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
Tags
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. Multilateralism
Multilateralism is a concept of that international affairs and relations be governed by 3 or more groups of countries. It is characterized by negotiations between multiple factions. According to Britannica:
In security arrangements, the principles of multilateralism are best embodied in a collective security system such as NATO, in which a war against one state is considered to be a war against all states, ensuring that any act of aggression against a member of the collective system is met with a response from all members.
In which the relationship between nations will be more of a "triangle" rather than that of a vector between two points.
A multilateral relationship, compared to bilateral relationships, will be more beneficial and less discriminatory for all the involved factions. For example, Brooking states:
Multilateralism — operating through architectures of organizations, institutions, and bespoke mechanisms, often based in treaties and international law and grounded, fundamentally, in the U.N. Charter — has been crucial to preserving peace, increasing prosperity, addressing common threats, and even defending democratic values in both the Cold War and post-Cold War eras.
Whereas for Bilateralism, Britannica states:
To better understand the nature of multilateralism, it is useful to contrast it with bilateralism, a good example of which is the commercial policies of Nazi Germany, in which the German government negotiated bilateral agreements with other countries specifying which goods and services were to be traded, their prices, and the quantities to be exchanged. Through that, a significant number of nations were connected by trade agreements, with Germany acting as a central hub. ... Thus, the German system was built around systematic discrimination, whereas the GATT assured nondiscrimination for all contracting parties.
It thus became clear that a multilateralism society is arguably better than a one-output bilateral society.
Now, what does China stand on here?
- For Xi Jinping, the objective of multilateralism is to construct a “community of a shared future of mankind”
- In his report to the 19th NPC, Xi Jinping described his vision of multilateralism as “dialogue without confrontation, partnership without alliance”
- In English-language communication, the Chinese leadership and CCP outlets frequently highlight that China is a “champion of multilateralism”, that China will “adhere to multilateralism” or that China is committed to “upholding multilateralism”.
China is working towards multilateralism for the world's sake. Does it work?
China is strong enough
China has the largest GDP(PPP), second largest GDP, and one of the most powerful countries in terms of military despite being far from that during the old times such as 1950 and so. China has a large enough presence to shift the balance away from the "dominant" United States, who has been on the top and exploiting other nations for decades.
Well, just saying, China is essentially rightfully taking global power and attention away from a country who interfered with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, a nation who bombed buildings intentionally then dismissed it as "accidental"; a state ran by the lesser of the two evils almost all the time. All this is simply not possible without Mao Zedong.
2. Foundation of China
Against "Nationalist" China and Japan
Without Mao, China might have been kept as a capitalist and maybe even imperial state, as lead by Chiang.
The Long March is a large operation conducted by the Communist party lead by Mao Zedong to move the Chinese red army towards Shaanxi(province), which later proved to be effective, as the wars between the Communist faction and the Nationalist factions were later won by the Communists. Without it, the Nationalist faction might have won and the effect of that on both China and the international affairs would be drastic. For example, poverty back then was roaring and the nationalist government simply didn't bother with it(They did't get support from the working class either). But Mao's China was from the people and for the people(They have the support of the working class), and from the ashes of the soil came the first two 5-year plans(aided by Soviet Union), the industry of China from the people quickly improved and poverty reduced.
Not only that, the Nationalist government proposed in the early years of WW2 that putting the conflict between the Chinese people(apart from affiliation) and the Japanese Empire before the conflict between the Nationalists and the Communists was illegal. This means, that while the red army was busy fending off Japanese imperials, the nationalists were busy fighting the communists, which does not help if not even hinders the anti-fascist faction of the war. On the other hand, almost ALL of the communist forces, with Mao, were fighing the japanese. It was actually the communists who convinced the nationalist faction that the conflict with the Japanese was more important and urgent.
The war lasted from 1931 to 1945. That is how long it was. In the last source(which was just a hub for more sources) one can obviously see that subfactions in the Republic of China was actually fighting on the side of Japan. Without Mao, without communism, maybe JAPAN would have taken over the Chinese land due to not enough effort from the beginning to repel them. What would that lead to? More power for the Axis and the next problem will not be America, but Nazi Germany or even Imperial Japan invading nearby countries(especially since their territories have expanded all the way to ALASKA). The world will be filled with racism, tyranny, etc. much more so than we have now here.
