That China is detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims

1731

rating

167

debates

73.05%

won

Description

China claims it is only detaining terrorists. This is a lie.

Round 1

07.28.2022 03:49PM

Pro

It is the consensus among human rights groups that China is detaining millions of ethnic Uighurs in reeducation camps. China has claimed that they are only detaining terrorists, but the facts don't add up.

Dozens of Uighur Muslims were interviewed by the group China Human Rights Defenders [1]. This group states:

Interviewees consistently told us that their villages or townships are eerily empty, a result of widespread efforts to round up ethnic minorities for “re-education”:
“There are almost no young men left in my village.”
“There’s practically no male adults left in the villages now, no able-bodied laborers. Almost all able-bodied male adults are in ‘education’ or in prison.”
“I think almost every adult is required to attend some kind of education and training.”
“Almost every family has members being forced to attend ‘education’ or being detained.”

Estimates based on interviews with eight Uighurs in eight separate villages reveal that an estimated 12% of the population of the Kashgar Prefecture have been detained. A larger sample size is more ideal, but these are eight people in separate villages, and China is very strict about free speech. It wouldn't be easy to interview hundreds of people, so getting eight estimates is understandable. Furthermore, each of the eight people interviewed estimated that at least 8% of their village had been detained.

CHRD also states:

Two of the eight interviewees, No. 7 and No. 8, also provided specific estimates of people forced to attend day/evening camps in their villages—800 and 300, or roughly 40% and 20% of the village population, respectively. However, other interviewees said that virtually every family had at least one member forced to attend day/evening re-education sessions.

Human rights watch has also interviewed three relatives of detainees held in "political education facilities" [2].

They said the detentions began in the spring and lasted for several months. They said that people sent to the centers were not presented with a warrant, evidence of a crime, or any other documentation. They did not know which local authorities were responsible for detaining their family members or in some cases, even where they were held.

The family members said that men, women, and children were all being held. In one case, a family of four, including two children, were taken to a political education facility in western Xinjiang in April for traveling abroad for business and for the Hajj, an Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. While one parent and one child were released after three months, the other two are believed to be still in custody.

A leaked document has revealed that people can be sent to a detention facility for simply “wearing a veil” or growing “a long beard.” [3]

CNN has only been able to independently verify some of the records contained in the document. But a team of experts, led by Adrian Zenz, senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington DC, say they are confident that it is an authentic Chinese government document.
The leaked document is a 137-page PDF file, likely generated from an Excel spreadsheet or Word table. Zenz pointed to the use of similar terminology and language in this document, which he refers to as the Karakax List, and other records leaked from Xinjiang...
A previous attempt by CNN to visit the detention centers in Xinjiang was blocked by local government authorities.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that the media is welcome to visit the Chinese detention camps. However, CNN was turned away when they tried to do just that. There would be plenty of money to be made in uncovering a western conspiracy (or showing how brutal the camps really are). Would CNN, ABC, or CSNBC turn down such a big opportunity if China was really willing to let them investigate? Chinese media is controlled by the state, US media isn't. They would make the US look bad in a heartbeat if it meant making money.

According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists [4], a leaked document explains China's method of mass internment.

The manual, called a “telegram,” instructs camp personnel on such matters as how to prevent escapes, how to maintain total secrecy about the camps’ existence, methods of forced indoctrination, how to control disease outbreaks, and when to let detainees see relatives or even use the toilet. The document, dating to 2017, lays bare a behavior-modification “points” system to mete out punishments and rewards to inmates.

In some villages in southern Xinjiang, police had been ordered to sweep up nearly 40% of the adult population, it was reported later.

“At that time, it was terror among people,” said Tursunay Ziavdun, a 40-year-old Uighur woman now in Kazakhstan who spent 11 months in a camp in Xinjiang. “When we saw each other, people were terrified. The only thing we were talking about was saying, ‘ah you’re still here!’ In all the families there was someone arrested. Some, the whole family.”
“In February 2018, they arrested my older brother. Ten days later my little brother,” she said in an interview with ICIJ media partner Le Monde in November. “I thought, it’ll be my turn soon.” She was taken to a camp on March 10, 2018.

