China should become a Federal Republic.

Although throughout our exchange I have disagreed with him, I have nonetheless learned much about his proposed system of government, the benefits, and of course, the drawbacks. *** My conclusion is quite simplistic as my opponent is the one to carry the burden of proof for the resolution that China should become a Federal Republic, and the conclusion is that my opponent has not successfully proven to myself, or to the audience, that China is ready to undergo such a specific political change. I shall not be introducing any new arguments, but I shall address my opponent's accusations of violating certain rules or regulations: 1. My opponent accuses me of arguing or redefining "republic". I have only used the word "republic" 4 times outside of quoting my opponent throughout this entire debate and I honestly have no idea what his accusation is based on. 2. My opponent accuses me of not focusing on the resolution. I have given numerous arguments about why my opponent's proposed government is a poor fit for China, countered all of his arguments, and the only counterpoints he proposed in return were expressions of indignation at my disapproval. 3. Although there is a stigma against using Wikipedia, I have only used Wikipedia to illustrate some basic facts and definitions. My opponent criticizes me for this, but strangely, he has not disagreed with a single thing I derived from those sources, whereas he has used generally poor sources that ended up dismantling his arguments more than helping them. I find it better to use a "lazy" source than ones that are misleading, misinterpreted, and misused to the highest degree, or ones that are purely decorative in nature as was the case for half of his pictures. 4. My opponent has proposed that I violated rules of conduct by attacking his argument. I extended and requested the courtesy to mutually respect the values and beliefs that arguments are based on, and I have done this. However, I never mentioned anything about not attacking my opponent's arguments. What I have attacked and criticized is my opponent's seemingly blind faith that this "Federal Republic" is a fit for all countries, despite all of my unaddressed and uncountered arguments that China has no political, historical, or logical predisposition toward this type of government, and that it would actually harm the country. 5. My opponent continuously fear-mongers the audience into assuming that China is some impoverished or desolate country with dwindling resources and rife with political rebellion, pressuring the audience into thinking that rapid political change is somehow a vital necessity. However, I have successfully called out each and every single one of his attempts by questioning the validity or relevance of his sources and supporting the cultural fear of political upheaval. His arguments about cultural and ethnic minorities is answered by his own source stating that autonomy has made life easy for them. His arguments about poverty are answered by his own source stating that the poverty is the fault of geography, not politics. And finally, as I commented before, his arguments for decentralization are irrelevant to the resolution because decentralization is the goal of the current communist party, and is a legitimate course of action in the pursuit of numerous political endpoints, not just for a Federal Republic. To conclude, audience, there simply aren't any arguments made by my opponent which are left standing, and I don't find any legitimate basis to the countless technical or conduct issues my opponent focuses on. My opponent has given little to no attention to any of my counterarguments, and has actually done very little to actually answer my criticisms of his sources, facts, and arguments. As frustrated as I (or you, audience) may be by my opponent's responses though, all of my arguments have been extended to this very point, and I hope, audience, that you have concluded the same thing I have: Pro did not meet his burden at all.