China should become a Federal Republic.

I would like to clarify with my opponent about the McGovernment issue before we begin: My issue with my opponent's proposal is not that he is proposing Federalism. I have nothing against Federalism and I find it to be an excellent system of government. My problem is with the fact that my obviously politically well-informed opponent has become enamored with Federalism to the point that he sees it as a target or goal for a country that culturally, historically, and logically is completely incompatible with my opponent's proposed version of Federalism. Government is not a one-size-fits-all sock from the discount bin at the pharmacy. Government needs to be tailored to the country based on specific things. I will continue to oppose my opponent's attempts to inflict a McGovernment on the Chinese because he has *not adequately proven* that it is what China needs. None of his arguments have survived my first round rebuttals. Even now, my opponent assumes that by grouping China as a "melting pot" of cultures along with many other Federalist countries, he can justify a Federalist government. This is obviously a Non Sequitor fallacy and the audience should not be fooled. For thousands of years, China has always been at what my opponent defines as "Risk of fracture". Please note: . http://en.wikipedia.org... These ethnic groups have been part of China for at least 1000 years, many ranging as far back as before the common era. How can this possibly compare to the countries my opponent is pointing to, which are melting pots because of Immigration movements in the 19th century? Furthermore, let us examine my opponent's three sources about "what might happen to China if they don't reform their administrative system" I have read through the sources but I do not find them convincing. Perhaps the audience will disagree with me, but I believe they will not. Even their concluding paragraphs are dubious: "This article nevertheless does not propose to establish a full European and American style federal China. When setting up the deferalist system in China, China's reality, culture and history must be taken into account in order to include the wishes and interests of the people. " The second article sums up its suggestions by saying "It may not be called federalism as commonly understood by Western scholars, but it will be China's brand of federalism". The third article concludes with "At the practical level, it seems that the timing is not right for the legitimization of federalism". It is clear that the approach these authors are taking is similar to that of my opponent: to examine Federalism in other countries, and try to mold it onto China in the hopes it will cover up what they don't like. However, the authors wisely concede that IF federalism were to be implemented, it would need to be highly tailored to China. As for the other of my opponent's sources, which has to do with rural poverty, I highly question whether my opponent reads his own sources. While my opponent points to this poverty chart and blames political instability, the source itself states that the main contributors are simply: "Increasingly frequent natural calamities, especially floods and droughts, caused by extreme weather conditions that are associated with climate change Remote locations with poor community infrastructure and services, such as paved roads, markets and safe drinking water Depleted natural resources and decreasing farm sizes Lack of skills and capacity, and a disproportionate incidence of illiteracy and poor skills among women Limited access to inputs, financial services, markets and value chains Reliance on traditional farming techniques. " In other words, the rural poor are poor simply because of their remote location. I have absolutely no idea why my opponent thinks that political change can draw provinces physically closer together. Finally, my opponent has brought forth a new argument not previously mentioned in his previous ones: The issue of decentralization. This is something he is a proponent of and he dedicates nearly all of the rest of his arguments and pictures to the notion that China must decentralize. There's a pretty big problem with this: Decentralization has nothing specifically to do with this debate. Now audience, you may ask "Why would that be? Pro has spent 80% of his post arguing for decentralization, and provided all this evidence. Doesn't that hurt your case, Con? " Absolutely not. Because I am in favor of decentralization for all the reasons that my opponent listed. In fact, I would say that I am much more a proponent for it than he is, because I believe that the ULTIMATE goal for China, based on China's history, wants, and needs of their people, is pure communism. Now, audience, please note I am not changing my argument. I maintain that China should be a Republic now, and for the foreseeable future, because political change can be far more disastrous than what my opponent's fear-mongering suggests. However, China should eventually become Anarcho-Communist as an end goal. My reasoning actually is based on something my opponent has called on clarification for: And that is, Chinese Philosophy. One of the core tenets of Chinese Philosophy is Taoism, which is a philosophy that focuses on moderation and the natural tendency to seek it. They call this natural path of moderation "The Way" or "The Tao". Lao Tsu, the founder of Taoism comments thusly on government: The more laws and restrictions there are, The poorer people become. The sharper men's weapons, The more trouble in the land. The more ingenious and clever men are, The more strange things happen. The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers. . http://www.wussu.com... Lao Tsu and Confucius had very particular views on the role of government in China. Primarily that a very, very strong one should exist, but should do nothing. The analogy of the wheel, a very popular Chinese story demonstrates this. The Chinese liken their society to a Wheel that moves. The citizens represent the outer wheel, which turns and moves a lot. The inner wheel represents the nobility and landowners and government representatives. The spokes represent merchants, traders, and craftsmen who glue society together. At the very center is the Emperor, or now, the government. The key thing about this story is the notion that the Emperor at the center, is the axle. The axle is not meant to move, but to hold the wheel together so that it can turn efficiently. They say that the best type of ruler, is one that seems not to do anything at all, and simply allow people to achieve prosperity with little to no involvement. Put short, they either want a figurehead totalitarian dictator, or no rulers at all. A federalist government is the exact middle they are trying to avoid, and the Communist Party is currently the former trying to become the latter. Could the Communist Party do better? Yes. Should they change? Eventually. Should they move towards my opponent's model of Federalism? Absolutely not. It is not a match for their culture, it is not a match for their history. We cannot look at China's state in the past 5 or 10 years and make such an ignorant conclusion. Culturally, chaos is China's worst enemy. They have 4 times our population, so a few lives or liberties lost to them is an equal exchange for the Party preventing political catastrophe and widespread ruin. Western government as we know it has only been around for 2-3 hundred years at most and even then, has changed drastically every decade. China has 5000+ years of history and has only ever known either the Emperor or Communist dictatorship. Let the Communist party do what it must for China. It is changing, but a Federalist McGovernment is not the way. Thank you all.