Resolved: The PRC Should Grant Tibet Sovereignty

You have a point; I definitely see your interpretation of the resolution, but it is meant to be objective. Thus we must take more than economics and more than the national interests of the PRC into account.Here are my main arguments:1. China took Tibet by force and threatened Tibetan diplomats into signing a treaty that they didn't have the authority to sign,2. Took Tibet in direct violation of international law,3. And has continually repressed the Tibetan people and destroyed their way of life, using methods such as beating nonviolent protesters to death and horrific torture.RebuttalsI looked back on my argument and you are correct, I did have a red herring. I apologize.No, Tibet was not part of China before the invasion. In 1913 after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, both Tibet and Mongolia declared full independence from China. Tibet was independent from 1913 to 1951. [1]I see that you failed to provide proof of correlation/causation. What if the rise in expectancy has simply been due to improvements to technology and healthcare? Tibet's life expectancy was low then, it's low now. With no sources, we shouldn't assume correlation.I understand that the BoP is on me. China has a moral duty to give freedom to the land it has long oppressed. A country's highest duty is its moral one, not to serve itself economically. Acting in brutal self-interest is not what a country should do, it is what a country should not do. If all countries acted with disregard to moral duty and in self-interest, society as we know it would collapse. Thus I am calling for the liberation of Tibet from China. It will help Tibet, the society as a whole, and restore what little moral integrity China still retains.ConclusionThe PRC has caused the Tibetan people enormous amounts of grief; thus the least they can do is apologize and give Tibet back its rightful sovereignty. The premise of your argument is flawed because it is not objective. I have looked at the pros and cons of this interaction for both countries (and I have conceded that it is more beneficial to China from a purely economic standpoint) whereas you have characterized the plight of the Tibetans as simply a resource to be exploited. In emphasizing the economic benefits you completely ignore the moral ones. If I can get money for killing someone, does that mean I should do it? From an economic standpoint yes, but not from an objective, neutral one, because that would be immoral. It goes against any notion of right and wrong. You may say that this analogy doesn't work because I risk legal action if I were to be found guilty, but the same goes for China--it violated international law. You do not take all aspects of the situation into account and thus you have not completely proved your side of the resolution. It's good for China from an economic stance, but not from a moral one.I would also like to note that Con has failed to refute both my argument about international law in Round 2 and my rebuttal to the "War with India" claim.Thank you for this debate. You are an excellent debater. Best wishes to you.Sources1. https://en.wikipedia.org...(1912%E2%80%9351) (For some reason my source isn't working, just click on the link and then add the rest into the URL.)