the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

"Ok, I give you the fact that China may have control over Tibet, but i doubt that the Dalai Lama will "undermine the government" this is just stupid. I am buddhist myself, so i know that the Dalai Lama will do anything that the Chienese Government will not like except not be under their control." The dalai lama wouldn't have to take an active role in subversion in order to undermine the Chinese government, if he were in Tibet. As you concede yourself, the dalai lama would refuse to be under Chinese government rule. This in and of itself is subversion, and harmful to the Chinese government. Furthermore, having a figurehead opposed to Chinese rule already fuels anti-government sentiments within Tibet; I imagine this fact would be further exacerbated if he himself were in Tibet, and thus actively involved in the community. Again, he wouldn't have to actively promote violence or resistance to Chinese rule; all he would have to do is be there, and exhibit for all to see an example of a person resisting government control; and that alone would breed dissent, and harm the Chinese government. Thus, your claim that it wouldn't harm anyone is clearly false. "Also, my oponent said "There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time." Well, what about government? Does any government (namily the Chienese one) have the right to control anyone or any religon? NO. You said it yourself, Zakkuchan, unless someone can prove their is a higher power who wants something, there is no reason the Chienese should be in Tibet." Of course, a government is never "meant" to be anywhere; a government is a social construct, nonexistent in the state of nature, so it doesn't really ever have a destiny, in the traditional sense of the word. I never said the Chinese government was meant to be in Tibet; all I said is that it has a legitimate claim to the land, based upon centuries of rule, just as the United States and Canada have legitimate claims to their land based upon centuries of rule. "What religon are you? i dont really care, so dont tell me. But what if your government said "your pope, rabbi, whatever, is not allowed in your country. whould you like it? whould you take offence? YES YOU WOULD!!!!!!! I can tell you that. Unless your, like, some unemotional person who has no life worth living, that is." First, my religion really has nothing to do with this topic. Second, the reason the dalai lama isn't allowed within Chinese borders is because he wouldn't submit to the Chinese government's rule. A nation, by definition, has control over all the lands and people within its borders, to the extent that that nation sees fit, and the world sees fit to accept. China is an internationally recognized nation with an internationally recognized government, and internationally recognized rule over Tibet. The government has every reason to keep out anyone who refuses to live under that internationally recognized state of affairs. "And Zakkuchan also said that we should stop making such a big deal about it. well, the Dalai Lama has been around for 1391! ( I DONT CARE IF YOU BELIVE IN REINCARNATION!!!!!) budhism has been around since 5th century BCE. Thats a long time. It deserves respect just like any other religon, and Stephen Harper knows that. He is Canada's prime minister, if you dont know. I dont know why you suport China. Their just being unfair." Of course the religion deserves respect. But that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand; what we're talking about is whether a person has the right to be in a nation, while refusing to submit to the rule of its government, without that government being able to throw them out. Social contract philosophers like Locke and Rousseau – whose theories lie at the base of the modern concept of nations – said that to be part of a nation, you had to submit to its government. I am not supporting all the things China has ever done. I'm not supporting communism, or the high level of control they have over their people. All I am supporting is their right as a nation, by the very definition of that concept, to rule over everything and everyone within their borders. And I am supporting the legitimacy of their claim to the lands of Tibet, based upon centuries of rule. If your prime minister has so much sympathy for Tibet, the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that all of his citizens ought to be sent back to Europe.