China should become a Federal Republic.

Please note: "My opponent will also set no restrictions to arguments in rounds later on. " This has been violated by the fact that my opponent has decided to untruthfully stated: "My opponent and me have agreed on a few things in the comments. - China will follow the US and Korean Three Branch system. (House,Executive,Senate)" I have already given in to 2 handicaps for my opponent's convenience, so I shall not be granting a third. I will retract my request for the conduct point if my opponent similarly retracts the statement detailing exactly what type of system for China's republic I will be arguing for. The Con argument is my job, not Pro's, otherwise we would have one person arguing with himself! That being said, I would like to structure my response to my opponent with the following statements: 1. A system of government should reflect the needs and wants of the country 2. A system of government should be based on the morals and values of the country 3. There is no obligation for a country to develop a system of government in accordance with the morals and values of outsiders I am sure that these statements are incredibly clear. I don't expect my neighbor to raise their children according to my religious beliefs, or organize their household in accordance to my cultural specifications. I now respectfully accuse my opponent of doing exactly this. China does not need a US McGovernment. Furthermore, while my opponent's point is very clear and has cited many sources, I would like to point out that none of those sources are actually contributing to his argument. They are merely informational aids from basic sites that I will now cite as my own sources in order to dismantle my opponent's argument. Thank you. *** The theme of my argument is one, simple word: Chaos. What my opponent fails to realize is that China, with a history of 5000+ years, has always been a country with a culture of independence and isolationism. It is through this isolationism that China has managed to grow and thrive into an advanced civilization in the early part of recorded history and become a leading force throughout all of Asia. Please examine the age of China throughout its dynasties: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyone who has studied Chinese History knows that they record their history not as a series of International wars, but as a series of Civil wars. Please note the changes in Dynasty in the following link: . http://www.travelchinaguide.com... Scholars note that ages of prosperity are closely linked with lack of political movement and Ages of poverty, want, and need are always linked with political strife. This is why there is a pervasive cultural fear among the Chinese, of which I am included, of chaos. The people are not concerned with politics. They are an agricultural and industrious people concerned with their own basic needs. Please see the very introduction to the Wiki article on "Politics of China" . http://en.wikipedia.org... Note that even in the introduction of this extremely large topic, this fear is voiced: "Some Chinese scholars such as Zhou Tianyong, the vice director of research of the Central Party School, argue that gradual political reform as well as repression of those pushing for overly rapid change over the next thirty years will be essential if China is to avoid an overly turbulent transition to a middle class dominated polity. Some Chinese look back to the Cultural Revolution and fear chaos if the Communist Party should lose control due to domestic upheavals and so a robust system of monitoring and control is in place to counter the growing pressure for political change. " Now, we must ask my opponent: Are you championing a United States Federal Government system simply because the western mindset has pervasively convinced the rest of the world that this is the way to go? The answer is Yes. My opponent is championing a new branch of US McGovernment to be opened in China. The Chinese will not thank my opponent. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Cultural Revolution is merely one example of how systems of political upheaval can severely damage a country's economic stability and integrity. I respectfully accuse my opponent of threatening China with chaos and strife simply because he has inherited the pervasive mindset that the Western system of Government, most similar to that of the United States, is a cookie-cutter McGovernment that works for all countries or *should* work for all countries. *** Examine the following summary of my opponent's arguments: 1, 2, & 3) Large Administration, Cultural and Ethnic Division, Autonomy does not work My opponent doesn't actually make 3 arguments, he makes one. He is attempting to delude the audience by stating that the need for China to allocate its rule to representatives of smaller regions, and that this supports his calling for his US McGovernment. But I have some news that is welcome to the audience, but not welcome to my opponent: The current system of administration is already set up in this manner, according to one of my opponent's very own source citations: . http://www.china.org.cn... My opponent's source itself is about all the benefits that autonomy has had for the minorities in dealing with crises, progress in health care, progress in education reform, etc. Never have I participated in a debate in which my opponent has provided me with such excellent tools that help dismantle his own argument. Now, why would we want to throw a wrench in a system that is working? Why inflict chaos, economic, and political strife on a country that is taking care of its minorities and giving them autonomous rule enough to prosper? I think that my opponent's US McGovernment may be best suited elsewhere. We can toss out these three arguments (or rather, one argument). Now, my opponent's only remaining argument is that it may lead to a possible reunification with Taiwan. Please see the following source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Yes, relationships between China and Taiwan could be better, but audience, please keep in mind that we should not be looking at this from a Western point of view. We must look at it from the Chinese point of view. China does not recognize the independence of Taiwan, they still think that Taiwan is part of China. That being said, there is no "reunification" problem. China is simply still in talks to negotiate a relationship with Taiwan, and slow progress is being made, with some bumps in the road. Furthermore, I don't see why my opponent thinks this is a priority. A good cause, yes, but not a priority. Taiwan's population is less than 2% of China's population. I think that China has a lot more things to worry about than inflicting chaos and political strife on 100% of its citizens simply to set up my opponent's dream US McGovernment. That being said, one of my opponent's restrictions/handicaps on me is that I must argue for some FORM of republic, as stated in the comments. "You are Pro, and I am Con. You will be arguing that China should become a Federal Rupublic, and I will be arguing against you, with the additional restriction that I think that China should be a Republic of *some sort*. Did I get that right? " "Yes. Some sort of republic. " In that case, I will simply state that China should be the type of republic it is right now. China cannot afford to have political upheaval simply because my opponent is enamored with establishing a US McGovernment. I thank the audience and my opponent. I look forward to the next round.