Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

Observations In the beginning of the debate, I laid the groundwork for a perception of containment, and I justified my framework in my argument and tied it to my contentions. I have proven why we need a policy of containment and what the policy would entail, and I have justified my reasoning. In contrast, my opponent states that containment means aggressive acts towards China and even some nations in the region. He simply states what containment is without backing it up with real evidence, reasoning, and logic. I urge voters to take this fact into consideration: my opponent attempts to highlight what containment entails and why we need to employ such a policy with baseless rhetoric and insults directed at me. To expand on this point, I am appalled at the conduct of my opponent. He calls my contentions asinine and downplays my arguments as idiotic and foolish, yet he does not provide any reasoning for these attacks beyond the insults themselves. Sophistry (lol) The first problem with my opponent’s rebuttal arises when he states that we are not able to contain China. He cannot fulfill his burden without justifying why a policy of containment should not be used. Simply stating that we are unable to do X isn’t fulfilling the BOP. China has been growing over the past few decades technologically, militarily, and economically, but it is not a lost cause—the region is still vital to U. S. interests, as we have many allies in the region and there are impressionable developing nations that could evolve into hugely beneficial trading partners. It is important that we involve ourselves with these nations so that the influence of China cannot spread across the region to a point that poses a threat to U. S. interests. My opponent’s next contention relies on his belief that containment would entail aggressive economic acts towards China. If we are trying to stop a nation from accumulating power and influence, the best thing to do is make ourselves a spot at the table in trade negotiations and develop extensive diplomatic relations with the countries in Asia subject to increasing Chinese influence, which effectively negates their influence and is therefore a policy of containment. This is not an uncommon theme in my arguments, and I have repeated it over and over again. My opponent has failed to produce his own justified idea of what containment entails, while I have, and my entire case rests upon it. This is problematic because my opponent cannot effectively negate the resolution while relying on an incomplete and unclear containment policy. Indeed, the United States requested that their allies stay out of the regional projects spearheaded by China, specifically for the reason that they did not want China writing the rules of the region on matters such as trade and the flow of commerce. The United States and their allies stayed out of this organization because they did not want a Chinese-made institution in which China could dictate trade terms. To successfully employ a policy of containment we should coax nations in the region into becoming more active partners with the United States and maintain steady diplomatic and economic relations with them so that the threat of Chinese influence is successfully removed from the equation. In contrast to what my opponent mistakenly suggests, the United States deemed it in their best interests to stay away from Chinese-led institutions and focus on maintaining safe and steady relationships with countries in the region. Concession in the face of threatening influence is not the way to ensure that Asia remains a place where the United States can readily trade with for decades to come. Free Trade There is no doubt that it is in the best interest of any nation to pursue bilateral trade with others. In the case of China, they have displayed a willingness to forgo coexistence with the United States and have implemented an aggressive expansionist foreign policy in the waters surrounding their country and Pacific nations. We must counter the influence of China in a way that prevents them from totally controlling the region economically and diplomatically, and that will be achieved through increased involvement in the continent. In response to my opponent’s claims about India, I have already proven that they are starting to grow more and more dissatisfied with one of their largest trading partners. Since India is growing very fast and could be of great use to the United States as a trading partner, we need to capitalize on that opportunity by opening discussion between the leaders of India and the United States to hopefully achieve an economic and diplomatic partnership that can endure into the future. Innovation is not something that will come from close cooperation with China, nor will ingenuity in products. China lacks innovation on all fronts [1], while the United States continues to stay ahead of them. The United States needs to become an increasingly large trading partner with nations such as India so that mutually beneficial trade partnerships are established and Chinese influence is prevented from spreading throughout the region. Only increased involvement can negate increasing Chinese influence, and I have proved this time and time again. [1] . http://foreignpolicy.com... Bilateral Trade I correctly named the nominal monetary amount of goods to and from Japan, and I do not see how this contributes to my opponent’s case or to the resolution. The Japanese are our ally, and the point I was making is that it is paramount that for their sake and for the sake of other allies in the region, it is important to counter increasing Chinese influence lest they are able to dictate the rules of Asia. My opponent completely ignores the fact that I justified a policy of containment and tied my contention directly to my framework of what containment entails. He did not respond to my perception of containment that I laid out clearly: instead he tries to attack with faulty reasoning, saying “China is the superpower in the region. ” I have clearly explained why this is detrimental to the U. S. and its allies, and I have outlined how we can go about preventing the spread of Chinese influence. We do not need to dictate trade in Asia, I never said such a thing. I did however prove that it would be detrimental to our interests to allow China to dictate the terms of trading and the flow of commerce, which my opponent yet again fails to refute. It is not a matter of our jurisdiction, it is a matter of protecting the interests of the U. S. and its allies abroad. Co-Existence & Espionage I never stated ever that military intervention should be used to counter Chinese influence. That goes directly against my framework. which my opponent consistently ignores. They must be contained because they reflect values that are very different from the ones the first world holds dear: general freedoms. If they are allowed to dictate trade and commerce in the region, it is detrimental to the United States because we might not have a place at the table in the future. Espionage pertains to containment because we cannot allow the Chinese to corner nations around the world in their respective industries because the Chinese have stolen their technology. Containment is justified because they pose a direct threat to the greater economies and political sphere of the free world. Conclusion I have justified a policy of containment, what it entails, and why we need it. My opponent has not done his job and has not fulfilled his burden. He has laced his arguments with inappropriate remarks and baseless reasoning. He ignored my framework and continues to make statements about how military force or economic aggression equals containment, which I have refuted. In other words, I have successfully fulfilled my burdens in this debate, and my opponent has failed time and time again.