Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

IntroductionMy opponent makes several claims, most notably in his opener, that are either a diversion or simply semantical. My opponent states that "This isn’t a USSR style lockdown, but a stern plan to keep the country of China from expanding their influence on the Asian continent and across the world." What he fails to understand is that the very definition, that both of us agreed upon, of the term "containment", entails a USSR style lockdown of China, which he seems to be obediently diverting from. I would like the voters to take into consideration my opponent's clear diversion from the subject matter, and his rather deconstructive way of asserting his various points. By no means was the agreed upon definition, which is stated in the first round.In fact, I would like the voters to strictly consider the fact that the entirety of my opponent's arguments are based upon a definition that we did not agree to. It can be inferred that by the statement "deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system" does not refer to simply containing the spread of influence, but also of ending our current ties, as the "denial of the spread of influence" is quite literally the ending of ties, both diplomatic and economics, with China. In addition to this, my opponent also alludes to "limiting influence", rather than "mak[ing] acts of aggression". What my opponent fails to understand is that the forceful limiting of the spread of influence, in any case, is an act of aggression. Contention 1: EconomicsMy opponent states that "Trade is mutually beneficial with China and nations on the Asian continent and the Pacific. Cutting economic ties and abolishing bilateral trade with China does not belong in a policy of containment like the one we are arguing about." This is, quite literally, already a diversion. In fact, my opponent mentions various diversions such as these quite frequently throughout his argument, and it's a shameful tactic. As the rules said, our agreed definition of the policy of containment was quite clear, and this is the same definition that my opponent is refusing to acknowledge, or even use, for that matter.In addition to this, my opponent fails to understand that trade agreements, which he wants to keep, are by their very nature an expansion of influence. For this to be realized, it would mean that the economic argument that my opponent has given me is either a show of complete hypocrisy and blatant contradiction, or he decided to be in full agreement with on the subject matter without knowing. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, and assume the former. In this very case, it is rather disingenous to state that "influence", but its very nature, will not spread through these trade deals. As trade is not constant, rather, by its nature, being expansionary or deflationary, Chinese influence, if quantified, will either increase or decrease, depending on the market forces and their actions in this regard. This means, that if we wanted a complete and blanket end to Chinese influence economically, we must end these trade deals, which my opponent agrees with me as being a ludicrous action.Furthermore, my opponent's incessant need to end economic influence from China as well as its expansion is met with swift rebuttal by various economists and statisticians, as the effect of ending ties, or limiting them, would be disastrous for the American lending industry, and even the USFG itself. To quote, it is estimated that the ending of Chinese lending to the USFG, which is a tactic easily expoloitable by a Chinese government that sees us as aggressive, would be "Worse, the negative consequences wouldn’t stop with construction. They would spread to the largest sector of the US economy, consumption, as household real incomes will fall. “U.S households would suffer a real income loss of $330 billion (1992 USD), 5.2 percent of 1992 U.S. GDP, compared with a scenario in which the saving glut had never occurred. That is, the total cost of disorderly sudden stop would be 16.1 percent of 1992 U.S GDP, or over $1 trillion ($689 billion plus $330 billion)." [1]My opponent remarks that "Simply countering the ability of China to expand their economic influence throughout Asia should be the aim of a containment plan." What he fails to understand is that the economic expansion of China in other Asian nations is both impossible to contain, as it would mean violating international law and various treaties, but it is also a good thing for the remainder of the world. Not only does China reap the benefits and allow for a better economic system for their own people, which in turn raises standard of living, but it also means that Chinese capital can be freely used by the nations where it is invested. This is beneficial for the West and the United States in particular as the free flow of capital in Asia means for less regulations on U.S. investment, as governments, upon realizing of the benefits of free trade, will lessen the regulations, but it also will help to bolster American consumerism and deflate prices on American goods and services.Lastly, I would like to reference a statement by my opponent that most literally is his defeating point, and is a reason why his argument on economics is very fallacious. He states that "Any point my opponent brings up about containing the economic influence of China in the region being harmful is moot, given that countering influence entails INCREASED involvement with these nations that already provide a large portion of our bilateral trade." What he forgets is that free trade does not simply appear, and capital cannot be created out of thin air. In fact, he is able to achieve two different mistakes in this statement alone. First, he assumes that wealth can be created from nothing, which it cannot, and secondly, he assumes that these nations, which already are more involved with the Chinese than we are with these nations, will simply end their trade deals with China and continue trade deals with us. This is fundamentally wrong, as the Chinese are far closer and far more profitable with, due to emerging markets and higher return rates, than the United States, and the labor standards are far more regulated in the United States than in China, making China a more lucrative trading partner than the US, due to their closeness and ease of doing business for large corporations, which are the main influence of these trade policies.Contention 2: Military/DiplomacyMy opponent starts his assertion on the topic with verbiage that is full with mistakes and bare assertions. He argues that "The U.S. Navy... fact the aggressors."Firstly, my opponent's statement, as shown above, makes the mistake of assuming that containment is simply the act of sailing ships near China's waters, which it most definitely is not. Containment is a tactic that is far more aggressive and vastly more militaristic than simply sailing in international waters, especially when we have not engaged Chinese naval craft nor does our current adminisration, which does exactly as my opponent asserts, admit that we have a containment policy with the Chinese, which we most certainly do not. [2] To reference this source directly, President Obama reassured diplomats that "We do not seek to contain China’s rise. On the contrary, we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations.” This proves my above point that we currently do not have a containment policy, but are doing the very same thing that my opponent advocates for. If that act was containment oriented, then we would be ushering in this policy. By logical deduction, my opponent is thus far wrong.In addition, my opponent claims that "The claim that the United States...By doing so, we are containing the rise of Chinese influence to maintain our interests abroad." (I am referencing the entire paragraph).This is definitely a misstatement. Decidedly, the act of increasing influence in the South American region is not an act of containment. What my opponent misregards heavily is that both Chinese and American influence can exist in South America, and simply assuming that our own influence somehow lessens China's is exemplary of mercantilism, which is an outdated and disproven system. It is baseless to assume that South American nations will somehow back the Chinese over the United States, as we are far closer to their culture, have far more of their ethnic inhabitants within our borders, and are far more economically involved with them than the Chinese are, and this will not change. Their simple increase bodes no risk to the American domination of South American markets.ConclusionI would like to point out to the voters that my opponent has used constant remarks of deviation from the definition at hand, which is most definitely a violation of the rules set forth. In addition, he has stated half-truths in reference to economics, and his logic falls flat when met with the economic facts that wealth is not a zero sum game, and the improvement of Chinese economic influence is not going to be a direct destruction of our own. In effect, this means that my opponent believes that influence is measured on a basis of numbers, and that their rising ties means our lowering ties proportionally, which simply is not true. I would also like to note that my opponent has used various sources to back his claims that I am unable to access, and thus I cannot verify as being correct or credible. Therefore, all points with which this was deduced are moot, and rescinded. This source happens to be source 5, being [ https://goo.gl...;]. Therefore, as a result of my complete rebuttal of his economic arguments, as well as his constant diversion from the definition at hand, I would like to implore to the voters that they cast their votes in my favor, as I have stayed in line with the rules, while my opponent has not.Sources:[1]http://goo.gl...;[2]http://goo.gl...;