If India and Pakistan went into another all-out war, Pakistan would be victorious.

Argument I: Pakistan v IndiaPro's case is redherring. My stats were not for Pakistan and India alone. I blatantly gave stats for US v China as well. That being said, purposefully misrepresenting my case is fallacious. And Pro is right, China has aided Pakistan before... With supplies, as friends so often do. This is not the same as Pro's case, which involved China completely entering the war with military force. Pro then claims that I have not proven that China would not get involved. I spent a whole Argument making up half my total round explaining reasons why China would not go to war. Pro's case is a blatant lie, and this should be held against him.Mostly my case for Argument I and Argument II goes uncontested.Rebuttal I: China.Being friendly doesn't imply that China and Russia are indefinitely close. Russia and China are apart of a pact, but that doesn't make them allies, or mean Russia is closer with them than with India. No, Russia's relations with China are only recently friendly, but Russian relations with India is a legitimate alliance that has grown far stronger in recent years (1). Also, pro must understand that being in an alliance does not nessacarily mean you are allies. China does, in fact, maintain an ally-free policy. Joining a political group does not make them and Russia allies. Russia and India, however, are allies.The irony in Pro's alliance argument is that India is an observing member of the same pact, and Russia has asked them numerous times to join as a full member (2). China has even supported the idea (3). That being said, Pro's alliance case is meaningless. Russia's relations with China are geopolitical at best, but their relationship with India is an actual alliance that transcends the SCO. To further show the meaningless value of Pro's case, India, China, and Russia are also together in BRICS (4) and the G-20 (5). So Alliances are meaningless here. Personal relations will dictate the war.Pro has negated the resolution with his case. China and Russia are trying to become friends. Russia and India are allied. All this says is that China and Russia would work to neutralize a war peacefully for both nation's sake... Not go to war. Pro's whole case about tensions between China and India are meaningless too. Geopolitics don't work the way they did in the Cold War. Now, tensions are dealt with diplomatically. Leading to the end of Pro's case.Sino-Indian relations aren't what Pro claims they are. The two have been successfully aiming for diplomatic negotiations."However, since the late 1980s, both countries have successfully attempted to reignite diplomatic and economic ties. In 2008, China emerged as India's largest trading partner and the two countries have also attempted to extend their strategic and military relations." (6)Pro needs a tension between China and India that simply isn't there. A tension so large as to go against Russia, the SCO, and logic itself to start a war against the fourth most Militarily Powerful nation. To declare war would violate their goals and their pacts. Aksai Chin, a plot of land they would go to war over, has virtually no population or resources (7). Ladakh has a poor economy dependent largely on the presence of the Indian military, and has a tiny population (8). The land would never be worth the cost of going to war with a power like India, ruining ties with the US and Russia, and going against several alliances while also destroying the progress they made with India.China is currently India's larger importer and exporter. Friendly ties with the world's second largest population and third largest economy are far more valuable than one plot of land with a poor government-dependent economy.Pro brings up that China and Russia getting involved would lead to World War III. Kind of why they wouldn't get involved militarily.Pro brings up how the US wouldn't stop China because they have a far higher manpower. This is laughable at best. Just because China can bring up 700 million doesn't mean they can or will. Pro also forgets that the budget is important. The US can manage a much larger war-time Army than China. Currently the US runs 5x the budget, and has soldiers with a 20 - 1 to 50 - 1 kill ratio. The number of soldiers isn't that important anymore. Especially when you remember that India and Russia can draw up 685 million men too.Pro bringing up large numbers only hurts his case, showing even more so why the three powers would avoid going at it.Pro than explains that Russia would support China in a China-US war. Redherring, Strawman, and Shifting the Goalposts. This isn't a Sino-American war. It's an Indian-Pakistani war. Russia would join the US in defending their ally, India. Pro is bringing up a completely different situation that is only similar in who is fighting. The US is defending Russia's top ally... Why would Russia betray India to stop the US because of China? Again, strawman and redherring. This is India v Pakistan, with China attacking Russia's ally, and the US defending Russia's ally.[1] http://indianembassy.ru...[2] http://www.newkerala.com...[3] http://www.newkerala.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...Argument II: US v China.Pro's claim is based entirely on stereotypes. Every company in the US has a backup plan for if they lose trade agreements. They wouldn't collapse. If they get supplies from Company A, they make sure Company B and C are backups in case. So pro's case is mute. The US wouldn't collapse, they would just move to buying elsewhere... Selling is a different matter. The 394 supplies in China would face major loss of income and many would go under. Tens of millions would lose their jobs when Apple, Gateway, and hundreds of other American companies leave. The ripple effect would crush China, while the US would simply buy elsewhere.The US isn't dependent on China. It's a matter of just buying more from Europe, N and S America, and other regions of Asia. Pro based his argument on a stereotype that doesn't hold up to the real world. China would not stop the US from going to war. Also, reguarding numbers and military power, but drops everything I said about it last round. The aircraft and tanks of the US army outwiegh China's entire force. Just because China has 700 million men to use doesn't mean they can use them, or that they would. Or that they can have even a fraction of that up at a time.Argument III: UN Interverence.This is my winning argument, that the UN would stop Pakistan... Pro dropped this argument, and therefore loses. Pro's cases is based on the extreme idea that China, Russia, and the US would get militarily involved, and the idea that China is even closely strong enough to stop the US. In Reality, so many alliances, pacts, and relations would make the issue too complicated. China would not lose billions in trade to gain a tiny bit of land, at the cost of losing what relations they built with Russia and the US.The cost of war would be enough to prevent such a thing... China, Russia, the US, and the other two members of the UN's lead council would come together and stop the war in India's favor, since France is friendly with India. The fact that it could lead to a third World War, and include the four strongest nations in the world, is enough to set Pro's BOP so high that it is physically impossible to reach. China will not go to war. If they did, Russia and the US would stop them. Pakistan would not win.Conclusion: The cost of war would not make China's entry in the war improbable. Even if they did, they would lose. It'd be Pakistan v India, and unless the UN stopped the war (negating the resolution), Pakistan would lose.