So yeah, Mao provided a substantial effort in saving the world from the Axis power of fascism. Without him, the world will be a much worse place.
Foundations of China
I have already stated the first 2 five year plans. That was just a part of what he had done. Similar achievements include land reform(one time in the 30's, that is what gained trust from the proletariat) and later(1953-56) 3 major reforms(reforms of capital, labor and land) which significantly improved crop produce in farmlands and production in factories and workshops. Great success!
Not only that, his theoretical foundations were also profound(and also is even to today, which ultimately shapes what China is now). The theories of Deng and all the way to Xi Jinping was improved upon his theory.
Mao’s theories which guided the Chinese revolution to victory in 1949, particularly his theory of people’s war, represent a fusion of many aspects of his thought: his confidence in the fundamental revolutionary strength of the peasantry, his grasp of the dialectical philosophy, his complete freedom from the kind of philistinism which invests excuses to condemn the armed struggle of the oppressed nations.
Mao's theory in fact was already working since the war against Japan, which is...why they won, well one reason. Without Mao's theoretical foundation and strategic guidance, it would still be unclear if China will defend successfully against Japanese invaders or not.
Then, let's look upon one example of Deng Xiaoping.
1975年1月任中共中央副主席、国务院副总理、中央军委副主席和中国人民解放军总参谋长。周恩来病重以后，在毛泽东支持下，他主持党、国家和军队的日常工作，针对“文化大革命”造成的混乱局面进行全面整顿，得到全国人民的衷心拥护，收到显著的成效。由于“四人帮”的诬陷，1976年4月又被撤销一切职务。1976年10月“四人帮”被粉碎，“文化大革命”结束。
The quote above shows tha Deng was supported by Mao, and was criticized by another group of 4 people who actually controlled the wrongdoings in the period known as the Cultural Revolution. Deng later combined Mao's foundations with market, which made China's economy able to be this strong today. The wrongdoings in the Cultural Revolution was due to Mao's misestimation, yes that is correct, but to show just how strong the state he created was, the state was quickly able to transition from that, and later even to a state of market economy, and is now boosting in economy, being one of the only countries to have a POSITIVE economic gain in 2020, when Coronavirus first hit. The recovering back on track was due to his own theory.
根本否定了“文化大革命”，维护了毛泽东的历史地位，科学地评价了毛泽东思想。
Yes, Deng put constructive critism onto Mao's misestimations, and also constructive revisions on that as well, while not bashing him and actually defending him when looking at the big picture. Mao has essentially created a system that can do this. In contrast, we have Khrushchev's complete call of destalinization, in some areas making USSR's economy worse by either unnecessary revisions or inability to substantially change those that actually matter, leading to the fall of the Soviet model.
And then, we HAVE to bring up the Korean war, which the Chinese helped fending off the western forces lead by America despite having worse hardware. Mao's contribution in that war cannot be undermined. The status of China globally rose after that.
Global comment after death
Most countries have broadcasted the news of Mao's death in 1976 including the US, France, and UK. Half-mast ceremonies were conducted and the world leaders and the UN minister uttered respect to him(source). To most countries up to that point, Mao was a positive figure. I rest my case.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Extend all arguments, I won't be providing new arguments in this round.
Conclusions
- China contributes to multilateralism and is currently strong enough to make the US not the only dominant power output
- Mao is directly responsible for China being what it is today
- Mao's strategy is responsible for:
- Holding back against the nationalist warlords and the Japanese, in which either of them could make it worse
- Help with negotiations with the Nationalists, and agreed to fight Japan together in the later stages of the war
- The Nationalist faction is less united and called for anti-communism before anti-imperialism, so it has less of a chance to win
- Mao decided that a long march was a good choice, which turned out yes, and it helped the Communists, in turn the Chinese civilization, in turn the Allies.
