Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

StandardMy opponent questions my belief that American national secrets should be kept secret with the claim that I agree with the current 'broken system'. My opponent has not offered any reforms to digital cyber-security and the topic of this argument, hack-backs, is completely different than the establishment of a national firewall [1]. I believe in protection of the security of national interests, a defencive program, but not retaliatory strikes against China when the US already violated the Budapest Convention [2][3]. Pay attention to what my opponent says next, because it really starts to question the validity of his claims in the quote "Deep Panda, a government run organization". My opponent fabricated the link between Deep Panda and the Chinese government, when Deep Panda is nothing more than a proxy [4]. To the voters, in Round 2, I stated what proxies were and how they destroy any chance of the US making anything other than allegations to Chinese government employed hackers. In fact, Deep Panda has had multiple attempts on being shut down by the Chinese government because Chinese hackers attack Chinese companies, themselves (Refer to Source 4)! . I seriously urge voters to look at the sources. The next argument of my opponent still does not acknowledge that if Congress ratifies (and most likely won't) a cyber-attack on China, the outcome is public and gives reason to China to bring the US under an international prosecution by the United Nations. A Congress ratification is a direct tie to a government backed cyber-attack. My opponent keeps making claims that the US-China paper states there was Chinese backed organizations, a fallacious claim. On his own source, all the claims state only things of Chinese origin, not government. I already proved your manipulative wording to be incorrect on Deep Panda. InherencyMy opponent stated his source links which I thank him for, yet the link does not state direct verbs as well. Not to mention a string of triple-links that each lead up the same CNN article where only members of the PLA are considered spies [5][6][7]. I should say the PLA isn't under the same system of the American military as the PLA is divided into 15 branches, one, which is the technology commission, cannot order cyber-attacks although all the members have access to computers [8]. Those that are a part of the commission should know fundamental 'hacking', when hacking is just the process of infiltrating a foreign computer with a domestic program [9]. As for the 100,000 hackers, CNN offered no secondary link, and like I stated before, these 100,000 'hackers' could simply be a sector of the Chinese cyber-defence commission, McConnel used the word out of context. My opponent still argued about the sources of the PLA which I did not refute before, but still stated does not tie links to the Chinese government. Only to members of the PLA, not the heads of the PLA themselves. As for PLA United 61398 [10], the source of many attacks, the Chinese government and Xi have looked into the problem, and repeated themselves thoroughly for not condoning or ordering cyber-attacks (Refer to Round 2, Inherency). Like I also stated before, many members of the PLA have the potential to enter a computer and steal the knowledge for themselves, from Chinese and American companies alike to competitors for personal financial gain. In regard to Kumar, he has no prior or current dealings with international law and her jurisdiction in incursions of the private sector. I also state that McConnell uses the 100,000 strong out of context, when the cyber commission in China equals roughly the same amount (Refer to Source 8). HarmsMy opponent is once again caught in a fallacious claim. Regarding the Chinese immigrants, they didn't pass any information because they were only conspiring to do so, and most likely for their personal gain, as they did not claim to do so for the People's Republic [11]. Time does not support your claim, in any way. My opponent is right that I did not refute the impact of the hacks on the US, because the hacks did happen. What I am debating, is that the Chinese government has no direct links to these digital incursions, something my opponent still failed to prove. There is obviously harm from a hack, but my point all along was that the sources you listed never made direct solid verbs towards the responsibility of the Chinese government. SolvencyMy opponent thinks that Wiki articles are unreliable, and that's honestly something for the voters to decide. Just because someone wrote it, makes it automatically unreliable is ridiculous, especially when Wikipedia has their own fact-check systems (Refer to Prior Arguments). My opponent states "Even though China has had no leaks, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. " even though I had refuted every single source of his and their lack of directly using verbs against the Chinese government. They haven't been caught, and the PLA does not represent the Chinese government (Refer to Previous Arguments). My opponent has not refuted these lack of direct verbs in all of his sources. Their accusations lie on the origins of the hacks being in the Chinese homeland, no further. My opponent continues his argument with the statements of the chart, which do not directly tie the Chinese government, by the American cyber-security system, to the extremely impacting attacks. These harms do not tie in with the Chinese government and the US can be held by an international prosecution of the UN for creating a congress approved cyber attack, in violation of the Budapest Convention! Other SystemsOnce again, the sources provided by my opponent do not make direct ties with the actual Chinese government. Only sources within the PLA which the Chinese government does not have direct control over. My opponent is also confused over the difference between a political sanction and an economic sanction. A political sanction stops China from joining any socio-political alliance in which the US is a part of until they pay compensation for a prior offence against the United States, what I recommended. An economic sanction stops China from trading with the US. Your argument has been nulled. My opponent lies again on what the Wikipedia page says. The page simply reads "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. " which doesn't imply it needs correction. It is just a warning of perspective. My opponent states "The point still stands that Wiki is not credible and that if he thought it was credible, go to the secondary link and cite it their where the author actually has some credentials. " WHICH I DID! I listed a triple-link chain to show you, that you were wrong (R3, Sources 7,8,9)! ConclusionThe United States does not have solidifed evidence of the government's involvement. The Budapest Convention and the American & Chinese membership of the United Nations, along with a needed congressional hearing stops the US from making a 'retaliatory strike'. If the congressional hearing goes through, the results are public and China would have evidence of a violation of the Budapest Convention, forcing the US to pay hefty fines. Sources[1] [. https://en.wikipedia.org...(computing)][2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://krebsonsecurity.com...[5] . http://money.cnn.com...[6] . http://money.cnn.com...[7] . http://www.cnn.com...[8] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] . http://www.dictionary.com...[10] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] . https://www.justice.gov...