Resolution TBA.

I'll address the points in the same order as my opponent. 1. "At the top of the main article it says that article is not from a natural view and doesn't show the other side, which is that many of the Chinese see this as a necessary evil and that if losing their helps the community as a whole then they are willing to lose their rights as it talks about in the article." Still, China's constitution guarantees rights, but they are not given. It is like our government limiting free speech. Even if it is part of our culture, they told us we could have free speech, and they didn't give it to us. Not only is it a problem of rights, it is a problem of China's promises on those rights. 2a. China has already mentioned this as a problem. If they see it as a problem, why haven't they done anything about it, and why would a "problem" be part of their culture? 2b. Like I said before, boycotting the Olympics would not cause an end of trade. 2c. One goal of U.S. foreign policy is to spread democracy/support human rights. How can we support our spread of democracy and our stance on human rights by dealing with a country that has a bad human rights record? One of the ways we normally deal with countries to fix their human rights is to not associate with them, so why not boycott the Olympics to show our disapproval? (I'm not saying we should end trade with them, because we get alot of necessary resources from them). 3. If the U.S. has athletes, then they attended the Olympics. So you're basically restating your stance. His case: A. "First China is stable, there are not revolutions trying to over through the government." I said economically [un]stable. The have incredibly low wages, harsh working conditions, etc. "Next the fact is that they are respecting the people because the people don't see this as a bad thing." Actually, I saw a Chinese riot about their human rights treatment on the news a couple months ago. B. If a poll about the Chinese government's treatment of its citizens is conducted by the Chinese government itself, there is reasonable suspicion that the results could have been fabricated/altered. They would be more reliable if a neutral party conducted them. Ca. I'm saying that China using low wages and harsh working conditions is even more poor treatment for the workers and their rights. Cb/Cc. They pretty much stem from the same basis as Ca, which I addressed. Therefore, they should be included in or combined with Ca. "My opponent's assumption that my arguments are based on the China stopping all trade is untrue. My relations advantage has nothing to do with trade what it is talking about is how boycotting the Olympic will show how the US doesn't like what China is doing and hurts our relations." Well you included the benefits of our trade system with China and showed the consequences of stopping it, so I assumed you included trade relations with relations. And that's what I'm talking about too: By boycotting the Olympics, we can make a peaceful statement showing our disapproval of their human rights abuses. "On the econ da doesn't rely on the end of trade, what the da says happens is that if China is no longer able to have cheap labor because of its low human rights which cause prices around the world to go up and causing the impacts." Still, cheap labor is the least terrible of the human rights abuses. The main ones China has committed are limiting of due process rights, first amendment rights, etc. Cheap labor isn't too much of an issue, but it is technically a human right abuse. "Next once again my opponent try to use an example to show how these impacts will not happen but again he misshapes this example because if the US doesn't attend the ceremonies because of the human right abuses then it will cause the relations to go down dramatically." This is the main core of my opponent's argument: He claims that U.S-China relations will be hurt if we boycott the Olympics. In this sentence, he is restating it. However, he has only presented evidence/backup to this claim in the previous round. In my previous round, I have refuted these claims, showing that they will not happen and providing an analogy that shows that the worst that will happen is temporarily hurt feelings. In this argument my opponent has done nothing to reinforce his position or refute mine. Also, I will not have a chance to respond to any further points he may make toward this subject. Therefore, since he has a lack of backup, I suggest that this be considered a dropped/pointless contention. =============================================================================== So here is why you should vote Pro: 1) I have refuted my opponent's rebuttals and points. 2) I provided reasons to disprove the basis of his argument, and they stand uncontested. Remember, vote on the debate, not the issue.