07.29.2022 05:15PM

Con

I suggest downloading a Chinese VPN if possible in case if some of my sources cannot be accessed by US or other countries' internets, because some sources are from Bilibili, which is a Chinese video site like Youtube and Niconico.

1. Adrian Zenz, self-proclaimed "expert"

My opponent has cited the work of such as Adrian Zenz no different than your average reliable source. In reality, Zenz's work wasn't that accurate[1].

Adrian Zenz is a theologist and self-declared China expert (with an online doctoral degree) who is frequently used by commercially-controlled media as an original source for the claim that 1 million Uyghurs are imprisoned in internment camps in the Chinese Xinjiang province.[1][2] Radio Free Asia stated in July 2017 that he "has emerged a leading expert on the mass incarceration of Uyghurs in internment camps".[3]

Zenz is also Senior Fellow for China Studies at the think-tank Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation[6]. The Foundation has close connections both to the CIA and groups such as the World Anti-Communist League.

According to himself, Adrian Zenz has been once to Xinjiang - in 2007 as a tourist. For his research backing his claim of 1 million internees, he used open source Internet resources, such as calls for tenders and job offers from the Chinese government in Xinjiang province, and then making estimates about the extent of those interned in Chinese reeducation camps. In some interviews, he himself describes these estimates as "speculative".[7], which doesn't stop the commercially-controlled media from giving the readers the strong impression that this is a serious estimate.

Zenz is about half of a master who works with CIA and anti-communist agencies, and likely just hates China with a passion. His estimates, which are supposed to be accurate, actually are not that accurate and are just speculative based on job interviews and such.

Chollima.org states[2]:

However, this is not all it seems. Zenz is an individual with extremely questionable personal views, even ones which push on legal boundaries in many countries. Although people will say that “Ad-Hominem” is not a logical way to challenge one’s views, the extreme nature of some of his beliefs unquestionably call his work into question, as well as the mainstream media’s repeated usage of him, of which they would never consider if it were not for “the anti-China” agenda.

Honestly, why should we trust this man?

[3] This video showcases the deep and shady business associated with Zenz. Zenz's work erroneously translate "Motivating participation" to "forcing participating", and exaggerate the figures. Not only that, Zenz cites from a third-party separatist organization(which is on Istiqal TV), which is then used by the US government, working with Zenz. Zenz then uses another erroneous translation and misinterprets, from that government employees only provide service, to that workers are assigned and monitored by them, to that they are being oppressed by them. Zenz then works with Australian agencies with a shady history of being spreading anti-China propaganda, and co-authoring with James Leibold, another self-claimed expert, on US-funded platforms. In fact, one organization within this web was RFA, who was involved with a US plot of breeding separatism among the ethnic minority. Then BBC came and asked Zenz for evidence, which he gave a report based on erroneous footnotes and evidence... and somehow passed the test and got passed around.

In other wise, the entire theory was based on unreliable evidence and misinterpretations.

Rebuttal: Sources

Let's now look at [1] by Pro.

The education includes simple Chinese language and relevant Chinese laws.
on the “three evils”—“terrorism,” “religious extremism,” and “separatism.”

These are two quotes from said article. Nothing the Chinese people said hinted anything towards, "we are being oppressed!" in this article, they just said that they are being taught things(of which they definitely aren't taught they are Evil, etc), and many people are going. Somehow, teaching stuff to adults with them just being told to go(and complying) is counted as detaining. It is more like the invisible fourth wall going in with a stained mindset and whatever they say they just reinforce it with "yeah exactly, they are being oppressed".

More than that, these articles may be stained by Zenz's unreliable and malicious articles created to defame China.

Pro [2] states:

Media reports have noted that party cadres “eat, live and labor” alongside those “who need to be transformed,” and that life and hours there are “just like a boarding high school… except the content of learning is different.”

