The EU should accept 5G investments from Chinese tech company Huawei.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I negate this resolution. By accepting, you are affirming.
Burden of Proof is shared.
R1- Constructive. Contender may rebut some of my points after they give a constructive in this round, but they MUST posit a constructive of their own.
R2-4- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.
Rules are simple:
1.No Kritiks
2.No New arguments made in final round
3.No trolling
4.No getting off topic
5.You must follow the Debate Structure
6.No Plagiarism
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
- According to Margaret Rouse, “Fifth-generation wireless (5G) is the latest iteration of cellular technology, engineered to greatly increase the speed and responsiveness of wireless networks.”
- Using the Wikipedia definition: “The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in 152 countries and international organizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.”
In 2018, the government continued to collect, on a mass scale, biometrics including DNA and voice samples; use such biometrics for automated surveillance purposes; develop a nationwide reward and punishment system known as the “social credit system”; and develop and apply “big data” policing programs aimed at preventing dissent. All of these systems are being deployed without effective privacy protections in law or in practice, and often people are unaware that their data is being gathered, or how it is used or stored.
China engages in widespread espionage against sensitive governmental and commercial targets, and U.S. intelligence officials and a number of allied intelligence agencies have expressed sharp concerns that global 5G telecommunications networks that depend on Chinese equipment could pose significant cyber security risks.
U.S. prosecutors charged two Chinese citizens for their involvement in a global hacking campaign to steal tech company secrets and intellectual property. They were also accused of stealing the personal information of more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Navy, and were allegedly working with the Chinese government.
“BRI projects are built with loans as opposed to aid grants. BRI investments have required the use of Chinese firms, and their bidding processes have lacked transparency.”
(The) European Commission established a Public Private Partnership on 5G (5G PPP) in 2013. This is the EU flagship initiative to accelerate research and innovation in 5G technology. The European Commission has earmarked a public funding of 700 million through the Horizon 2020 Programme to support this activity. EU industry is set to match this investment by up to 5 times, to more than 3 billion. These activities have been accompanied by an international plan to ensure global consensus building on 5G.
To ensure early deployment of 5G infrastructure in Europe, the Commission adopted in 2016 a 5G Action Plan for Europe with the objective to start launching 5G services in all EU Member States by end 2020 at the latest, followed by a rapid build-up to ensure uninterrupted 5G coverage in urban areas and along main transport paths by 2025.
“In the status quo, about half of the United States should expect to have functioning 5G wireless technology by 2020, Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg told CNBC in August 2019.”
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL)Huawei is a Chinese state-directed telecom company with a singular goal: undermine foreign competition by stealing trade secrets and intellectual property, and through artificially low prices backed by the Chinese government. The Communist Chinese government poses the greatest, long-term threat to America’s national and economic security, and the US must be vigilant in preventing Chinese state-directed telecoms companies, like Huawei and ZTE, from undermining and endangering America’s 5G networks. Future, cutting-edge industries like driverless vehicles and the Internet of Things will depend on this critical technology, and any action that threatens our 21st-century industries from developing and deploying 5G undoubtedly undermines both our national and economic security.I am not sure we can trust an audit on Huawei any more than we can trust the Chinese government to hand over intelligence showing they do not steal intellectual property from American companies. No audit can reveal a future order from the Chinese government to turn over data to them. The US must develop a long-term, whole-of-government strategy to protect against state-sponsored technology theft and risks to critical supply chains. We must also recognize that the continued threat posed by the Chinese government’s assault on US intellectual property, US businesses, and our government networks and information has the full backing of the Chinese Communist Party."
- mass surveillance
- data collection
- information leaks regarding military technology and coordination
- inter-country communication
- intellectual theft
- BRI equates to Chinese leverage over EU in political/human rights affairs
- BRI puts EU nations into debt
- Neo-imperialism
- The EU and US are capable of 5G without China
Then, my opponent cites a source that does not make this claim in either the cited section nor the article as a whole. In fact, the source my opponent cites says this:
"Huawei code has a lot of vulnerabilities. The United Kingdom's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Center (HCSEC), a testing facility that reviews Huawei-made equipment for security flaws, exposed in its 2019 annual report that Huawei systems contain "many vulnerabilities ... [of] high impact." There are "serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence."...If Huawei is providing backdoors to Chinese intelligence agencies, they're enabling Chinese government cyber efforts. If Huawei is leaving bugdoors in their systems, they're complicit. If they're just really bad at writing software (also a possibility), they're apathetic actors."
Moreover, we should not assume the best about China's intentions, especially since China gets frequently caught in the act.
"according to CNBC,
U.S. prosecutors charged two Chinese citizens for their involvement in a global hacking campaign to steal tech company secrets and intellectual property. They were also accused of stealing the personal information of more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Navy, and were allegedly working with the Chinese government."
"Hackers believed to be backed by China’s government have infiltrated the cellular networks of at least 10 global carriers, swiping users’ whereabouts, text-messaging records and call logs, according to a new report, amid growing scrutiny of Beijing’s cyberoffensives."
- BRI equates to Chinese leverage over EU in political/human rights affairs
- BRI puts EU nations into debt
- Neo-imperialism
- The EU and US are capable of 5G without China
- Plagiarism on behalf of my opponent
First, pro argued the wrong side of the resolution, then contradicted himself in his next post.
Second, pro dropped many of con's arguments.
Conduct points go to con because of pro's forfeiture of the last two rounds.
Plagiarism as identified by con "My opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation" plus forfeitures.
Hi Jeff, while I sound super formal - it’s an easy mistake ; and an issue we haven’t been able to fully resolve yet, so don’t worry.
Please be aware that there are also rules surrounding voting, and what qualifies as valid. You can take a look here for when you’ve met the voting criteria: https://www.debateart.com/rules
No hard feelings about the deleted vote. Sorry for voting when I should not have.
Maybe you've heard something like this before, but it seems like the website simply shouldn't let me vote if I'm not eligible.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con's arguments were more fleshed out and better structured. In the end, Pro forfeited.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
You are on the green side, which means you are Pro. I understand that you accepted this thinking you are Con to the topic but you're Pro, sorry.
Fair, I may take Pro next time to make the debate more attractive
It's a good topic - I just happen to agree with you.
If no one accepts the Pro position on this, I may make another debate and be Pro to make the debate more attractive.
That is one stance, but there are others that I would hope someone on Pro could take. For example, the EU is very much behind in 5G, and China is very much ahead of the US. So in a way, one could paint it as necessary to not "fall behind."
You do point out the core Con position and I would say I agree: I tend to value the security of nations and the denial of Chinese hegemony to be more important than economic profit.
I would imagine the only real argument for this would be based off pure liberitarian free market principles.
Yes there is little free about china's economy, however that is public knowledge and private compabies have been more then willing to freely hand over their IP in exchange to access to chinese markets.
I am not a liberitarian and am not willing to risk national security for private profits. I believe we as a society have a greater duty to our people, our economy, and our nation, then we have towards some blind, self defeating ideology.
Fair point. I'd hoped that some people would look at an article or two and accept. (Pretty much all the research you need for this.)
This seems a like a niche topic, which is probably why people aren't accepting.
Bump. No takers on this one?