- Japan likely will reunite with Germany after getting such a huge victory, and WW2 will be harder to win for the allies if not for Mao in China
- Mao is responsible for holding back imperalism and fascism, resulting in a Win for the allies in WW2
- Successfully holding back the South Koreans and the American army during the Korean war(despite having inferior weaponry)
- Which made China a prominent rising force
- Influencing Deng, Xi and other leaders to carve a path suitable for the conditions of this country and leading to the prosperity.
- Mao reunited China and reformed land, capital and labor, so that efficiency increased
- Mao gained trust from the prole, which was a lot of people, and eventually led to a successful revolution
- Mao's revolutionary foundation of China was so strong that his theory upon improvement from his successors was able to keep running this country in a reasonable fashion, despite a few years under the influence of false revolutionaries like Jiang Qing and fatal misestimations
- Mao received positive reviews upon his death amongst many countries and the UN.
Con
#4
Resolved: On balance, the Chinese former-chairman Mao Zedong was more beneficial than harmful
x. Overview
- As an introduction, I would like to note the burdens in this debate to each respective participant. Pro as the instigator will bear the entire burden of proof for the proposition stated in the resolution.
- Con bears no burden of his own, but is tasked with negating the resolution or even placing doubt upon the truth value of the said proposition. In essence, this is a debate where we weigh the harms and benefits attributed to a specific individual.
- Con can posit that the harm from Mao Zedong negates any perceived benefit, or that the harm outweighs it sufficiently.
I. Life in value
- Mao Zedong is described by the Washington Post as the "biggest mass murder in the history of the world," stating that "from 1958 to 1962, his Great Leap Forward policy led to the deaths of up to 45 million people – easily making it the biggest episode of mass murder ever recorded" about worse than both Stalin and Hitler in combination. This figure is from Mao's incompetently conceived policies alone and the addition of mass executions as well as slavery/prison labor camps is enough to bring this figure up to 80 million. It is simply irrational to argue that the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world did more good than harm.
- One way we can more effectively document the damages he did is by observing the value of human life. Economists have calculated such to be around 10 million dollars. Adjusting for inflation amounts to $1,120,280.96, and multiplying this by 45 million people, the amount who perished under Mao's policies, we get $49,500,000,000,000—up to 80 trillion as well if adjusting for the aforementioned policies of brutality.
- I argue that nothing Mao has done is sufficient to outweigh the deaths of 45 million people and a culminating valued cost of well over 49 trillion dollars, a figure that surpasses the GDP of most developed countries.
II. Lasting persecution
- As a result of Mao's cultural revolution, "the expression of religious life in China was effectively banned. The growth of the Chinese-House-church movement during this period was a result of all Chinese Christian worship being driven underground for fear of persecution." Mao, if not presented as a morally depraved individual was willing to torture his people for having different beliefs than his ideal for China. The matter showcases itself: religious persecution continues today and China, and its incidence is severe, especially with the genocide against Uhyger Muslims. The legacy of Mao's vision only continues with the exploitation of people who dare express social or political disagreement all commissioned by the political persecution and mass execution of such people in the cultural revolution. This perpetuating harm stems from the policies of a sadistic and corrupt former Chinese Chairman.
III The Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
- Mao was a founding member of the CCP and his tyrannical, homicidal, and totalitarian reign of power is undoubtedly the most significant reason behind its current level of power and control over China today. Mao was a fundamental predicate and reason for the expansion and stronghold of power ascribed to the CCP, the party that is (as aforementioned) committing genocide against innocent Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities. Among the massacre of thousands of innocent students, the CCP continues to exploit, enslave, and harm innocent people to this day. Mao is a nexus point around its mode of encompassment.
IV Conflicts
- Tibet Ordered by Mao, China forced the innocent and peaceful country of Tibet to sign the “seventeen point agreement” after an unprovoked invasion and subsequent massacre. Commissioned from Mao's acts of imperialism, China continued and continues to exploit and abuse the human rights of innocent Tibetans.
- Mao also gave heavy aid to a tyrannical Ho Chi Min who started the Vietnam war by attempting to seize the power over the entire region. Predicated on an ideology inspired by Mao's conquest and installment of communism, Mao instilled and contributed toward lasting harm to the world region today, aiding it and enabling it to be overcome and subjugated by communist dictators, the human rights of individuals continuing to suffer.