They are Chinese citizens, and removing the "separatist and terrorist" beliefs they might have seems perfectly fine to me, I mean. And yes, the different content was no different than above: just that separatism bad, China good, etc. This is not more brainwashing as much as giving them a view they are supposed to have, to stabilize the society with them agreeing to such a change.

And again, this article cites RFA, a source shown to be biased against China.

[3] is a direct citation from CNN, the first of the few along with BBC to have see Zenz's work that was supposed to be reliable but wasn't.

As for [4], first, I can confirm that this level of restriction commonly seen in Chinese High Schools[4]. As said by a Chinese expert: Such organization just wasn't common in the western world, so of course they don't understand[5]. Then, you are dealing with a place where crime is relatively high and separatism and terrorism can brew, and well... the drafts mentioned clearly just say that the strictness should increase, NOTHING about how their race was being bad. Lastly, they are still quoting Zenz and the Western media who were being deceived by it.

In the end, the obligation was a fabrication and a media-utilized bias, and it was overutilized to the point where the media didn't even care what it means anymore.

Constructive: Sources

[6]An American governmental agent literally says that this is an existing plan that could work to destabilize China.

[7]The Xinjiang local folks jump out and say it is false. For how much text evidence the other side has(which has no videos) this would be much harder to fake, especially since the emotions feel genuine and even foreign users feel touched.(For reference, Twitter was banned for China, but that is something else).

[8]The US was filming in Xinjiang but instead of all the dark and shady concentration camps, what they filmed was calm and peaceful and generally not somewhere that would have terrorizing forces of concentration camps.

[9]Non-Chinese vloggers debunk the myth. Not everything that is suspected as a concentration camp is actually a camp, some are just housings.

[10]BBC putting on dark filters on such scenes for intended effects.

[11]Same as CON[9], but with different people.

[12]Same as CON[9], but with different people.

[13]Western vloggers, including the one at CON[9] debunking the myth that they are being funded by China.

[14]46 countries support China's stance on this issue.

All of these are generally harder to fake than what Pro has brought up, especially since Pro's sources likely have been influenced by Zenz's unreliable sources.

"Argument": Innocent?

Note: I do not believe in this, I just write this as an argument logically.

That China is detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims

This is the title.

Innocent meaning:

[15]free from legal guilt or fault

The Uyghur Muslims are being punished for being themselves, according to Pro. What is the reason? If it is true, it is because they are the way they are. Their existence is being wrong. Maybe the fact they traveled abroad is seen as wrong, the fact they practice Muslim too much is seen as wrong, etc.

Nobody just take people randomly without reason. Even if Pro is correct about the sources, it is because the Chinese government see something wrong with them and want to change them by that narrative. In this case, if they are being "detained" it means they are being seen as wrongdoers or wrong by existing the way they are and there is a reason for it: The reason is why they are not considered innocent. So by everything Pro has said his argument does not support his own cause even if we support his own narrative.

And that rounds up my argument. First, Zenz was not a credible source. Secondly, I have shown many evidence, harder to fake than Pro's arguably(and less involved in Zenz's deception), in my favor. Thirdly, even if we consider Pro's and Zenz's narrative as right, then the Uyghur Muslims are not truly innocent, meaning that Pro failed to uphold his own topic statement. I rest my case.

Round 2

07.29.2022 07:49PM

Pro

Can Adrian Zenz be trusted?

Zenz indeed holds particularly strong religious views and opposes homosexuality. But same-sex couples cannot marry or adopt in China [1], so it's not as if the Chinese government has much ground to stand on. The problem with this accusation in the first place is that people of completely different religious beliefs make accurate scientific discoveries all the time. There are Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, and Jewish scientists. A scientist who is very accomplished in one field can have crazy beliefs regarding another.

Zenz is likely anti-communist, but for good reason. China has denied the Tienneman Square massacre [2], restricted freedom of speech [3], and is a one-party state [4]. There's nothing wrong with being critical of these things, and a scientist or researcher having a bias doesn't mean they will fabricate their results. Furthermore, Zenz works with a team of researchers. He's also given justifications for his reasoning, showing similar terminology in newer leaked documents and older ones to argue their legitimacy [5]. Moreover, his team isn't the only source listed.

