Choose a public forum topic.

My caseHegemonyMy opponent appears to misunderstand my point. Indeed, it was not an argument on how supply versus demand leads to prices increasing. Rather, it discusses the future impacts as oil supplies dwindle. The link to China's rise is fairly obvious - as the country continues to develop, the oil consumption increases. For specific quantification, we look to the CNPC Economic and Technology Research Institute, which finds a 4.8% increase in oil demand. As he only attacked correlation and quantification, I maintain access to my impacts: economic collapse following the eventual loss of oil to China.My opponent next discusses pollution laws. In this case, he makes two mistakes. First, he fails to show that these green policies are/will be implemented. After 30+ years of China's rise, emissions continue to grow at an alarming rate. The Guardian quantifies, finding a 171% increase between 2000 and 2011. While China has consistently pledged to reduce emissions, these promises are rarely fulfilled. In the case that they are, such policies are extremely inefficient, lacking proper implementation. Second, he fails to show a net benefit as a result of these green policies. While China could potentially reduce the amount of oil it uses from 1 year to the next, we're debating the overall rise of China. Thus, pro must show that these green policies would result in less oil demand than 1978. Next, he responds to influence with a zero-sum versus positive sum rebuttal. Again, this misrepresents my point. Obviously, countries can ally with more than one country, but that doesn't always mean that they do. The point was relating to countries with an already strained U.S. relationship, primarily those in the Middle East. While they could potentially ally with both countries, they have no incentive to remain with the United States when China expands its relations. He then discusses potential new allies as a result of China's rise, yet he again makes two mistakes. He fails to show that this actually occurs. While it may sound great in theory, no empirical evidence supports the idea that relations with countries such as Russia have been improving as a result of China. With the other examples, such as India and Japan, he ignores the fact that these nations are already on fairly good terms with the United States. He must, then, attribute any warming of relations directly to China's rise. InstabilityMy opponent paints the picture of a complete change in China's behavior. However, there's a difference between what China says, and what China does. My opponent showed that China has made some public statements denouncing North Korea/Iran. I can concede that this is true. However, my evidence, which basically went unrefuted, still stands. Despite public statements to the contrary, China still supports Iran, and has been increasing its trade relations with North Korea. My opponent then claims that the money they spend in Iran and Pakistan is on counterterrorism efforts. Yet, this is entirely untrue. Again, China's relationship with these countries take two forms: First, direct investments; second, trade. Neither of these are counterterrorism efforts. EconomyIn his first response, my opponent discusses outsourcing. However, this is non-responsive. Remember, my point was on the growing trade deficit - more money leaving the economy than there is entering. Thus, my impacts still stand. Even the competition point was not on outsourcing. Rather, the mere presence of China as such a large economic power is what causes the wages to decline - not the outsourcing that comes as a result. He next tries to tell you that companies are outsourcing to make a profit, but this is exactly the harm. Firms may make profits, but this comes at the expense of a loss of jobs in the United States. The loss of jobs in the United States creates a net harm, despite some initial benefits in profits.Second, he tells you that the rise of China will cause a decrease in intellectual property theft. Yet, he offers no real warrant to substantiate this claim. Rather, as China continues to develop, and the trade relationship becomes more intricate, Chinese companies have increased access to U.S. IP, and more ability to steal it. Again, the impacts still stand.Third, he tells you that the U.S. is to blame for the interest rates problem. However, this contention was not about China financing our debt - it was about China's rising savings. He claims that China can only hoard as much as we give them, and that's exactly the problem. As we give them more and more, they continue to rise. As they rise, interest rates fall. Impacts are maintained.My opponent then claims that China is doing the U.S. a favor by loaning money. However, the only reason we needed the amount of money that we did was because of China. Essentially, he attempts to solve his own problem. Remember the impacts of my contention: without the rise of China, the entire would could have had economic prosperity, rather than a worldwide recession.My opponent's case Foreign RelationsThis contention was extended in response to my point on instability. His two points, diplomacy with pariah states and a shift in the balance of power, were responded to above.ExportsRecall the claim made in the first subpoint of my contention on economics. My opponent only analyzes the exports, and fails to realize that imports are growing at a faster rate than exports - leading to a substantial growth in the trade deficit. Additionally, my opponent claims that China's purchasing of the U.S. debt encourages investment. I have two responses to this. First, he gives no quantification, or way to weigh this in the round. While foreign investment may benefit a few small firms, a couple billion dollars does not outweigh the hundreds of billions of dollars lost in the trade deficit. Second, extend my contention on interest rates. Remember that, while China may invest in the U.S. economy, this same investment is primarily responsible for our current economic state. Research and DevelopmentAs this is the only contention which does not provide direct clash, it is also the one to which I have the most new responses. This contention can effectively be divided up into two subpoints: Chinese competition, and Chinese innovations.Starting off on his point about competition: My opponent gives no concrete examples of ways in which this competition has benefited the United States. In fact, we see the opposite occurring. The relationship with China both discourages innovation, through growing intellectual property theft, and drives down wages, due to unfair trade practices.More importantly, let's look my opponent's point on Chinese innovations. I have two responses. First, this innovation could instead occur in the United States. As the RAND Corporation explains, China's growing power in high-tech innovation fields has led to a decline in U.S. global economic leadership in this area. Rather than the U.S. producing new technologies and reaping the benefits, these innovations occur in China. While still beneficial, weighing the harms versus the benefits results in a net harm. In fact, Ropert Pape finds that over half of the U.S. decline over the past decade or so came about as a result of diffusion of technology away from the U.S. Specifically looking to green technology, recall the earlier response: Any potential benefits are outweighed by the consistent increase in emissions as China develops. While I have quantified my impact of increased pollution, my opponent has failed to the same, and thus cannot effectively weigh the point in the round. Rise versus Snapshot The links back to China's rise have been presented throughout the debate. More trade means more harmful trade practices. China's growing relations lead to a decline in hegemony. China's growing relations with pariah states create worldwide instability. The links have been presented, the impacts remain.