V Global Influence
- In mild extension, Mao's establishment of Marxism in China and consistent outreach and aid to tyrannical dictators like Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung not only caused the deaths and slaughter of millions but preserved their positions of imperial power in respective fragile and unstable world regions. Mao Zedong enabled these men to continue to exploit their people and pass on legacies of slavery and subjugation of innocent people. His influence on global communist ideology has been made apparent concerning Vietnam and North Korea, two counties Mao consciously aided, and two horrendous rulers Mao showed open and consistent support for. ad he not, tens of millions of people would not suffer today.
Rebuttal
- Overarchingly, I can describe the majority of pro's cases as a poorly constructed speech, much of which diverts both on and off-topic to what we are debating. Pro subtlety concedes many of Mall's failures, but they have stronger implications than he dogmatically suggests, my case is enough to establish this as a certainty.
- Pro makes notions about the strategy of Mao, and provides no sufficient evidence of any of its contributions. bearing the entire burden, we must remain wholly skeptical of such claims.
a. Multilateralism
- Pro first provides categorical distinctions between multilateralism and bilateralism. This section of his case is oddly irrelevant as he does not mention any specific or attributional to Mao Zedong who was responsible for 40 to 80 million victims through starvation, persecution, prison labor, and mass executions.
- Pro shows that China has the largest GDP as a supposed indicator of China's benevolence. His poor use of statistical indicators harms his case and removes further credibility from his assertions. GDP isn't a measure of wealth or quality of life but total income, and as China is the most populated country on earth, we should expect this, perhaps even to a higher degree. The measurement pro should have used is GDP per capita which evaluates living standards and is the best measure for economic growth. Observing such with additional analyses:
- China ranks 79th in GDP per capita, behind developing countries like Iran and Thailand.
- China ranks 158th on the economic freedom index out of 195 countries.
- China is rated as not free as well as an authoritarian regime by the Freedom in the World 2022 and 2021 Democracy Index respectively. China also ranks 177th in press freedom.
- China has one of the worst healthcare systems in the world ranking 144th.
- China ranks 85th out of 189 countries on the human development index and 77th in quality of life.
- These indicators reveal the picture pro seeks to conceal, the continued failures of China. Slight improvements are in spite of Mao not being a proponent of him—largely resulting from an abandonment of his policies. The cultural genocide, persecution, authoritarianism, and radial human rights violations all stem predicate to Mao Zedong.
b. Foundations of China/Sino-Japanese conflictions
- Pro first notes the conflict between the Nationalist and Communist forces of China, however, this is not a good thing as he suggests, very much the opposite as we have revealed constructively. If the nationalists had won, China would not consistently extend support to the tyrannical dictators in waring regions to further their communist ideology, saving the lives of many.
- Pro argues that Mao somehow saved the world after a Chinese victory over Japan. Such a ridiculous logical leap should be discarded tentatively and need not be addressed. Billions of dollars in intense military aid from the United States and other allied powers, allowed China to win the war. Pros use of communist propaganda sites does not support the claim of Mao's supposed superior war tactics if they had any significant contribution at all.
b.1 Policy
- Pro seeks to underplay the failures of Mao. His apologetics function similarly to a neo nazi in respect to Adolf Hitler. I argue his notions are inconsequential to the harm Mao has done.
- Pro here cites policies Mao implemented to improve food production etc. This was seeming to no avail as "despite Mao's reforms—or possibly because of them—China has failed to increase its per capita production of food, and consequently, "while Mao was Chairman, China crept along with the slowest rate of increase in total food production of any region in the world." Regardless, this still amounts to nothing but cherry-picking given that a mere two years later from his limited analysis, Mao would launch the horrendous great leap forward that consequently killed over 45 million people, as well as in 1966, "the Cultural Revolution crippled the economy, ruined millions of lives and thrust China into 10 years of turmoil, bloodshed, hunger and stagnation."