Zenz has made estimates about the size of the camps, but estimates are common in research fields. China doesn't allow free speech anyway, so it's not like news sources can enter the country and see the exact size of the camps. The estimate could be too high or too low, but the number of people being detained is definitely a significant number.

I'd defend the other accusations against Zenz' analysis of documents, but the only one I used (people being arrested for wearing a veil or having a long beard) wasn't addressed. If I need to use the other documents he cited, I'll address them then. And the Chinese government considers calling Taiwan a country or acknowledging the Tienneman Square massacre to be anti-Chinese propaganda, so they can accuse pretty much anyone of associating with a group that produces "anti-Chinese propaganda."

Can the Chinese government be trusted?

In contrast, the CCP has every reason to lie and maintain its power. China is a one-party state, and that party controls every news source in the country. The Chinese government has arrested people for speaking against its policies [6]. They've lied about Tienneman Square. Trust is a two-way street. If the Chinese government doesn't trust Con to watch cat videos on Youtube, why should he trust them? Government should serve the people, not the other way around.

Sources

Con claims that in [1], people are simply attending voluntary educational services. But this is false. The people interviewed said that men from 15 to 60 were being forced to go to educational services and that they are being taken to camps. Innocent Muslims are being forcefully detained, which is the subject of this debate. Con states "these articles may be stained by Zenz's unreliable and malicious articles created to defame China." But does he think that the people being interviewed (who are subjected to Chinese news outlets and propaganda) are parroting what Zenz says instead of their own experiences? CHRD is obtaining first-hand accounts.

Furthermore, if these are simply educational meetings instead of government propaganda, why are people being detained for wearing veils or having long beards? Surely people should be allowed to grow a beard without being detained for hours out of the day, or even permanently. One witness stated "Entire villages in Southern Xinjiang have been emptied of young and middle-aged people—all rounded up into ‘re-education’ classes. Only the elderly and the very docile are left in the villages." Another stated "There’s practically no male adults left in the villages now, no able-bodied laborers. Almost all able-bodied male adults are in ‘education’ or in prison."

The CCP has continually tried to maintain their power through the Social Credit System [7] and is willing to violate human freedoms to avoid criticism. They are interested in obedience, not education.

Con argues that according to [3], the camps are just like schools with different content. But again, people are being detained and subjected to government propaganda. These are also the people that are allowed to leave; obviously they aren't going to be treated as harshly. This source also states that people are being targeted for religious activities or having family members who are arrested. This is obvious government overreach. Innocent people are being detained permanently when they probably have better things to do. Education is supposed to give kids skills that will help them, not indoctrinate them.

[3] is from CNN, an independent news source that is not controlled by any government, making it more reliable than all of Con's sources. They cite Zenz' work, which Con criticizes for the sole reason that Zenz wrote it.

Con claims that [4] is common in high schools. But do Chinese authorities try to deny that high schools exist? If these camps aren't oppressive, why is China denying that they exist? Furthermore, these "camps" are dealing with grown adults. Adults shouldn't need permission to use the bathroom, or have to go to re-education centers. Schools are meant to help teach kids useful skills, not indoctrinate them.

The Associated Press has found that women in camps are being forcibly sterilized or forced to have abortions [8]. This corroborates claims by Zenz [9]. I'm not sure what high school Con went to.

Con's Constructive

A famous goes like this: "A judge says, 'Sir, you claim that watch belongs to you even though 5 people swear they saw you steal it.' The man says, 'Your honor, I can show you 500 people who didn't see me steal it.'" Similarly, OP's constructive relies on people in China (which has very restricted speech) claiming that they aren't payed by the Chinese government. But videos not showing a camp aren't proof of anything. Maybe they are being payed and lying, or maybe they just didn't see the camps firsthand. BBC also uses dark filters, but none of the examples show them actually altering content, which Chinese news sources actually have done. None of this counters the evidence for the Chinese detainment of Uyghurs in any way. None of what the vloggers show addresses the leaked documents or interviews I provided. OP cites Chinese-controlled media and 45 countries with poor human rights records of their own. Regardless, this is about evidence, not opinions.

