Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States.

I would like to say sorry as my internet was down and intact I'm using broadband portable wifi which is really slow. So sorry about that. -The rise in China creates competition, and like I said, competition whether politically or from a business point of view, pushes things forward and thus creates a better by product (in this case a better economy). And since the US does want to stop the rise of China, again, more competition. This proves that my opponent misunderstood my argument and thought that I was contradicting myself, so his argument is invalid. -My opponent also said that my answers of 'competition' are repetitive and that they are invalid, where as the whole world is driven my competition: empires rise and fall by competition, technology gets better because of competition, athletes train because of the competition, the same thing goes for economies, and in fact guess what drives an economy? Competition (Who can make the better product for the cheaper price etc). -Also, completion does NOT cause dependency, the only time it does is if you lose to your competitor (that's if your around, of course) thus my argument is still perfectly valid -My opponent says that it's not in the interest of the USA to go to another war. Well this is half true (I'll explain in a bit), it's also not in China's interest to go to war either, so it's not a smart move on both sides to go to war. And even if China did go to war, they would lose money as America is China's biggest importer of goods and thus their biggest income. Also, America might (and probably would) put a trade embargo against China, and thus the allies of the States which make up a MASSIVE portion of China's income, would disappear. And yes China does have missiles in stock, but once an embargo is in place and all the missiles are shot, no more missile buying for China (and in fact no more spending at all for China, that includes ammo, guns, war ships, fighter jets etc) -For the hegemony I saw this coming. No nation or company likes to be competed with. Even if it's good for them they still don't like it, no argument there. However, I REALLY worded the hegemony argument wrong. Here's the cleared up version: China is a threat to US hegemony, however (here it goes) it creates competition to gain that hegemony back. That's something called motivation for the US to stop mistreating other nation (mainly 3rd and developing nations). I know I said competition a lot but it really fits here, competition motivates one nation to be better than another nation. Thus America needs to step its game up to gain back all of it's hegemony. Sorry for the confusion before. -Ok, that article is outdated, but here's 2 more that are dated 2013 (since 2014 is a relatively new year, 2013 articles still count): . http://www.reuters.com... and . http://wallstcheatsheet.com... Like I said, China's economy is not bullet proof, and can slow if not crash eventually. And for the other arguments I didn't reply on: -The rise of China hurts the environment. China and no other nation alone can ruin the environment unless they do something VERY stupid (like dump a bunch a nuclear wast out in the open, for example). I have 3 articles here that say that global warming is natural: . http://www.drroyspencer.com... . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... and . http://www.express.co.uk... so china's really not THAT big of a threat to the environment -I just so happened to find the article you were talking about (. http://www.theguardian.com...) and it's dates 19 June 2007, allot has changed since 2007. I couldn't find anywhere that around 22% of deaths in the US are caused by the CO2 emission. Thus your argument is invalid -Of course China's rise has no parallel in history. Neither did England when it rose, same with the USA. The rest of your argument I answered above. Once again I would like to apologize for my internet crashing.