or rewrite World War 2 history in both media and public education. "-Pro, Round 2Then Pro acts as if he has the credibility to dismiss the Japanese government and not the Chinese. As I demonstrated in Round 2 the Chinese government dictates what it wishes to its' citizens no questions and no answers given. To get out of line in China will result in being crushed. Is this not a more grave offense? "Con fails to recognize that Japan ADIZ is already an Act of Aggression and Con also failures to recognition that China ADIZ is retaliation at the purchase/nationalization of the disputed islands. "The Japanese had the ADIZ long before the Chinese. So who really is the instigator of this point? It is China. There must not be any doubt cast upon this because the facts are clear for everyone to read. "I once again assert that China military strategy is one of deterrent against US intervention in Taiwan not directly toward japan or the Current island dispute UNTILL the Purchase. i already made comments on what kind of weapon china has for this deterrent. "How is it deterrence when I provided evidence showing that China is the aggressor? "THIS IS AN ACT OF PROVOCATION AND THE FIRST ACT IN THIS CURRENT TENSION BETWEEN CHINA AND JAPANWHY DOES CON NOT RECOGNIZE THIS. "No, it was none of China's business in the agreement. Where was China's responsibility in this agreement? There was none because the agreement was between a private owner and the Japanese government. China started the tension. Japan did not instigate anything. Pro failed to provide the evidence how Japan instigated the conflict with China as he attempts to assert now. "What does this have to do with the debate? we're not debating whether or not China is a saint and Japan has disputes with All three of its neighbors. "It has to do with everything in this debate. China is attempting to control islands in the South and East China Seas because it will benefit them in trade. China started this conflict in order to seize more territory as it has done and still is attempting to do in other places. China is not credible at all to claim that someone else started the tension. Let us some up the points of the debate:1. My opponent has focused on irrelevant history. The debate is about the current tension. So Pro must provide history that is relevant to the current tension. Which he did not do. 2. China started the dispute. As I pointed to above the islands were owned by a Japanese owner. Now when the Japanese decide to purchase those islands from that owner, it is China who raises the ruckus. China built up the tension not Japan. The Chinese government does not control Japan like it can control their citizens. They won't be able to roll a tank over them that easily.3. Chinese leaders have admitted they won't tolerate Japan multiple times and keep saying it. The CCP's newspaper admits it. See what I posted in Round 2 to see what they said.