Yes, these people are innocent

Their existence is being wrong. Maybe the fact they traveled abroad is seen as wrong, the fact they practice Muslim too much is seen as wrong, etc.

Just because China considers these things "wrong" doesn't mean that they are. Why should innocent people be detained when they aren't harming anyone?

Nobody just take people randomly without reason.

Hitler rounded up Jews and killed them. Leaders will do plenty of extreme things to maintain power, that doesn't make it right.

07.30.2022 04:38PM

Con

1. Zenz & Media

My opponent did not deny that:

Zenz was a far-right extremist, a Christian fundamentalist, an anti-communist, etc. Such persons would be what you expect a person biased against China would be like.
Zenz utilized false fata(flawed at best). He uses job interviews as sources to guess the amount of people inside the supposedly "prison camps". Zenz's only record in Xinjiang was that he was there once, in 2007, as a tourist, not as an investigator. He ADMITS that these figures were just speculation but allowed media presses to advocate firmly that these are actual figures. Other figures which are given to such as CNN are also faked.
Zenz works with other anti-Chinese agencies in America, Australia, and even cites from a purposefully separatist group(obvious bias) on TV so as to spread it. They publish journals on specifically US-funded anti-China platforms on such as RFA. RFA then explicitly state that Zenz was following an anti-China plan. Real propaganda.
Zenz's works misinterpret "motivation and advocation of work" to "forced labor", then misinterprets "The Government provides them service" to "The Government assigns them and monitors them", etc.

Surely, speculation is a common technique. However, Zenz's technique was nowhere close to being authentic. Using job interviews and the internet to figure a statistic that was important enough to shock the world, would that be what you call "Good application"? There is not one source stating that Zenz went in any of the camps he wrote about. That is like looking up the sky and estimate the number of stars with that. The fact that this bigoted prejudiced half-of-a-master is even allowed to lead in projects like this despite admittedly having short of evidence is a problem. You cannot consider Zenz a credible source.

Source

Adrian Zenz keeps repeating the claim that millions of Uighurs have been detained in Xinjiang, China. But in fact, there is never any evidence to confirm this. The data is seriously insufficient and subjectively radical. It looks more like a new rhetoric to smear China. The US “Workers World ” website published an article “Behind the U.S. anti-China campaign”, which pointed out the essence of the US report on Xinjiang: “How much of the coverage of Xinjiang is intended to deflect world attention from the continuing crimes of U.S. wars — from Afghanistan to Syria? ”

In fact, all Adrian Zenz’s remarks are based on two unconvincing “data”. One is the China Human Rights Defenders Network, which is supported by the US government. The organization concluded that China has held millions of Uighurs only by interviewing eight Uighurs. The second is completely dependent on media reports and speculation. Adrian Zenz’s usual method is to claim that he has learned some internal materials, or to use “information by insiders” to cover up the truth without any evidence.

This is not a Chinese news source. NCHRD cited by Pro[1] is a US-funded media like RFA. Not only that, no matter how objective BBC and CNN are otherwise, they both have a history of spreading anti-China lies before Xinjiang's coverage, especially since they are likely funded by the US government and were shown to be the first ones to be handed Zenz's faulty reports.

Also, consider how easy it is to change meanings in an anti-China way(examples listed for DIRECT TRANSLATIONS above). At this point, it wouldn't be surprising that media like CNN are doing exactly that. Nowhere did anything in Pro's CNN citation directly cite that people are being put in "prison" for growing a beard and praying, other than a "replication" of a document in English, with the original obviously in Chinese. Nowhere was it cited where these data came from except from "Zenz", who has an infamously bad repulation. The Chinese-languaged report on top of it, though, states one entry that someone is punished because they participated in a separatist movement, which brings terrorism; and several stating that others are not subjected to punishment. Only suspects of such actions are stated to punishment. None gives out punishment for being religious. Wordings are translated to be of a stricter tone than they already mean(when similar wordings are used in schools, I can confirm). The data are so easy to be faked and frankly, the "real" data they are from is probably fake too. And, CNN probably doesn't know what they are talking about or is twisting on purpose. Also, they used the account of a single person(possibly two), without crediting what documents were "leaked".

