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

Firstly, I thank CON for this debate, and I applaud CON's efforts to learn more about this topic, and hope this debate and the ideas within it give him a fresh perspective upon which to do further research. (video)http://www.youtube.com...- CON's quotes in italics (same as in round #3, apologies)- Sources continued from round #2 and #3- Links are to the various points I made in rounds #2, #3 and #4. (C1-C7), (E1-E8), (P1-P5), (R1-R9)Closing Cultural HegemonyC8) CON does not contest that China has a gigantic preponderance of cultural traditions (C1-C3, C5-C7) that have influenced many in the region. CON instead repeatedly attempts to link culture to politics. I have repeatedly not only demonstrated that this link is self-evident (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, the mere existence of the state of Israel), but have also repeatedly reminded CON and audiences that culture is its own separate parameter for evaluating hegemony. Countries would gravitate to traditions that happen to be Chinese, not because of the political entity that is China, but because the cultural traditions that compel them happen to have a home in China.Similarly, the West is greatly influenced by Judaic traditions. No one would say that Judaism or the state of Israel has a political hegemony over the West...this would be absolutely ridiculous. But a cultural hegemony? This is much more believable. Again, cultural hegemony is its own separate parameter in this debate.After the cultural void that was the Cultural Revolution, Chinese cultural traditions are reasserting themselves (C1), and will impact people that believe in these traditions going forward to the detriment of competing idealogies, such as a Judeo-Christian ethic. (C4) Cultural hegemony clearly goes to PRO.Economic HegemonyE9) CON would have us believe that there are such things as "artificially inflated exports". There is nothing artificial about economic activity (E1), nor the gigantic alleviation of poverty that has happened in China post-Mao [29] [30], nor China's being the world's largest trading nation (E2), a status dependent upon imports as well as exports (R3, R7). What is truly artificial is foreign demand (i.e. nations that China is exporting to), which has been sustained only by egregious debt loads (E5). The West for the past 5 years has been attempting to rectify this wrong. Japan remains gleefully oblivious. Debt is a painful addiction.All trade is contingent upon the willingness of both sides of the trade. Thus, trade is by its nature "free"...no one is forcing a party to trade with another...this would be extortion by definition, not trade. CON, along with most of the world, acknowledges that China trades, as opposed to extorts.What then does CON mean exactly by the expression of "free trade"? This is doublespeak at its pinnacle of obfuscation. It simply means "trade within the 'free world'", i.e. trade within the West. All trade is free. Again, China is the world's largest trading nation. (E2, R7)I could also continue that CON is again projecting here, and that agreements like the Plaza Accords [31] [32] [33] are clearly US attempts at extorting the population of Japan, that there was nothing "free" about such agreements, and that China may or may not have similar agreements with its own trading partners. -E10) CON does not contest that the Chinese stimulus was a fraction of that of the US, and that he is clearly projecting phantom fears of instability here. (R4) -E11) CON does not contest that there is income inequality in the US and in China (R5) and that such inequality is also regionally based in the US as well, thus making China as "unstable" as the US. The Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality) [34] is almost the same in China as it is in America (0.4-0.45) - both countries have a lot more inequality than Denmark (below 0.25), and both have a lot less than South Africa (above 0.6).CON does not contest that things are getting better in China, according to the Chinese. (E6, R5) This conforms to the goal of achieving a Pareto efficient notion of economics (Pareto, [1]) - that Chinese growth, while creating inequality, is still making even the poorest in their country better off. This type of growth mirrors US growth that preceded the Progressive era [35], which occurred only after the US had sufficiently urbanized.-E12) CON does not contest that China continues to grow and will overtake the US economically within 3 years (E1). CON may quibble about the IMF's numbers, but the trend is unmistakable - China will overtake the US in the near future. Economic hegemony clearly goes to PRO.Political HegemonyP6) CON does not contest the primary purpose of a government - to provide security for its populace, and that political power grows from winning armed conflicts. (P1) This is true regardless of culture - any government that does not conform to this purpose through coercion does not last very long.China had well over 100 years of internal strife and losing wars that preceded Mao - the Opium Wars [1], the Taiping Rebellion [1], the Sino-French War (which resulted in the ceding of Indo-China to France) [1], the Boxer Rebellion (an attempt to eliminate foreign influence from the Qing government) [1], the collapse of the Qing Dynasty [1], the failure of Yuan Shih-Kai [1] in establishing his own dynasty, the failure of Sun Yat-sen [1] in establishing a Republic, and the failure of his protégé Chiang Kai-shek [1] in doing the same. During these 100 years, China was carved via extraterritoriality [1] between non-hegemonic Western powers, endured decades of civil war (C7), and fought off Japanese coastal aggression - these are the main reasons for the continual regionalistic strife 100 years prior, and especially in regards to the coastal nature of the Sino-Japanese wars [1], why a hinterland peasant named Mao prevailed (C7).Mao ended all this, and established a SECURE, unified polity. (P1) He asserted the integrity of China's borders through the Korean War. (P2) All of the misery that took place during Mao's entire tenure pales in comparison to just the Taiping Rebellion - an event that consumed more lives than all civilian AND military deaths suffered by Germany and Russia COMBINED during WWII. This establishment of a credible polity - that provided RELATIVE SECURITY for its populace - is why Mao is still enshrined and highly regarded in China, unlike say Pol Pot in Cambodia, or George W. Bush in America. His actions may seem justifiably monstrous if applied to US standards circa the 1950s, but compared to the 100 years of Chinese history prior to Mao, he's regarded as a saint.From this political base comes the political will to establish hegemony. (P1-P3) Why? Because in my hegemonic framework (round #1, #2 introductions), which CON did not contest once in this entire debate, all nations seek hegemony to establish security for its populace. I have also established that China has the economic foundation to properly develop a modern military. (E1-E4, E7, E8) All China needs is time to develop, and for the purposes of this debate, time is on PRO's side. (P3) Political hegemony clearly goes to PRO.-P7) On CON's assertion that "China's ground forces are designed to occupy and stabilize the country" - play madlibs again, and replace the word "the" with "a". Then you realize that any occupying force can stabilize any country. (P5) ConclusionThis debate is about China's long term prospects of challenging US hegemony culturally, economically, and politically. I needed to only demonstrate one case, and have instead demonstrated all three, especially in areas like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, and even Australia and the Middle East. VOTE PRO, and thank you.[28] (not used)[29] http://tinyurl.com...[30] http://tinyurl.com...[31] http://tinyurl.com...[32] http://tinyurl.com...[33] http://tinyurl.com...[34] http://tinyurl.com...[35] http://tinyurl.com...