On Balance, the Rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States

I will first respond to my opponent's contentions before responding to his rebuttals of my contentions. In my opponent's observations, my opponent states that China does not have the military capability to challenge the United States in the Pacific, so I cannot claim that the US considers China a threat. This is inaccurate as this is assuming that China would be engaging in a direct, militaristic conflict with the United States. This is also inaccurate as just because the US is the sole superpower on the planet does not mean there will be no one to challenge them. Keep in mind, the US was the sole superpower in 2001, and yet we faced the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, causing us to go to war overseas for nearly ten years. My opponent's first contention states that China's cheap manufacturing increases quality of life. My opponent tags several sources, yet does not link to them, so I will ask my opponent to provide those links for a proper understanding of the points. Yet this does not address the numerous lost US jobs and decrease in wages [1], which definitely lowers the quality of life in the US drastically. While manipulation of the current yuan does result in cheaper goods for US consumers, Chinese currency manipulation is not only illegal [2] but it severely hurts US jobs and results in hundreds of billions of dollars lost [3]. This heavily outweighs the impact my opponent is trying to advance. My opponent's second contention states that China helps American companies. Again, this does not address the tremendous loss of jobs, decrease in wages as well as billions lost due to the trade deficit. My opponent states as well in this contention that China helps US companies by being a source of competition. My opponent does not specify as to how this helps US companies, so until he does provide some backing for this, this point must be ignored. That aside, rising competitiveness between the US and China might actually be dangerous, especially in technology [3]. My opponent's third contention states that China helps in trade, and he states several dollar amounts that trade with China raises with the US. However, this again does not address that China and the US are unbalanced when it comes to trade, resulting in tremendous job losses and numerous other economic faults, which outweigh any gained revenue. I will now proceed to address my opponent's rebuttals. My opponent's rebuttals to my first contention is that "China is not stealing jobs as their rise will change their economy", "Jobs being shipped overseas is our own fault and we shouldn't expect jobs to come to us", "China's wages might be increasing, but this doesn't matter as US productivity will remain higher than China's", "US manufacturing is rising" and "These major companies are moving back to the US". The first rebuttal does not address my contention, as it is assuming something in the future while we are addressing the current status of China. The second rebuttal does not address my contention either. As I've demonstrated, China's currency manipulation and trade inequity is resulting in the lost jobs, which is entirely the fault of China. The third rebuttal does not address the contention; even if productivity and incentives are factors, that does not resolve the massive loss in jobs and has not been seen being done heavily in practice. Again, my impact outweighs my opponent's points. The fourth rebuttal is unsatisfactory; even if US manufacturing is increasing, that does not resolve the fact that we have lost numerous jobs to China nor does it resolve those losses. The fifth rebuttal is also unsatisfactory; my opponent's two examples are just that, specific examples, and do not rebut the fact that China has cost us jobs nor does it recuperate those lost jobs. My first contention is still standing. My opponent's rebuttal to my second contention is simply "China wouldn't do such a thing". This is ignoring the fact that China is currently hurting the dollar right now; my second contention is not a theory or hypothesis, it's based on evidence of China's actions. China's actions point to them threatening the US dollar. My opponent's rebuttal does not apply and my contention remains standing. My opponent's rebuttals to my third contention are "China wouldn't try to threaten the US", "China's military is complacent", "China's budget is less than the US", "China is reducing gasoline", "China has a green vehicle industry" and "China's weapons are vulnerable to U. S. cyber attacks". My opponent's first two contentions are that "China wouldn't try to threaten the US", which is incorrect as we are seeing evidence of them threatening the US, contradicting my opponent's rebuttal. "China's military is complacent" is incorrect; China's military is dangerously growing [4] [5]. "China's budget is less than the US" does not address the contention; as long as the Chinese military threatens the US, this rebuttal falls. "China is reducing gasoline" and "China has a green vehicle industry" does not address the point made about Iran; as long as China is supporting Iran, which they are currently, these rebuttals fall. These rebuttals do not even address national security, which was the contention at hand. Finally, "China's weapons are vulnerable to US cyber attacks" does not address the contention either; as long as China's military technology threatens the US, which they do and which China has used recently, these rebuttals fall. This contention is still standing. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Sources: [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.slate.com... [3] . http://blogs.hbr.org... [4] . http://www.economist.com... [5] . http://www.foreignpolicy.com...