US Should(Must) Systematically Embargo China

In this speech I am going to go over the main issues in this debate 1:China's opinion of the US My opponent has brought this up a few times. most notably when he refers to an isolated example to show how china likes the US suffering. There are two things wrong with this First: this is an obvious radical isolated example. there are people all over who radically hate America and people all over the world who radically love America but those people do not represent a entire nation's opinion. large scale polls are the way to determine favorability and my opponent provides none Second: favorable or unfavorable, China's opinion of the united states is not a sufficient reason to be hostile back. unless china's hate is actually harming our country, which my opponent has not proven there is no reason to embargo them and hurt both US and Chinese people. 2: china's corruption First my opponent offers no evidence or sources to prove that china is corrupt and oppressive so this argument cant stand Second, what we need to see is that corrupt or not, the US is not being harmed by china being corrupt. since we are looking at a US policy, this round should be weighed on a cost benefit analysis on the effect it has on the US. my opponent mentions that we should be "discussed" by the way they act however, we cannot just be malicious to other countries and our own people just because we don't like the way others act, its impulsive. we need to think rationally and preserve the most important relationship of the twenty first century. Third: in the status quo, china is becoming more democratic and less oppressive. In the status quo, the middle class of china is indeed growing. it has grown from 3% of the population to about 40% since 1985 and is predicted to reach levels of about 60% by 2025 according to the National Bureau of Statistics on China. and to back up modernization theory that I mentioned in my last constructive, the Pew Research Center study found that in 13 middle-income nations from regions around the globe, compared with poorer people in emerging countries, members of the middle class assign more importance to democratic institutions and individual liberties, hold more liberal social values, and express more concern about the environment. this is reflected in the fact that the Chinese government has recently been passing civil/human rights bills. so yes there is a democratic effect in the status quo and china is expected to become even more democratic in the coming years. you can extend all my democracy evidence that I brought up because it was not attacked (other than the village election example)and see that china is becoming more democratic. that is the status quo, and once again china's history is not a reason to embargo them. And last, my opponent states that china"s leader sent troops into India and thus it is volatile. first, I don"t se how that is possible given that XI Jinping has only been the leader since February. and second, I don't see what china's dealings with other countries has to do with the US and its interests. 3: china wants to declare war on the US I would be perfectly fine to weight until china becomes aggressive towards us. why? because it would be foolish to attack now given there is literally no reason first: the only real threat my opponent has given is cyberattacks which, we don't really even know comes from china. assuming china is actually the ones hacking us, my opponent has not described the magnitude of the attacks which makes this argument impossible to weigh and thus irrelevant compared to my evidence. second: what about their history that my opponent mentions that shows that china is not only willing but capable to turn on international powerhouses like the US who make up around half of their GDP? Third: a military arms race does not really matter because 1: they are not racing us 2: we are still way more powerful then them and 3: they are not threatening us at all Fourth: we could make a similar case for just about every nation that they might possibly attack the US that does not mean we should preemptively attack every other nation. An actual attack, not a potential attack, is what justifies action. 4: economic benefits my opponents primary attack is that we should not do business because they are liars and tyrants there are two things wrong with this 1: China is not full of tyrants and my opponent has failed to prove this 2: we need to look at what benefits America most, so even if china is this tyrannical nation like my opponent suggests, cutting trade would not be beneficial to America in any way. my opponent also suggests that since china has not allowed some of our companies to produce in their country than we should stop trade altogether. lets look at this logic a little bit. china is essentially not allowing some of our companies to produce in their country to help their own businesses and this is "unfair" to some of us producers therefore we must forbid all of us companies to trade. but the fact is we do the same thing. America uses tariffs and other methods in order to give their own companies a competitive edge over foreign companies. this is not a logical reason to stop trade my opponent than ignored the entirety of my evidence and brushed passed it by writing "I don"t think domestic prices would rise, we need to shift production out of China anyway." of course this is contradictory to my Robert Capp and Daniel J. Ikenson of the wall street journal evidence and his claim is not warranted at all. so prefer my evidence because it is coming from experts. Just to briefly restate my evidence and the economic significant of our relationship of china first: us companies gain hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with china second: our export market to china is crucial to the government's plan to to double exports third: our trade with china and china's low prices decrease the cost of living and help the middle and lower class and decrease the cost of living while increasing disposable income of consumers and last: china's investment into our economy decreases interest rates (which stimulates the economy) the us economy objectively benefits massively from trade with the Chinese economy my opponent also requested for me to prove why cutting trade with china will cause a deeper recession, here you go. economic recessions are caused when there is a drop in consumer spending in the economy(this is the accepted opinion amongst the majority of modern economists). one way that consumer spending will fall is the increase cost of living I described. Americans will have less disposable income with a higher cost of living thus an embargo on china will restrict consumer spending. second the interest rate will increase if we stop trade with china as I previously mentioned. a high interest rate makes it so less people will get loans and less spending will occur. therefore stoping trade with china will make our recession deeper 5: similar foreign policy first: counter terrorism my opponent ignores the fact that it is the US's goal to combat global terrorism. China helps counter global terrorism so we ought not to harm china because they work internationally toward their goals second: international goals my opponent dropped my evidence which still stands and mentions that china is the cause of the Iran and NK problem. A) Iran: yes china trades with Iran but it is because they are granted the ability to do so by the UN. china's trade with Iran is providing teeth to the sanctions because china's cheep products make it impossible for a week economy like Iran to sustain itself. also china's relationship with Iran helps the US because they act as a mediator between major world powers and Iran by sponsoring peace talks. B) North Korea: china is actually threatening to break ties with north koria if they continue their nuclear tests thus china is still inline with the US international goals.