Instigator / Con
32
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#1883

The US should impose economic penalties against China due to China's failure regarding Covid-19

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
12
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
5

After 5 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
32
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

This is a debate concerning the use of fiscal sanctions on China. Fauxlaw brought this up in the forums, so I figured it would be interesting to debate.

Bump to encourage voting.

-->
@zedvictor4

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of the vote is not warranted.

-->
@VonKlempter

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: VonKlempter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote.
In tied votes which allot zero points, since they have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons. In this case, removal of VonKlempter's vote is not warranted.

-->
@Crocodile

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crocodile // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Remember, to award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
While this vote did hit (barely) on all the points above, it really needed to go more in-depth with its analysis. As-is, though, it scrapes by as acceptable.

-->
@whiteflame
@Crocodile

thanks to both for voting!

RFD, pt. 1:

There wasn't much clash to this debate. Though there was engagement with opposing arguments from both sides, Con spends most of his rebuttal focused on severing links to potential or actual impacts from Pro (most of which Pro drops), and Pro mostly uses his rebuttal to mitigate points made by Con (much of which Con addresses, though the mitigation isn't very strong to begin with). As such, the outcome of this debate rests on how powerful the two arguments are by comparison.

Pro's argument largely boils down to a set of claims regarding how China did or could have caused/exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic. Largely, these points are conceded as accurate, with a few exceptions. I buy that China had the capacity to either prevent or stem the spread of the COVID-19 virus beyond its borders, and therefore that it was in the wrong. I'm not sure whether I buy that the WHO should also be culpable, though that is extra topical and therefore doesn't factor into my decision. Pro introduces several new arguments in his last round (release of the virus from a BSL4 lab in China, the forgiving the debt alternative advocacy, and the UN issuing sanctions against the WHO [which, once again, is extra topical anyway]), all of which I automatically disregard. That just leaves the main advocacy, which imposes a temporary banishment on China from the WTO until their debt is repaid, and the retributive justice framework. The former point isn't as clear as I'd like, as the continuously rising cost of the virus could turn the banishment permanent and I'm unclear that even a contrite China would be able to pay it off. That alone wouldn't be a problem, but Pro's argument seems plagued by a lot of uncertainties regarding how things would play out, each of which is exacerbated by Con's points. It's unclear that China would ever make efforts to pay this down and would not, instead, decide to instigate or further existing trade disputes, which are likely to substantially harm other economies. I'll get to those more on Con's case, but since Pro spends scant little time shoring up how these would play out and responding to Con's points, the only real benefit of his case is, essentially, not letting China get away with this unscathed. In that regard, I think his case succeeds. However, in order to get impact off of that, it has to be either net beneficial via economic impacts to other countries, or it has to prevent China from engaging in similar practices in the future. I'm not seeing support for either, and the latter is tenuous at best, especially considering that Pro is also railing against the one international body that may have the means to investigate and hold them to effective standards. It's a big "maybe" on the latter impact, which is not a good place to be.

RFD, pt. 2:

Con's case, meanwhile, comes with a lot of warrants and evidence to support how this will play out. I could go through a lot of his case, though I'll just take the highlights. I buy that China will be more likely to retaliate than endeavor to pay off its imposed debt, drastically diminishing the global supply chain. This, along with losses of important antibiotics and rare earth minerals, does extensive damage to the US. What makes this point all the stronger is that it's linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, showcasing a present need for these materials, the absence of which would be deeply felt almost immediately. The possibility that alternatives could appear at some point, as suggested by Pro, is not a viable substitute for a present problem. Con also points to levers put in place by the WTO that would be removed by China's banishment, effectively untethering China from the means to prevent its engagement in IP theft, which would similarly damage economies worldwide with the strongest effects felt in US businesses. Con's point about autocratic regimes refusing to kowtow to unilateral sanctions also holds up well, showcasing that the harms that the US will feel will be felt more deeply than any harms the Chinese will receive. This meshes with his framework, which establishes that actual impacts are more important than hammering in a principle of retributive justice without any real world gains. While Con doesn't give me a clear means to put the screws to China, that's not really necessary based on this framework, and Pro doesn't address it.

