The Instigator
policy-debate
Pro (for)
The Contender
Tradesecret
Con (against)

The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce arm sales to Taiwan.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
policy-debate has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 122891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

policy-debate

Pro

acceptance round
Tradesecret

Con

I thank Pro for commencing this debate in respect of the above topic. Nevertheless, It is clear from his lack of parameters that he / she cannot possibly win this debate.

The United States Federal Government (hereafter USFG) has no substantial reason to reduce arms sale to Taiwan.

Firstly, There is an economic argument that USFG should increase arms sales to Taiwan. USFG has significant debt. Increasing arms sale is likely to reduce debt. Reducing sales would increase debt.

Secondly there is an ethical / moral argument. Taiwan is an independent nation that is threatened daily by China. USFG as an ally of Taiwan should increase arms to Taiwan to demonstrate comradeship. China is a bully and should not be permitted to intimidate smaller nations. USFG has a moral duty to offer support to Taiwan and to rebuff China.

Thirdly, There is a political argument. Taiwan is a proponent of democracy and free enterprise. China who is a bully and is threatening Taiwan is a socialist, Anti- democratic communist nation which intends to subdue and snuff out political freedom in Taiwan. USFG supports democracy therefore should increase arms sale to promote democracy and to enable Taiwan to at least have the psychological belief to protect itself.

Fourthly, There is a theological argument. China is anti-religious. Taiwan is religious. USFG should provide arms in order to protect freedom of religion in Taiwan.

Fifthly, There is a diplomatic argument. If USFG ceased selling arms to Taiwan, Then China might take the view that USFG has no further interests in Taiwan and simply invade Taiwan. While USFG continues to sell arms, There is some tension between China and US, Yet the tension between China and Taiwan would escalate if the sale in arms should stop.

Sixthly, Taiwan would simply buy arms from elsewhere if USFG ceased selling them arms. It is better for USFG to keep the contract and have some control over the amount of arms in Taiwan.

Seventhly, Taiwan sells underground military to China dissidents. If USFG ceased selling arms, Then the underground militia in China would be under-resourced which would not only leave them vulnerable to Chinese government forces, But would also have a significant psychological impact upon the real victims in China.

and this is just the beginning.
Debate Round No. 1
policy-debate

Pro

I shall begin by addressing Con's arguments and I would just like to remark on their pleasantly civil and intellectual conduct.

1. Increasing arm sales to Taiwan would aggravate China. The United States and China are the world's two largest superpowers and by recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign state, Thus violating the One China Policy, We only seek to anger a nuclear superpower.

2. Taiwan is not threatened by China. Taiwan is basically nothing compared to China and would in no way be able to win a battle against them. If China's so threatening, Then why has there been no action against Taiwan?

3. While it is true that China has a rough political history, It's better to work through that through civil discussion than to poke the sleeping bear and risk WWIII.

4. Neither China or Taiwan are theocracies. Therefore, There is no one central religion of the whole country.

5. I extend my second rebuttal.

6. Yes, Taiwan could turn to other sources for arms. But, Under the Allied Proliferation Umbrella, Taiwan is assured that it is safe against invasion. The arms that we are selling to Taiwan would not actually help them in a war, The only thing they do is irritate China. Additionally, We are substantially reducing, Not completely ending, Arms sales.

7. I extend my 6th rebuttal.

Now onto my own arguments.

i. With the Taiwanese proliferation of weapons, Members of citizen militia groups are selling those arms to terrorist organizations in Iran. The USFG has been made aware of this and if we continue to sell arms indirectly to those militia groups then we support their efforts.

ii. By reducing arms sales to Taiwan, Our allies will see that we have, Not our, But the world's best interest at heart. This will strengthen our ties with them and pull us all closer together

iii. Tensions between Xi Xing Ping and Trump have spilled out into a trade war. Only two days ago, Trump expanded tariffs on goods imported to China by a whopping 30%. If trade wars continue to escalate at the rate they are, Then we risk a global recession the likes of which has never been seen before. We need to calm down our relationship with China and we do that through substantially reducing arms sales to Taiwan.

you honestly have no idea how happy i am to finally be having a civil, Well-conducted, And intellectual debate on this website, Thanks man
Tradesecret

Con

Hello again and again I thank you for your responses to my assertions.

Let me reply to your responses to my arguments and thereafter let me respond to your arguments.

Firstly, My replies to your response:

1. You responded to my economic argument that reducing sales would reduce revenue and increase debt by arguing that it would aggravate China by violating China's ONE CHINA POLICY. Respectfully, Your response is not an economic rebuttal but a diplomatic or political one, And therefore does not ACTUALLY rebut the reasonable position that decreasing sales will decrease revenue and increase debt.

2. You responded to my ethical / moral argument that Taiwan as an independent nation should be permitted to act as its own sovereign state by stating there is no threat from China and that if a war did take place China would win hands down. Respectfully, How can China's ONE CHINA policy be violated if China sees Taiwan as an independent nation and is not a threat? Furthermore, Simply the notion of China's superior firepower is a threat to a fledgling nation who sovereignty is called into question by China.

