Choose a public forum topic.

This, of course, will be my last argument in this debate. I'll start with my opponent's case and then move on to my own. 1) Hegemony A) In my opponent's hegemony contention, I'd like to continue my argument against his drawn correlation between the rise of China and oil consumption. Where my opponent has provided evidence of China's greater oil usage, the burden of proof still falls upon him for the future. China's recent changes as well as future changes could easily make a very big change from what we have in the past. Not only are they getting a new leader and group of people in power, but they are also finally being considered in a group of developed nations that required to cut down on pollution and oil consumption. Furthermore, in a quote from Hu Jintao, president of China, "In the next five years, China will make great efforts to build a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society. We will further implement the basic state policy of resource conservation and environment protection, raise energy efficiency, cut the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, develop a circular economy, promote wider application of low-carbon technologies, and actively respond to climate change. By doing so, we hope to balance economic and social development with population, resources and the environment, and embark on a path of sustainable development." (2011) Thus, while my opponent has only established a growing consumption for the last 10 years or so, he has not shown what will happen with the rise of China in coming years, because:1. the rise of China is more likely to curb oil consumption by having stricter laws imposed on it 2. the rise of China includes the technological rise, so there will be greener technologies available.3. Hu Jintao, president of China, has said that China will put in a great effort to come up with greener technologiesandthus reduce China's demand for oil. B) My opponent also says that I have not shown that the rise of China will help our relations with China. Yet, back in my constructive speech, I paraphrased a quote from fellow Doug Bandow of the CATO Institute, saying that the rise of China would help our relations with India, Russia, and Japan. I will now give the full quote to illustrate my point."Japan, China, India, Russia, and other Asian states are actively maneuvering and hedging, seeking new and more multifaceted arrangements to secure their interests in the uncertain regional environment. They sometimes cooperate together. However, the leading Asian powers reflect deep divisions and competition in Asian and world affairs. Their mutual suspicions and competing interests indicate that any meaningful cooperation among them seriously detrimental to US interests remains unlikely. Moreover, this situation of hedging and rivalry also means that should one of these Asian powers emerge as a dominant power, as China appears to be doing, the others have the option of aligning more closely with the United States and one another in order to protect their interests." 2) Instability I apologize for my very bad phrasing, I did not mean that China's money went directly to counterterrorism efforts, but they definitely do not go to terrorism efforts. As I quote my opponent, the ways that there are funding to these countries are "First, direct investments; second, trade." I'd like to address each country individually: Iran is NOT a terrorist organization and has not recently sponsored terrorist activity. China does trade with Iran and has investments in Iran. They do not help Iran explicitly do anything anti-United States. Just because China spends money in Iran doesn't mean China is doing anything harmful. American does trade with Iran as well! North Korea is a special case. My opponent's argument is that "Despite public statements to the contrary, China still supports Iran, and has been increasing its trade relations with North Korea." Basically, my opponent has not provided any proof that China's trade relations with North Korea has increased, where I have shown a growing hostility between China and North Korea which my opponent has accepted. Furthermore, I extend my point that North Korea's reliance on China makes it very helpful for the United States because China then has even more of a say in North Korea and can influence them to not be so aggressive. 3) Economics I'll put this argument in 3 parts: jobs, overall economy (exports/imports), and intellectual property laws. JOBS. I did in fact misinterpret his contention about the loss of jobs, but while I only looked at exports, my opponent only looked at jobs lost. What my opponent did NOT look at was jobs gained as well. In fact, the unemployment rate has only been dropping for the last 2 years. Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, measured against 2010, we've gained 512,000 jobs. OVERALL ECONOMY. My opponent says that as imports to the United States increases, we must be losing economically. Yet this is not true; just because our imports increase doesn't mean that we're losing money. From the Congressional Research Service: "China has become the largest and fastest growing holder of the US dollar, peaking at $1.31 trillion in July 2011. Because China has invested a large share of these reserves in U.S. private and public securities, the economies of China and the U.S. have become “interdependent and inseparable.” Economic ties between the US and China have expanded significantly in the past decade. China is now the U.S. second largest trade partner and biggest source of imports. As China continues to grow, they increase export rates to the United States, bringing an increase in job growth, demands, and investments." Thus while our imports may rise, our economy can still do the same because China is interdependent with the United States. 3. IP LAWS. As I quote my opponent, "Rather, as China continues to develop, and the trade relationship becomes more intricate, Chinese companies have increased access to U.S. IP, and more ability to steal it." This is a rather cynical and unusual claim in that my opponent basically suggested that trade is bad because it gives our trading partners increased knowledge of us. He fails to show that theft of intellectual property is linked using any statistics, yet using common logic, the rise of China implies its development as a nation and thus having laws to limit theft.Now, my own case: I have already shown my cause-and-effect for bettering our foreign relations above. My opponent says that imports have been increasing at a much higher rate. I ask for this evidence to be posted, as I have only found evidence to the contrary. For the last 2 years, http://www.tradingeconomics.com... shows an unstable, fluctuating rate. For the last 10 years, https://www.uschina.org... shows that our exports have increased by over 400% comparative to the under 200% increase in imports. While our net trade deficit has gone up, our percentage shows a higher rate of growth. While our numerical imports have increased over our exports, our rate of increasing exports EXCEEDS our rate of increasing imports, meaning that our economy will in fact benefit in the future. My opponent says "this innovation could instead occur in the United States" in response to my contention. He acts as if there is a limited amount of innovation. In contrast, innovation in China does not mean a decline of innovation in America. Any technological innovation in China would be helpful to the entire world because increased technology is helpful to us all. China is being innovative and not stealing intellectual property. It's far into research and can collaborate with the US researchers well. Thus, I conclude that the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States. Thank you all for your time, and I strongly urge a pro ballot.