I'm looking for solvency from Pro and I can’t find it. This may shame the Chinese into submission and I'm not seeing enough reason to buy that from Pro. Instead, I'm given plentiful reasons by Con to believe it will go horribly wrong. Pro wants me to ride on principle alone, but a) you have to defend your framework if that's what you're going for, b) I don't see how principle pays the bills during such a tenuous and dangerous time, and c) I need at least long term solvency on future pandemics, for which I get no support. Pro just isn't doing enough to shore up his case, and there's a massive amount against him. That leads me to vote Con.

-->
@blamonkey
@nmvarco
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: nmvarco // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:0; 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************

nmvarco
1 day ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Sources: I thought con has more reliable sources from more reliable websites (a lot of govs) while pro used more opinion pieces or pieces by news outlets. Everything else was pretty much a tie though.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks, much appreciated

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks!

-->
@blamonkey
@fauxlaw

I will get a vote up on this that actually awards argument points. Be working on it this weekend.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Alright, fine.

-->
@VonKlempter

ladies

-->
@nmvarco

thanks for voting

-->
@Dr.Franklin
@VonKlempter

Thanks for voting

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Ladies?

-->
@fauxlaw

what

-->
@blamonkey

It's all good. and you're welcome. Glad to help a student any time since I never plan to lose that moniker myself.

-->
@fauxlaw

Sorry about waiving rounds. I forgot all about that when I made the debate.

-->
@fauxlaw

It's no problem. This happens once in a while. I didn't mean to come off as snippy about it. I would recommend that in the future, should a topic be as broad as fiscal penalties, that you specify your plan in R1. Also, you gave me enough material to research for my research paper for school on sanctions and economics. Thanks!

-->
@blamonkey

I've considered your round 4 argument that I enjoined a new argument regarding debt forgiveness as a strategy of financial penalty to China, and you argued in your fourth that such was a violation of debate ethic. However, I figured since you had a remaining rebuttal opportunity as having the final argument that it would not be a violation due to waiving of rounds. If I have erred in that calculation, I apologize.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Yes, I've said that that, but I weighed the options of debating Blamonkey, who had become a friend, and opposition to waiving rounds, and not waiving rounds lost. Blamonkey offered my choice of argument, pro or con, based on my choice of argument in a Forum post. But I've also said that I would argue by a devil's advocate if ned be, because I love debate so much, I'll take a position with which I disagree just for the opportunity to debate it at all. In this case, however, I really do believe a financial penalty is deserved.

-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

you spam useless debates to me

I once tried to start a debate with fauxlaw and he told me he was against the idea of either side waiving any rounds on principal =(

-->
@zedvictor4

Thanks for voting

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks! You too! You definitely penned some written works. It comes off in your writing.

-->
@blamonkey

Great arguments

-->
@fauxlaw

Still a little lengthy, but overall, about 20% shorter than my case if my calculations are right.

-->
@blamonkey

Cool. I'm also working on thoughts for my round 3, my last.

-->
@fauxlaw

My response should be considerably shorter. I'm nearly done with it now

-->
@ramdatt

I met "deem" not "de"

-->
@ramdatt

>. accomplishing absolutely nothing!

Depends on who you are, bud. Worked for me. For who else am I responsible? You?

-->
@ramdatt

Out of character from the debate: I share your skepticism, but I think it's a bit early to de it a complete failure.

"Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal"

accomplishing absolutely nothing!

-->
@blamonkey

Been there. No prob, it's all good. just don't think I'll have a response for a couple of days. glad you left some daaaaaaaays for response.

