Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

Good Job! I'm enjoying this! 1) Military I don't know what to say. I can find numerous sources that say both. So who are telling the truth and who are blowing it out of proportion? I don't know but I will form my argument either way. Instead of putting up a rebuttal I am just going to tear apart his facts and sources because if I go find more sources it will be a stalemate. You must have not read your sources all the way through.( I don't normally either). But either your sources don't speak on how modern they are or they agree with me that they are still behind "By purchasing fourth-generation fighters from the Russians and as it starts building more advanced fighters, China has also enhanced its aircraft. The country, however, is still having trouble with engine designs and therefore still depends on expertise and equipment from the Russians. " your source [1] You go on to say that China is developing and fielding short-long-medium ranged missiles. This is true. Russia, U.S. and Germany were developing these 60 years ago. Fielding them about 40 years ago. Germany had V-2s in the late 1930's (all be it not very good ones) Also you keep bringing up the undermining thing. By undermining I don't think they mean like they are going to be able to fight us or attack us. I think they mean more like they will be able to influence nations more and remove a little of our influence. Or not even that far just as of right now No one compares to the U.S. so they really do whatever they want and they just won't be able to do whatever they want anymore. I would agree that China has a strong force but I disagree that it is formidable. I believe in a war we would lose lots have men but they definitely wouldn't stand a chance. Expescially since all your sources agree that China is not even comparable to us physically they only stand a chance cyberly. Your own source says "In … late 2008, when they deployed a three-ship task group to the Gulf of Aden to conduct counterpiracy operations, that was a big step for them," Dorsett added. "Three ships to the Gulf of Aden, compared to what the U.S. Navy does on a daily basis, … you can't contrast the two, because the difference is so great." [5] They are getting praised for things we did pre-WWI. No one agrees that they are a formidable foe, just an up and coming one. They are not going to be a superpower just a large pain in the superpowers butts. They have the means to undermine us but not the means to do anything more than that. By undermine they mean to annoy us and try pushing their own ideas. All your sources agree they are far behind us and Russia but that they will grow and MAYBE eventually become powerful but not for an extremely long time a dominating force. You want to limit this to 5-15 years. Your source agrees by 2020 they still wont be formidable "But by 2020, Chinese aircraft carrier proficiency and capability will still be very limited, Dorsett said, because integrating flying aircraft into not just flight deck operations but battle group operations "takes a fair amount of time."ï¿½ [2] So my opponent wants to say military is advanced and powerful, but his own sources speak to the contrary. So my opponent can agree or disagree with me but his sources agree. 2) Population You brought up their numbers in the Korean war (when they were way higher percentage of working adult and we are not talking about 50 years ago but none the less) "China's massive numbers gave China the ability to destroy NATO Coalition forces, regardless of the techonology" I don't know what you were thinking but that is crazy. All of NATO lost less troops than China alone![3] In fact here is a little story my grandpa told me before he died. North Korean and Chinese troops were NOT ALLOWED to initiate combat on U.S. Marines because they know they would lose. If fired upon by U.S. troops they were told to retreat at a timely manner! The only reason NATO got pushed back is because every country except the U.S. pulled out as soon as China started in. We were left with entire front left unguarded! My grandpa told me this story so I have no source but his name is Keith Hoard. The 4-2-1 started in 1970's I said that already. They are hitting their peak now. Now they will start to decline. [sources from before] 3)"Throughout this point, we are looking at sheer economic power, not individual power. If it were judged by individual power, Norway, Luxembourg, and other European nations would win with the highest GDP per capita in the world." I agree and disagree with this. GDP is important and GDP per capita is more important. See luxembourg has a population of less than U.S. cities. That is why its per capita is so high. You have to have a balance between GDP and GDP per capita. US. makes in GDP 14.582 trillion and Percent $47,784 per person for 300 million people. Lux is 108,000 but only for 500,000 people that's only 55 billion in GDP. So U.S. is the economic superpower because in the top ten GDP per capita they have by far the highest pop. China on the other hand is way way down there. GDP is 5.5 trillion 1/3 of what U.S. makes. Per capita they make 4,000 ten times less then the U.S. but way more people. The balance is that U.S. is the third largest in pop. and largest in GDP. With a great GDP per capita were China is Largest (for now India is on their way) and has a way lower GDP but are still 2nd. With a very poor GDP per capita. I am tired of arguing about Economy. China has a poor economy period it is not arguable. When most of your citizens still live in huts and grass houses you are not an economic superpower. Your government may be rich but you are not only very poor but on the verge of rebellion. Numbers [4]"To believe that China is the next superpower, itï¿½€™s also necessary to assume that Chinaï¿½€™s super-charged economic growth will continue. Unfortunately, relying on any countryï¿½€™s past performance to predict its future prospects is a risky proposition"[5] There is no argument that they have a very large GDP but that doesn't matter if they have too large of a population. China is not a economic superpower, they may seem like it but once their people need more support they will end or revolt. 4) My opponent said and I quote "This is not as important a sign of superpower status, but rather an inherent component." I agree it is not important because everyone has the capability now. Including terrorists. Everyone has nuclear capabilities 5)I agree with his definition of influence and sorry I didn't describe what I meant very well. I did understand what it meant. My point was they can't have a high influence because they are too controlled by other countries and everything else I said still apples to this. My prior argument still stands. Conclusion 1)My opponent disagrees but his sources agree with me. China is not and will not be for quite awhile a military superpower (definitely a great power though there is a difference. 2)Numerical value plays no role. It is proven through out history that a few well trained men will always beat a bunch of poorly trained men.Especially when they have nothing to fight for they have to kill their kids if they have to many and their not supported by the government 3)China makes a lot but they spend too much as well. They have too many people and as a country they are not rich at all. Quite poor. Their people are poor. 4)My opponent even agreed Nuclear power means nothing. Especially today when even terrorist can get their hands on it. 5)China can exert influence at will but they are shut down by all the countries they depend on. China has influence but the countries that they depend on shut them up awful quick. [1]http://carnegieendowment.org... [2]http://www.marsecreview.com... [3]http://koreanwarstuff.com... [4]http://www.google.com...