Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

StandardMy opponent states that he strongly believes in cyber-protection, and so do I. The United States currently has a cyber-protection program within the Department of Defence and many resources are diverted into the program daily [1]. Although, my opponent is arguing for retaliation against China, not digital protection. The source link that my opponent uses, regarding the . gov website and congressional report is only a report regarding cyber incursions traced back to the Chinese homeland [2]. The report does not ratify the allegations that my opponent has made regarding the Chinese government backing the incursions, nor do these incursions have a name behind them. Only the location has been traced. I will attempt to defend my claims against the viability of the sources my opponent has listed. Let me state, that my attacks on the sources were supposed to be that none of your sources (Which you also did not refute) made direct claims towards the Chinese government, and neither has the federal documents you provided. They are all still allegations, and in diplomacy, everything must be airtight. Otherwise, private sector invasions would not be able to pass their grievances against a specific government in the name of international law [3]. InherencyMy opponent starts making claims on the credibility of Mike McConnel regarding the cyber-army he claimed the Chinese government was building up without secondary links in his article. In the previous sources of my opponent regarding the cyber army, there was no mention of McConnel nor could I find anything online. Digging deeper into the credibility of Fortune, their secondary link of the cyber army was taken out of context [4]. The secondary link states how the Ministry of Defence of China was dedicating a section of the PLA towards expertise in computer technology to create firewalls and encrypt secret data of the Chinese government. Neither articles mentioned any sort of offence, and Fortune used it to their click bait advantage. I urge voters to look into the secondary links of the sources my opponent provided. I also ask my opponent to provide a source to Mike McConnell and his 100,000 "hackers" dedicated only to the goal of invading computers. To my opponent regarding Cendrowski, I wasn't questioning his credibility I was pointing out the indirect verbs he used regarding the link between the Chinese government and the hacks towards the American private sector which were allegations. A point that you did not refute. His credibility was not in question, it was his wording. As for Kumar, he had little to no prior experience regarding China and like I stated with the secondary source link, he took the term, cyber army out of context. The same way that the American DoD has their own cyber-security strategy with persons managing the sector (Refer to Source 1). It was Kumar's credibility, which I proved unreliable. HarmsI thank my opponent for accepting Time's dodging of direct links towards the Chinese government and providing the justice. gov source, but it still offers no direct link to the Chinese government. The justice. gov site states about a Chinese immigrant conspiring to steal the trade secrets, but he did not admit to nor was he found to be employed to the Chinese government [5][6]. Trade secrets are valuable, and his Chinese nationality being linked to a connection to the Chinese government is just an assertion, meaning his plan to take the secrets could have even been sold to another company in the private sector. My point is that there is still no direct link to the Chinese government. "Since my opponent says that he doesn't need to respond to the other harms. .. " is a lie, if not at least a fallacious statement. I stated -"I should also state, the other arguments that I seemingly left behind has actually been rendered null from my solidified statements of a lack of direct link. ". I left them seemingly without a response because like the last 3 arguments you provided, they were all knocked down for not providing an actual link to the Chinese government employing any hackers. You were listing the harms of the hacking, something that is a statistic, but my point was that there is no direct link to who is behind the hacking. That means you mostly just listed the damage without the actual link of the perpetrator, thought to be the Chinese government. SolvencyMy opponent refuses to acknowledge the NSA leak I provided that trumps the document of the congressional report. The United States is obviously on the offensive because the leak shows American strikes. China has had no 'leaks' giving no direct ties. Just to show the power of credible sources, the United States had been conducting cyber-attacks on China since before the 2015 congressional report [7][8][9]. My opponent also states that "Chinese employed hackers stole social security numbers, fingerprints, etc. of over 4 million current and former federal employees". A fallacious claim. The source he uses before of the federal congressional report (Refer to Source 2) does not list 4 million federal victims, nor is there a Chinese government link. I usually try not to use harsh wording in my debates but that is a second fallacious claim you have stated. I seriously urge voters to look at his sources. Other Systems My opponent states that my other arguments weren't relevant which is assumptive. The US and China has not tried individual cyber-treaties which would allow the US and China to browse their individual history of proxy uses in order to align them with the exact date of the attack events. If China denies, that would be the greatest piece of assumptive evidence that they were actually behind any of these attacks. The US of course, has denied such a treaty because the US is also at fault of attacks (Refer to Sources 7,8,9). As for the previous treaties and 'Crowdstrike', I ask my opponent to provide sources, as I took the effort of providing my own. Let me also say, regarding other systems my opponent completely dropped my argument regarding political sanctions towards China and my argument of the Budapest Cyber-Warfare convention that the US violated. This leaves 3 arguments of mine my opponent left un-refuted. As for my Wikipedia sources, Pro is incorrect. In strong public articles like cyber-warfare review sources with their own teams and make sure the editor marks their sources [10]. They don't allow just anyone to write these articles as my opponent claims, and if the editor leaves an article without secondary sources, there is always warnings at the top of the page stating so [11]. ConclusionMy opponent has left 3 strong arguments of mine, un-refuted. My strongest argument is that if the US retaliates, because they already violated the Budapest convention, China can bring the US to political sanctions. Sources[1] . http://www.defense.gov...[2] . http://origin.www.uscc.gov...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://wtnh.com...[5] . https://www.justice.gov...[6] . http://www.agweb.com...[7] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] . http://www.forbes.com...[9] . http://www.scmp.com...[10] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] . https://en.wikipedia.org...