-->
@fauxlaw

Believe it or not, I had 2 other points that wouldn't fit, so I wittled down the first points I made. I'm really sorry.

-->
@blamonkey

Holy sacred cows redeem us!!! [sorry, mean no disrespect to Hindus or cows - just an expletive I couldn't delete!] I'll read with interest, and, of course, a measure of skepticism. What, we're opponents, yeah? although I'll gladly carry your water.

-->
@fauxlaw

Sorry it's a massive case. I pruned it as best I could.

-->
@fauxlaw

1. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
2. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/trade-war-coronavirus-show-retail-too-reliant-on-china-ex-macys-ceo.html
3. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11434
4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-panic-about-rare-earth-elements/
5. https://docdro.id/l0DDkwg (should load as a pdf)
6. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-rareearth/china-ready-to-hit-back-at-u-s-with-rare-earths-ruling-party-newspaper-idUSKCN1SZ07V
7. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-economy/china-retaliatory-tariffs-cost-billions-in-lost-consumption-study-idUSKBN1YF23W
8. https://taxfoundation.org/tariffs-trump-trade-war/
9. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45929.pdf pg. 8
10. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-rareearth-explainer/explainer-chinas-rare-earth-supplies-could-be-vital-bargaining-chip-in-u-s-trade-war-idUSKCN1T00EK
11. https://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/number-of-telehealth-visits-rapidly-rising-at-gundersen-mayo-during-covid-19/article_4886203e-1527-5558-a877-d7688be0d995.html
12. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ready-to-help-india-to-procure-ventilators-but-scaling-up-production-a-challenge-china/articleshow/74933098.cms
13. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/columns/5014051-Column-Crisis-shows-US-too-reliant-on-China-for-metals-other-imports
14. https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/22025438/us-needs-china-more-than-china-needs-the-us
15. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/steel-profits-gain-steel-users-pay-under-trumps-protectionism
16. http://tradepartnership.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/232EmploymentPolicyBrief.pdf
17. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html
18. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/us-china-trade-disputes-wto-usually-sides-united-states
19. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/an-assessment-of-china-s-ip-protection-11577291621170.html
20. https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/chinas-ip-system-was-improving-even-before-the-trade-war/
21. https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3014258/pain-tariffs-and-sanctions-behind-china-and-russias-push-dethrone
22. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/china-pm-europe-bolster-ties-trade-war-180708170911157.html
23. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brics-summit-preview/brics-summit-marks-recovery-of-china-brazil-relations-idUSKBN1XM205
24. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative
25. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=caselrev pg. 215-216
27. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/phase-one-china-trade-deal-tests-the-limits-of-us-power/
28. https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.html
29. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/china-investment-us-drying-up-poor-states-michigan-lose-out-2019-7-1028371155
30. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188806/top-15-countries-for-united-states-direct-investments/
31.https://legacy.trade.gov/mas/ian/build/groups/public/@tg_ian/documents/webcontent/tg_ian_005496.pdf pg v.

-->
@ramdatt

How do you propose we collect anything from China ?

>>Since the WTO lacks the power to impose penalty for one of China's most flagrant violations, currency manipulation, I suggest WTO be ignored, other than removing China's MFN status. Every nation should acquire the brass ones to impose calculated tariffs, as Trump did.

Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.

>>Yes, he can, and other nations, as in #1.

Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?

>>Yeah, it brought China to the negotiation table to complete the Phase 1 trade deal.

"The US should impose economic penalties against China"

How do you propose we collect anything from China ?

Oh yes, Trump can impose more tariffs on Chinese goods.

Do you know what that has accomplished so far ?

-->
@blamonkey

No problem. My 4th waived.

-->
@fauxlaw

Do you mind waiving the last round so that we have an equal number of speeches?

I absolutely agree with Blamonkey. This will be a fun debate. So, let's cross swords, sheath them, and come out with words. Something about the pen is mightier than... or some such nonsense. Bonne chance, mon vieux.