3. You responded to my political argument that Taiwan promotes freedom and democracy and China promotes communist anti-freedom policies by suggesting that firstly it is historical problem, But secondly that Taiwan should just roll over and suck it up because China is a threatening force and this might be a conduit to WW3. I suggest that freedom and democracy is so valuable that risking WW3 is worth it. While I agree that civil dialogue is preferable to aggression, It is difficult to see how China would offer any reasonable compromises to its communist agenda.

4. You responded to my theological argument that China is opposed to freedom of religion while Taiwan supports it by stating there is no official religion in either country. I suggest that this missed the point entirely. China has historically and currently continues to persecute all forms of religion which do not bow the knee to China's government. Taiwan on the other hand supports and condones freedom of religion and separation of state and church.

5. You responded to my political argument by extending your second rebuttal. With respect, China pretty much does what China wants in its region. It has a tendency to play coy in order to balance its economic credentials but its recent incursion into affairs in Taiwan, Not to lose sight of Hong Kong as well does not leave your response with a lot of credibility.

6. Your responded to my argument that ceasing arms sales would simply move them to find other suppliers by referring to the IPU which you believe ensures confidence it won't be invaded by China. I am not sure whether you are being tongue in cheek or not. If China takes the view that Taiwan is part of China, Like Russia did with a certain part of Ukraine, It will simply annex it - and it won't be called an invasion. Again, If China is not a threat, It is difficult to see how the continuation of arms sales to Taiwan could irritate Chine if it recognises Taiwan as a sovereign state. Hence while Taiwan asserts it independence from China - China itself will be irritated.

7. You simply extended your 6th rebuttal to my argument. Respectfully, I am not persuaded that China is not a threat to the independence of Taiwan as China believes Taiwan to be Chinese territory.

Now to respond to your arguments:

i. With the Taiwanese proliferation of weapons, Members of citizen militia groups are selling those arms to terrorist organizations in Iran. The USFG has been made aware of this and if we continue to sell arms indirectly to those militia groups then we support their efforts.

While it is a concern if any nation or group is supplying arms to Iran, Iran too is a sovereign nation. Iran is ultimately responsible for the terrorist groups in Iran. There is also a need to provide real and substantial evidence that the weapons supplied to such groups are being directed through Taiwan. I note that both USFG and China' weapons as well as Russia are found in each and every terrorist group in the world. There is significant supposition that China's end up in the hands of North Korea terrorists / army. I suggest that no government in the world - especially superpower has clean hands when it comes to being a conduit to terrorist groups around the world.

ii. By reducing arms sales to Taiwan, Our allies will see that we have, Not our, But the world's best interest at heart. This will strengthen our ties with them and pull us all closer together

I, With respect, Reject that argument. US is currently, The chief superpower in the world. Taiwan is a democratic nation which China has clearly indicated is a rebellious child which needs to be pulled into line. China does not accept Taiwan's independence from it. The precedent set by US reducing arms would be more dangerous as it would signal to China and indeed to every south Asian nation that China can do whatever it like without accountability. It is in the world's interest at the moment for the Us to remain a strong supporter of Taiwan. War in the south east asia region would not be in anyone's interest.

iii. Tensions between Xi Xing Ping and Trump have spilled out into a trade war. Only two days ago, Trump expanded tariffs on goods imported to China by a whopping 30%. If trade wars continue to escalate at the rate they are, Then we risk a global recession the likes of which has never been seen before. We need to calm down our relationship with China and we do that through substantially reducing arms sales to Taiwan.

This is true. But this is Trump's way of doing things. He is not a politician, He is a businessman. Politicians don't understand business - which is why the US has suffered so much economically in the past 60 years and why it owes so much debt. Yet it is his business skills which make China nervous, Because now they have to justify certain practises whereas before it was a handshake. Reducing arms sales to Taiwan is a political strategy but not a business strategy. Trump is hitting China where it hurts. Honestly Trump probably does not care about Taiwan, But he knows the value that Taiwan is to China. This is why he has the Trump card at the moment. China cares about Taiwan and Trump does not. China needs to stop playing Trump like he is a politician and start to remember he is a businessman. If they do that - then they might find something which he thinks is valuable and consider what China might do - to calm this relationship down.

Remember, China has a part to play in this trade war as well. This is not all about US or Trump. Xi Xing Ping has his own agenda - and that does not necessarily fit with the rest of the world's agenda. He wants to expand - and I have a sneaky suspicion that he would like to take on the US role of numero uno superpower. I think US should let China have it. It is a terrible curse.

Again I thank you for your gracious comments above.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
ayyyyy, My boy Trad coming in hot!
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
DeletedUser
why? That's capitalism, We profit they profit its a win win. If you don't like it go back to venaswala you fukin commie.
Posted by anc2006 2 years ago
anc2006
I agree with pro
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.