President Ma is dumb for trying to unite Taiwan with China through his "business" interests.

INTRODUCTIONPresident Ma has not tried to unite Taiwan and China. This is basically a conspiracy theory which Pro suggests as a fact in the resolution of this debate, which as a result, is a resolution I don't agree with.Considering the fact that Pro makes the positive claim and has the full burden of proof, Pro has to satisfy his burden of proof by (a) proving that President Ma is definitely seeking to unite Taiwan and China, and (b) proving why it is a dumb move. So far this has not been done.Pro already provided two fallacious arguments for (b), and that forces me to use this round as a round for rebuttals, when I usually would only use this round as an acceptance round.REBUTTALPro has not provided a definition of "unite", and so I will assume that it means that President Ma wants to dissolve Taiwan into China, because that is what President Ma's adversaries are currently accusing him of doing. The term "unite" and "unification" have been used exactly like that in the Media on this particular issue, so I'm going to go for that definition.Pro's resolution itself is a baseless, conspiracy theory. Pro has not presented us any evidence that President Ma actually wants to unite Taiwan and China. When on the contrary, President Ma has had several Media appearances in which me made clear statements that he is not interested in unification, but simply strengthening the Taiwan's economy through a free-trade economic agreement[1].From President Ma's interview in the New York times:President Ma: ... Under the framework of the Republic of China Constitution, we have adopted the principle of “no unification, no independence and no use of force.” “No unification” means we will not discuss unification during my term of office. “No independence” means we will not pursue Taiwan independence. “No use of force” means not using force to resolve cross-strait issues. The maintenance of the status quo under these principles has the support of 86 percent of Taiwan’s people and can thus be regarded as mainstream."In other words, President Ma clearly explains that in his office, he is not interested in the unification of Taiwan and China. He admits throughout the interview that he ideologically believes there exits just One China, but he also clarifies that he and others do not agree on what that China is, and that is why he refuses to speak of unification under his presidency term. In the same interview, he goes further and says, "For instance, since we have yet to identify a way to resolve the sovereignty issue between the two sides, we have set it aside by utilizing the “1992 consensus” that there is only one China, but each side maintains its respective interpretation of what that China is."Why no Independence for Taiwan? Because that is problematic matter with differences among 86% of the Taiwanese. Therefore Taiwan's independence is put on hold, and both matters that deal with joining Taiwan to another country or declaring it independent are left in the drawer. No "use of force" basically means that no Taiwanese will be united with a foreign country or declared a citizen of an independent state against his will(which also refutes Pro's position).What sparked this controversy in 2014?A free-trade economic agreement, which made some conspiracy theorists believe that this was a process of unification, although the economic agreement itself treats both China and Taiwan as independent nations. The ECFA (Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement) is a purely economic agreement which seeks to reduce commercial barriers between Taiwan and China[2]. This could be a prelude for unification, but it is not in itself unification or a clear act of seeking to merge Taiwan with China. Israel could have a free-trade agreement with the US, but that wouldn't make Israel an American state. Therefore, President Ma's adversaries are simply creating conspiracies based on their hunches, and not on the actual evidence present for any attempt to go for an actual unification.Furthermore, I was honestly disappointed with Pro's arguments. The first was an appeal to emotion by claiming that China is an evil, enemy state because of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, which happened a long time ago(more than 60 years ago). And the second is a false analogy logical fallacy comparing North Korea having a hypothetical power(which we only assume for the sake of giving examples) to decide presidents in South Korea, with the case between China and Taiwan, who have nothing but a possible free-trade economical agreement that can't reasonably permit such political control.Pro asks, "What type of president encourages its country to be united with its arch nemesis?"Rebuttal: President Ma made unification a null point, that's not encouraging it, but being neutral about the matter.Pro argues, "For example, a political party in South Korea that encourages unification with N.K. may choose a presidential candidate. The overwhelming majority of the North Koreans would vote for this candidate, thus handing the control of South Korea to North Korea."Rebuttal: This is a false analogy. President Ma has only agreed to a free-trade agreement that removes customs. This has nothing to do with letting Chinese vote in Taiwanese elections or uniting China with Taiwan, for that matter.SUMMARYPro's resolution is based on a baseless, conspiracy theory that President Ma is secretly trying to achieve unification, although (1) he clearly claims that it's not a matter which he would do as a president, and (2) makes it clear that he believes in One China, but not the current China, while clarifying that many Taiwanese disagree on what that China should be, geographically and ideologically. Pro's only chance of winning this debate is to first prove that Prophet Ma is definitely seeking to unite Taiwan with China, so we can then discuss if it is a dumb move or not.CITATIONS[1]http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.mac.gov.tw...