China is a serious, long term threat to American strategic interests.

- CON's quotes in italics (same as in round #3, apologies)- Sources continued from round #2 and #3RebuttalBefore I continue with my rebuttal, I will lay out a general framework for many of my points, and what I anticipate to be future points made by CON:Projection: 8. Psychology - The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to othershttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...I will demonstrate how many of CON's points, and many of which I anticipate CON to make in the future, will be instances of CON projecting his hopes upon himself, and his fears upon others (in this case China).I will also link my rebuttals to the various points I made in rounds #2 and #3. (C1-C7), (E1-E8), (P1-P5) ------R2) On causation, CON is attempting to engage in a semantics argument to detract from his lack of a case. We are evaluating cultural hegemony as a separate parameter from political and economic hegemony. CON does not and cannot contest the monolithic aspects of China's cultural dominance (C1-C7) within its regional influence. This dominance will threaten US attempts to establish cultural hegemony in East Asia, especially in countries like Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam.I need not prove that "culture and ideology control foreign relations" - this is CON attempting to strawman by changing the parameters of this debate. I only need to prove that China will assert its culture and ideology within the region, which I did by demonstrating how nearly ALL of East Asia and SE Asia still share cultural traditions that have a foundation and home in China, and how even in the case of a strongly anglicized country like Singapore [1], these Chinese cultural aspects are now re-asserting themselves. (C1)I do not know why CON is attempting to argue that culture causes politics, or vice versa. That is simply not what this debate is about.-R3) CON's exceptionally weak economic case rests on one word: exports. Apparently CON thinks that exports are bad for an economy. First of all, this line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous. A strong export economy means that the products from the exporter find a ready and willing global audience for its products. There is no stronger statement of the viability and veracity of a domestic economy than to be able to also export goods made at home. Germany and Japan are also examples of strong export economies.I am also very disappointed that CON did not bother to read the voluminous sources I cited last round. Otherwise, he would have learned something, which is ostensibly his purpose for challenging me on this debate. When China overtook America in autos (E3), most of the production was for domestic consumption: "December sales of passenger cars, trucks and buses rose 92 percent to 1.4 million. For the whole of 2009, passenger-car sales rose 53 percent to 10.3 million." [12] Indeed, Chinese auto market is a prime example of other countries investing (i.e. exporting capital) in China: "GM and Volkswagen have targeted growing Chinese demand to compensate for slumping sales in the U.S.andEurope." "GM, the biggest overseas automaker in China, said on Jan. 4 that its Chinese sales rose 67 percent last year to a record 1.83 million vehicles." [12] Bottom line, simplistic analysis like CON's "exports are bad" argument simply do not capture the complexity of world trade. The more vibrant an economy, the more vibrant the trade. Again, China leads the world in trade now (E2). It can only do so with exports AND imports.-R4) On stimulus, CON is clearly projecting here. The US stimulus was (and is) several orders of magnitude larger than anything China put out, and was also ostensibly for the same purpose of preventing "domestic instability". If you include the ongoing numbers from the Fed, US stimulus would easily top $3 trillion [23]. Why CON singles out China for stimulus and not the US or the rest of the world for that matter is beyond me.-R5) CON repeatedly makes bald and totally unsubstantiated assertions about supposed "domestic instability" and how it may result in a domestic Chinese conflict that "is purely [in the] economic domain and not the result of territorial or cultural differences." This is another clear case of CON projecting his own fears upon China. CON would essentially have us NOT believe that the mere existence of the massive economic inequities between the 99% and the 1% (video #2, [24]) in the US pose an imminent threat to the stability of the US - instead, this type of imminent threat ONLY applies to China. He does not explain why he harbors such a bias.http://www.youtube.com...I have explained that in China, things are good and looking better, not just to an investor, but to the Chinese themselves (E6). CON would rather have us believe in the preposterous notion that optimistic people are inherently unstable.Until CON actually explains why he thinks China is "unstable", any more so than any other country that has economic inequality, I cannot argue the point. Why? Because CON does not have an argument in this regard - it is nothing but a bald assertion.-R6) CON makes another case of confused projection: "China...designed ground forces not for power projection but rather to ensure domestic stability...defense for an invasion of the Chinese homeland"Madlibs time - replace "China" with "US", and you will get a very popular stance on the purpose of ground forces in the US. This logic is simply not unique to China. In my realist framework, our "domestic stability" requires us to pursue hegemony. So will China's.-R7) CON would have us believe that South Korea and Japan do not trade with China, and that ONLY the US "policy of free trade" (whatever that means) is responsible for those countries' successes. South Korea and Japan trade more with China than with the US [25] [26]. Even Australia trades more with China than with the US. [27]-R8) CON does not have a credible argument against my assertion that the Chinese withstood potential US aggression along the Yalu River (China's border with Korea) during the Korean War. Nothing he notes about casualties or technology changes the simple fact that China withstood the world's preeminent military force in that conflict. For the US, we would rather forget the war. For China, the results are enshrined in the pictures I posted of Tiananmen Square. (P1, P2)-R9) I fully agree with CON that "building an advanced navy, army, and air force is much more than simply having the materials to do so." I have easily demonstrated that China also has the political will (P1-P3) and the economic foundation (E1-E4, E7, E8) to do so.CON seems to be continually handicapped by looking at the current military situation, and seems to be unable to look at trends, which is the primary purpose of this debate - to consider potential long-term threats to American strategic interests. The trends clearly demonstrate that China will approach, if not surpass, US military power, especially in the East Asian region (P5). China has come a long way from poor, starving peasants led by Mao.Am I ignoring CON's case? No, not at all. Instead, I am pointing out that CON has no real credible case for the long-term. I have debunked his military argument completely by pointing to the rapid modernization of the Chinese military (P4). and how this trend simply does not show any sign of abating.Again, this debate is not about a gladiatorial grudge match between the US and Chinese militaries TODAY. It is about strategy GOING FORWARD. CON does not seem to understand this purpose inherent in his own resolution.------Finally, I would like to add that just because a threat exists, does not make the source of the threat "evil". I wish my rebuttal was more substantive, but it is a rebuttal to the substance of CON's arguments, which I found lacking.[23] http://tinyurl.com...[24] http://tinyurl.com...[25] http://tinyurl.com...[26] http://tinyurl.com...[27] http://tinyurl.com...