China is a serious, long term threat to American strategic interests.

- PRO's quotes in italics- Sources continued from round #2Before I continue with my arguments, I will quickly rebut CON's cultural contentions.RebuttalR1) CON asserts that "[PRO] provides no explanation of how religion or shared value systems would impact foreign relations between two countries." History provides all the explanation one needs. From the Crusades (a holy war) [1], to the Spanish Inquisition (cleansing of Muslim Moors (Moors, [1])), and to the modern examples of 9/11, and the state of Israel and the strong alliance the US shares with a country that shares many aspects in common with its Judeo-Christian ethic, all are products of how religion has played a gigantic role in foreign relations. CON's own point about pan-Arabism is a prime example of culture influencing foreign relations. I remind audiences that as agreed upon in round #1, cultural hegemony is its own criteria to be evaluated, separate from politico-economy. Causation (does culture cause economic events? Does politics cause cultural events?) is irrelevant to the discussion.Economic HegemonyThese points are brief, but immensely powerful. The reasoning from them stands by itself.http://www.youtube.com...E1) According to the IMF (video #1, [8]), China will overtake the US economically in 2016. At this point the US will lose its economic hegemony. I win this debate through this simple point. The only question that remains is whether or not this is sustainable going forward for China. China has traditionally held this spot since economic records have been taken [9].Ferguson's allusion to a wide-awake giant is quoting Napoleon, who viewed China as a "“sleeping giant” that if awoken, would shake the world." [10] According to one of the world's foremost historians, China is now wide awake.E2) China is the world's biggest trading nation. [11]E3) China is the world's largest producer of automobiles, a key metric of economic production. [12]E4) China is the world's largest producer of steel and aluminum, key commodities for a modern economy. [13][14]E5) China has directly challenged dollar hegemony via special drawing rights [15] and by influencing US economic policy through its over $1 trillion in US government debt. [16]E6) According to Pew, China is currently the most optimistic nation in the world in regards to its economic situation, higher than the US, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, India, and Mexico [17]. This debunks CON's ridiculous thesis about economic instability.E7) The economic similarities to Japan are NOT clear. Japan was a leading economy when it entered its lost decades. China still has very far to go in order to simply "catch up" to the rest of the world. All it has to do is apply best practices from around the world, which it has and continually does so. It will continue to outpace global growth averages while doing so.E8) The list goes on and is nearly endless. Bottom line, China is already challenging US economic hegemony. China's current per capita income is less than 1/4 of the US. If they only reach half the US number, they will become a larger economy than the US and all of Europe COMBINED. CON will have to somehow argue that this will not occur, that an average Chinese will not be able to become only half as wealthy as an average American, especially when formerly totalitarian dictatorships like South Korea and Taiwan have already done so.Political HegemonyP1) "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong [18]. Most people can agree that the primary purpose of a government is to provide security for its populace.P2) CON makes the false assertion that the "limitations [of Chinese ground forces] were demonstrated during the Korean War." The Korean War is interesting. It coincided with Mao's ascension to power in China. His mandate was not clear, his position not certain. That the Chinese withstood the military might of the world's most dominant power - something it had not been able to do for 100 years prior since contact with the West (China, [1]), cemented Mao's near-deity-like status in China, one which still stands today in Tiananmen Square. This status survived subsequent monumental miscalculations like the Great Leap Forward [1] and the Cultural Revolution [1]. For the significance of the Korean War, refer to P1. We refer to the Korean War as the Forgotten War. In China, it is the opposite.Mao's portrait hangs on the Tiananmen Gate, the entrance to the Forbidden City. Source: http://cf.juggle-images.com...Mao's Mausoleum is the centerpiece of the Square proper: Source: http://frontpsych.com...P3) China has a nuclear deterrent. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is on the table in any military conflict with China. Anyone, including the US, has had and will have to continue to think twice in an engagement with China. For the significance of the nuclear deterrent, refer to P1.P4) Through its economy, China will build a modern military. It now has the production capacity (E3), and steel and aluminum are primary components for building a modern military (E4). It can now afford to do so (E1, E2, E5, E8). This demonstrates the shallowness of CON's military analysis in how it only looks at current military strength, as opposed to trends in military development. This debate is about future trends, not just current ability.China has shot down in-orbit satellites [19]. China is the largest cyber-security threat to the US [20]. China is building a blue-water navy to eventually challenge American naval supremacy [21]. Will the US or China risk a nuclear war over naval conflicts? If not, then China will assert its coastal boundaries with a navy that will overpower others in the region and more than likely force the US to think twice about defending its allies in the region.For the significance of the Chinese military, refer to P1.P4) The US won the Cold War against the USSR because demographically, the US was much larger than the USSR. Demographically, China is more than four times the size of the US. For the significance of another potential Cold War conflict, see P1.P5) CON is attempting to equivocate on the meaning of "occupy", how it means "provisional control over a foreign area,"which he claims is "a highly misleading term when applied to modern American dominion." This is EXACTLY how it applies to American troops occupying other countries. We have a permanent presence on foreign soil. Our troops enjoy extraterritorial rights afforded by SOFA (status of forces agreements) with host countries, which makes our troops largely immune to foreign law. "Most SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against local people, except in special cases where the U.S. military authorities agree to transfer jurisdiction." [22] For the significance of occupying bases, see P1. What this means is that as China develops its military capacity, it will challenge the viability of US military bases especially in Japan, South Korea, and SE Asia, and to a much lesser extent Australia and New Zealand. China's potential cultural connection with the Middle east will further strain the tenuous viability of military bases in that region.I am out of room. I further reserve the right to rebut CON's round #2 and #3 assertions.[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://www.columbia.edu...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...[21] http://tinyurl.com...[22] http://tinyurl.com...