- The consequences of Mao's retinoic and devastating policies are evident: "for two decades, essentially, underneath all the slogans and shouting, the welfare of Mao's people did not advance, and may even have declined slightly. The message is unmistakable: The People's Republic must move from redistribution to production, particularly in agriculture."
d. Korean War
- In this selection, pro brings up a conflict that awkwardly clashes with his own constructive case. Historically, "the Korean War (1950-1953) began when the North Korean Communist army crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded non-Communist South Korea." Mao Zedong subsequently sent thousands of Chinese troops in support of North Korea, the instigating party predicated by the USSR.
- Mao as shown previously, willingly and openly supported a brutal tyrant and dictator in Kim Il-sung and openly sought to impose communism on the entire Korean peninsula by any means necessary—including the vast use of military violence. Mao not only contributed but is among the predicates of the truistic stratification and oppression of North Koreans today.
- One only needs to compare the current socio-economic situations of North and South Korea to observe the horrible consequences impositions of Mao Zedong and Kim Il-sung.
e. Global comment after death
- He pro shares with us irrelevant information as we are debating whether or not Mao did more harm than good, not if the leaders of other countries paid respect to him. Voters can tentatively discard this contention.
Conclusion
- As a brush for round two, all of pro's restated conclusions have been proven false, and as extensions, we progress in deliberation.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You know what, maybe I have to concede.
I have gone through hours of research of me not getting what our general consensus think as "credible source" due to my browser automatically blocking most western and/or Anti-Mao articles on this topic. This is a problem that as pointed out already existed in the first round because most of my media intake is Pro-Mao and Pro-China as reflected by my sourcing on it. I just couldn't find enough non-Chinese sources in English debunking what Con has made in last round, and at this point, even if I win, it would have been a pyrrhic one and not a decisive one.
I debate for fun and at this point debates like this are not fun anymore. To be fair, in the short term I probably will not return to this topic or any topic regarding China due to the internet automatically prioritizing the Pro side(which is kind of biased if most of them are literally Chinese media) and filtering out the Con side. Maybe I will come back to this topic later in life, but only if I have a much more variety of sources in my favor and a stronger set of argument.
To the few Chinese viewers that are actually looking at this, sorry, I have let you down. If you have a better proof, you can show me the way. But right now, I don't think I have enough rocks to grapple on to even come out of this mess knowing how limited my sourcing is.
My purpose is not to convince anyone why I am right, although I am not convinced by Con. I will probably learn more facts regarding this topic involving worldwide variations of perspectives, but right now, I have lost the will to win. I admit I was too rash and arrogant instigating this debate and I hope I can actually win in this topic in the future, maybe just not now.
Sorry.
Con
#6
I admit I was too rash and arrogant instigating this debate and I hope I can actually win in this topic in the future, maybe just not now.
- I don't think you were rash or arrogant, never got that impression at all. The round 1 argument of course can be refined like any argument, like my argument. The Chinses sources were actually not to bad because Google allows you to translate the page, but I only vaguely considered China's censorship predicament. Ironically, I wanted to argue that the censorship in China is a harm of Mao Zedong: stemming from the fallout of the Hundred Flowers Campaign. I dropped the contention later, I did not yield the results I hoped for.
- I am also very interested in the prospective challenge, I think the topic is good for historical deliberation. When researching this topic after I had to pass on round one I discovered that China pushes positive vies of Mao and that the people hold such high respect and regard for him. In America, our citizens often label our founding fathers evil racist white supremacists. Democracy has its implications, and while I don't support democracy to the same degree as many, I tend to oppose any form of censorship. The dichotomy here is appalling.
- I obviously believe the GDP analysis is flawed: but I grant that China is getting more powerful. While high officials in my country struggle to define a woman, Chinese students continue to excel in schools across the world. What an evolving geo political landscape we live in. You remain unconvinced, but maybe I can convince you in a subsequent engagement.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Ah. I thank CON for being of sufficient manners. I lost this debate and there is nothing else I need to say.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession
How is it racist that I support Chinese people and oppose those who hate the Chinese and China?
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.
wow, I would say that was a good argument. To be fair I almost forgot this debate existed lol
"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.
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.
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.
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.