Instigator / Pro
8
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#3525

On balance, the Chinese former-chairman Mao Zedong was more beneficial than harmful

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
2
1

After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description

There is really no need to define anything. If you really are that brave to walk into this debate without knowing who Mao Zedong is, he is the first chairman of the People's Republic of China 1949-1976.

How is it racist that I support Chinese people and oppose those who hate the Chinese and China?

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

That does sound like blatant racism or culturalism to me.

You really do hate China arguing for some guy that killed about 40 million Chinese and destroyed the country

"The measurement pro should have used is GDP per capita which evaluates living standards and is the best measure for economic growth."
Living standards have nothing to do with GDP per capita. For example, USA has high GDP per capita. But we couldnt say it has high living standards. The very high prices, mass torture in prisons and the annual 60000 murders and suicides surely means they arent that much better than the living standards of a typical warzone.

Hope I don't get reprimanded for this. I have other topics as well.

-->
@Novice_II

wow, I would say that was a good argument. To be fair I almost forgot this debate existed lol

-->
@RationalMadman

"Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it."

That is the benefit of surveillance.

I never claimed Chinese products are bad because they're Chinese. ", China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g. Guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today."

We can debate this, if you want?

Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it.

-->
@Ehyeh

The American propaganda is really kicking in huh? Chinese manufacturers are not making bad products because they are bad at making things, but because they are given less money and are expected to return more, leading a general decrease in quality. The manufacturers are not the ones to blame, the people that provided them such little money are. As for "lose more freedom", no, China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g.guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Taiwan was fascist. Yet now it no longer is. There's a lot of what ifs. I don't think China becoming so powerful is beneficial to the development democracy or world peace. I'm unsure of how you can argue China has been beneficial for the world at large. Sure they have offered goods for much cheaper than what other nations could offer. However, i don't see lower quality, cheaper goods outweighing the cons of the nation gaining more control and influence at the world stage, hindering the development of democracy and personal freedoms both on the internet and in developing countries. I'd rather pay a little more for my goods than see people lose more freedoms and become more under the thumb of the Chinese Government.

-->
@Ehyeh

There is a way of proving that China today benefits the world as it is being taught, and as "oppressive" as it sounds, without him, China may be an anarchy.

I personally find moral questions like this very vague. Beneficial for who? the world at large or the Chinese populace? there's lots of guess work and assumptions made in discussions like this. If we're talking in terms of more beneficial compared to what was or what could of been, you can get radically different answers. On a personal note, i find Mao to of been an unsavoury leader. Who, Without him China may not of been as oppressive as it is today. Although this is once more, guess work.

I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.

I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.