The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

I thank team y for continuing their case.Pro has largely ignored the fact that the internal situation in SEA is really good, so I take that issue as conceded. In this round I'll rebut their claim that China is a big bully, which pro has staked their entire case on. But first...SEAThis is the most important argument in the debate (a point pro does not contest), because more US military capability in SEA means less sovereignty for SEA nations. We support the right of these peoples to self-determination. In lieu of any compelling benefit to this region of increased US military capability, given that they're doing just fine on their own, pro has to provide a really convincing benefit of their model to these nations, or accept that these nations won't like pro's model.The US has as much to benefit from trade with SEA as SEA themselves do. That's why irrespective of any militarization, the US is already pushing the TPP agreement. An agreement which, incidentally, was what split ASEAN into two factions and encourages regional division [10].Piracy is not a big issue, especially not in the Malacca straights, which are well patrolled by Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia [3].Unlike nations such as Haiti, which almost completely relied on the US after their earthquake, SEA nations have a long history of recovering from disaster well on their own. Even so, sending in big ships with guns is not what's needed in wake of a disaster.The evidence that they'd do anything about it is clear - in fact my team had 3 paragraphs of analysis on this under "colonialism". Pro wants the United States to be modern-day colonisers. It's not a "put up with one or the other" dichotomy - SEA is smart enough to know that they don't have to put up with any foreign bullies at all, and don't need to if the US doesn't actually invade their land against their will. If the US does it without the approval of South-East Asia, then it's a move of aggression and coercion as there is no consent, and ASEAN as well as China will both likely react defensively at best, provoking a problem that doesn't even currently exist. At best, foreign military bases are like if your neighbour pointed a gun at you and told you it's for your own protection.That leaves counterbalancing China as pro's only remaining incentive. Even if this were the case (I'll explain why it isn't soon), it is highly unlikely that nuclear weapons would be the technology of choice, since SEA is under the absurdly-named Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, and have themselves been recently campaigning China, the US and the other nuclear states never to allow them to possess nuclear weapons [2]. Additionally all of SEA were among the first countries to sign the NPT.What's more, even if that counter-balancing were to take place, China still has an opportunity to respond. Worst case scenario is an arms race between the US and China where innocent bystanders SE Asia are caught in the crossfire.Furthermore, even if China's influence were to increase - let's say China invaded and conquered all of SEA tomorrow. Even then, pro is yet to show why that would be a bad thing for SEA. Vague allusions to North Korea and Tibet hold little water as American client states through military control - like Afghanistan or Iraq - aren't exactly bastions of human development.Pro also ignores our analysis that a positive local response to a foreign military presence necessitates a military situation.All of this is our empirical and analytical evidence for destabilisation.The USThe US Navy is already stationed at friendly bases. If that is all pro is advocating, they are failing to meet their burden of proof to change anything substantive about the status quo. They need to demonstrate why their model actually supports the resolution, which means they need to explain why the changes they are advocating are substantial. What they're proposing is much, much less than what the Pentagon's most recent budget calls for, and nobody was exactly calling that particularly substantial [1].The US are already in SEA to a significant extent. It's been many decades since they've actually USED that military capability. There's no point to establishing any of this if they aren't already prepared to take a stand against China's territorial claims, or stand up for Taiwan, or anything else. Simply increasing military capability does not solve for this problem, and creates a huge problem domestically as resources are diverted from protecting America itself from problems such as terrorism. Japan isn't part of SEA, but what they are asking for is diplomatic support more than military action.Arms build-up has not occurred significantly in correlation with any action from Beijing, nor has Beijing been the only aggressor [4], and there's no reason to think they'll start tomorrow. Indeed, the moment the US becomes involved with territoriality, is the moment the US themselves could provoke a conflict - after all, the US federal government are not the ultimate arbiters of who owns what.ChinaPro cannot point to what China has actually done to require "rebalancing". This is surprising given that they premise their whole case on this point.China already has the military capability to seize control over much of their disputed territory, but they haven't and won't. Rather, particularly in the last decade, they have shown a stronger willingness than ever to not resort to military action and be quite reasonable. That's why since 2008, for example, China and Taiwan have reopened dialogue and China has been improving Taiwan's economic position. On the other hand, when the US gave arms to Taiwan in 2010, China did not retaliate against Taiwan, but against the US, severing all military ties [6].China's benign stance towards SEA is clear. The Senkaku affair with Japan was a response to Japanese assertiveness outside of international protocol [5]. And about their handling of the Spratly Islands, China's president made his position very clear that despite his belief some belong to China, he would not engage in any territorialism and has committed to settling all disputes peacefully. "China's development is a force for peace and friendship in the world, bringing development opportunities for Asia and the world and not threats" [9]. Even where Vietnam tried to provoke China into attacking the Spratly Islands by firing live rounds, China merely cruised by a short while later and did exactly the same thing back to them, as a clear signal that they don't want to escalate or provoke anything [7].This is all no wonder because China has not even attempted to colonise anybody for over 600 years. Colonisation is simply not a part of the Chinese psyche and culture, which is deeply rooted in the Buddhist principles of non-intervention. China's government's own official policy on this hasn't changed since Zheng He sailed around the world during the Ming Dynasty. "Numerous expeditions were sent by other world powers after that. But few were as peaceful and non-intrusive as Zheng's. He reached many Southeast Asian countries on many occasions and left behind tales of peace, friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation" [8].The resolution is negated.Sources1-http://goo.gl...2-http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...3-http://goo.gl...4-http://goo.gl...5-http://goo.gl...6-http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...7-http://goo.gl...8-http://goo.gl...9-http://goo.gl...10-http://goo.gl...