China would have been better off under the Guomindang

1. Taiwan vs Mainland ChinaUther's first rebuttal claims that Taiwan's size made it significantly easier to govern and lead to prosperity. While this is true to an extent, as a theoretical KMT victory wouldn't lead to a mega-Taiwan. However, this is not to say that a difference in economic prosperity would exist under a possible KMT victory. My opponent also claims the Republic of China was unstable at the time. Arguable, the Republic of China was in better condition as opposed to Mao's regime, which I will later get into.Under Deng Xiaoping, it is undeniable that China economically skyrocketted. It is however, important to take note that Mao's regime had delayed much of the economic growth under Deng Xiaoping's rule. A KMT victory would lead to a more market-oriented economy from the start, combined with a lack of isolation present under the communist regime of Mao Zedong. 2. Communism UtherPenguin falsely insists that China's economy is under prosperity and rivaled to the US economy. My opponent also makes a false analogy by comparing China's economy to that of Japan and South Korea. While it is undeniably true that China's economy is doing well, China is also a very large and populous nation, allowing for a much higher total GDP. Both South Korea and Japan have a per-capita GDP greater than that of China. Areas such as Shanghai or Beijing are arguably on par with cities in Japan and South Korea, but the fact remains that many poor areas in China also exist, most notably rural China. It would be more accurate to classify China as under economic recovery in the business cycle rather than economic prosperity. In the theoretical Republic of China, a lack of communism would have lead had the path of economic growth begin quicker than in the People's Republic of China. In this theoretical nation, isolation as a result of communism would have never existed. Considering that China has been on a path of rapid economic growth in recent history, starting this process earlier would lead to a much more wealthy and developed China today. While stability would have been a concern under the KMT especially considering its border with the USSR at the time, it was likely still better off alligned with the USA. China for one would gain backup from American forces in the Korean peninsula considering a KMT victory would likely lead to a unified korea under the pro-USA government. Also considering China's military power, it would have not been in the best of hands for the USSR to declare war against a KMT-controlled China.Uther also seems to make a false dodge by stating the debate isn't whether China was better off under Communism. Considering the ideology of the CCP was communist before Deng Xiaoping's market economy reforms, communism is an essential aspect in this debate. Under a KMT victory, communism in China would have never officially existed considering how fiercely anti-communist the KMT was. My opponent then goes on to argue that correlation doesn't translate to causation to discredit my argument. This argument however, would not be a scenario where "correlation doesn't translate to causation." Communism has been the cause of failure in development and economics due to its overly idealistic nature. Without communism to isolate China and devastate its condition, China would have likely been further up on a basis of economics and human development index. My argument was to point out how Communism has been a negative thing to help the economic growth of countries. (see additional arguments against Con's 5th rebuttal.)Instability of the RepublicAs true from Con's arguments, the Republic of China had experienced corruption, instability, and some chaos during certain eras. However, Chiang Kai-shek had actually accomplished a lot and lead China into prosperity during his rule. The recent chaos in the last years of the KMT's rule was due to the 'war economy' caused by imperial japanese forces.. When Chiang Kai-shek rose to power, he had increased stability, cracked down against corruption, and greatly lower warlordism in China, overall unifying and increasing the influence of the KMT. This era where China was prosperous under the KMT was known as the "Nanjing decade."Furthermore, the famines during the Republic of China were nothing compared to the "Great Leap Forward." During the Nanjing decade, the government had begun major economic reforms. A national currency of the Yuan was enforced with stabilization of tax collection, investments in construction, transportation, communications, etc were made. Chiang had also looked to the west for advancements in technologies, science, and medicine. Shanghai was to become the trading and financial center of Asia under this era as well; the stock market was thriving as a result. During the Nanjing decade, Chiang Kai-shek had greatly helped in overall modernization and economic reforms of China. In addition, it is important to take note that communist forces and Japanese aggression was still present during this era. Mao Zedong was uncapable of anything similair to Chiang Kai-shek's achievments during the Nanjing decade. Chairman Mao's rule had only lead to chaos, political and cultural corruption, as well as huge massacres against the people. Overall, Chiang Kai-shek's leadership after WW2 would have likely been far better than what Mao Zedong could have ever accomplished.Cultural RevolutionI will be mentioning the cultural revolution as an additional argument not present in the first round s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" />The "Cultural Revolution" was a total disaster for China. Mao Zedong had faced slight opposition in the CCP, this had further drove his paranoia to the Cultural Revolution in attempt to create an ideal "Communist Utopia." During the Cultural Revolution, Mao purged any remaining bit of "capitalist remnants" from Chinese culture. Mao Zedong had appealed to much of China's youth to enforce the cultural revolution. Due to previous brainwashing policies under Mao's regime, the youth of China obeyed Mao and formed "Red Guard" groups throughout the nation. During this era, many people such as people in leadership roles were targetted. The Red Guards had attempted to purge China of much of its traditional culture in attempt to create a new "progressive red era" of China. Red Guards would roam around the streets and use violence against anything deemed a threat to Communism. Educational facilities were the first to be attacked, with political opponents, people in leadership positions to be next. Red Guards would roam the streets ready to cause massacres under Mao's command.Chiang Kai-Shek didn't have the ultra-idealistic views as Mao did. It is likely Chiang Kai-Shek would have fared a far better leader for China after WW2.http://ebooks.cambridge.org...http://www.indiana.edu...https://en.wikipedia.org...(1912%E2%80%9349)http://www.pbs.org...http://www.indiana.edu...http://history.cultural-china.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...