Not only that, but Pro's source also indicate that these camps decrease the number of separatist attacks significantly after three years. That is improvement to society. Are you really using that as evidence against me?

Con claims that [4] is common in high schools. But do Chinese authorities try to deny that high schools exist? If these camps aren't oppressive, why is China denying that they exist?

That's it. Only other difference. Or, the simpler explanation, they really are just schools to teach the way of the land they are in. Verdict: Not enough evidence.

The Associated Press has found that women in camps are being forcibly sterilized or forced to have abortions [8]. This corroborates claims by Zenz [9]. I'm not sure what high school Con went to.

As for [8], even Ambassadors in UK denies it. Also, the sterilization has no citations, and the Chinese-language text was...just that the application for money for raising child was declined due to this being their 3rd child without proper registration, which is a policy applied EVERYWHERE in China. Also, if Bloggers in China can be paid actors, so can these "witnesses", because the plan utilized by Zenz and the US is already presented.

As for [9], no, corroborating Zenz does not mean it is a reliable source. [6] is RFA.

2. My sources

A famous goes like this: "A judge says, 'Sir, you claim that watch belongs to you even though 5 people swear they saw you steal it.' The man says, 'Your honor, I can show you 500 people who didn't see me steal it.'"

But I can bring you 500 people who saw that someone else stole it, instead of you. That is my argument. I will admit that some of my sources are not authentic enough, but some are and Pro brushed them off just because they are "Chinese", despite them utilizing already-made English sources. For example, Con [3] last round was never disproven straightfowardly.

For example, this, Con [6] last round. An American agent actively speaks of the plan of using separatists to topple China. Still dropped.

Then, evidence debunks Buzzfeed's locations of "camps". For example, one site they call a "Camp" is actually residental buildings with 5-star reviews. (Reminder that ASPI is a strategic institute working with US and Zenz) The other "open prison ground" is actually an advanced electronics research center. Max Blumenthal of the Grayzone(which is NOT a China-based news) opened up with evidence saying that it is the lies of America. Who is Max Blumenthal? Definitely not a Chinese spy.

What is funnier is that another(anti-China) blogger followed Buzzfeed's guide and found many camps, expected them to be prison camps, only to be uncovered to NOT be. Drug rehab centres and ACTUAL prisons(with actual criminals) are being identified as "concentration camps". Hills he expected to be "guarded" were found out NOT be, with people fishing on it. These are all classified as "sure of a 'camp'" on Buzzfeed, but are debunked with maps and visits. Exactly, nowadays there is nowhere you are sure of being a camp. Also, the few bloggers just went to a site thought was a "camp", but wasn't.

The filter trick is with actual evidence. On the left is the real Chinese footage and on the right is the one used by BBC in the west. Not only that, CNN misinterpreted a scene where a normal girl is crying as "evidence of oppression". The same source shows screenshots of ambassadors in the US denying it with justifications, as well as western representatives posponing investigations despite China being open about it.

All above are Chinese sources using non-manipulated already-there evidence. There is no evidence of China actually altering the contents of anything, none that can stand the course of criticism, considering the ease of altering meanings in English and the presence of Zenz's grand plan. Most if not all western news outlet cite Zenz on the topic, which is shown to have been faked to a degree.

And if paying a few bloggers is easy, so is paying a few "witnesses" to speak against China towards news outlets in a lair of separatism(CNN isn't poor, etc). If you say that these bloggers are not credible source, you are equally denying all these reports involving witnesses and victims(with bad translations, you can change those too, or even fabricate).

3. Innocence

Just because China considers these things "wrong" doesn't mean that they are. Why should innocent people be detained when they aren't harming anyone?

If true, that would mean growing beard and praying is considered harming the Government. Jews were considered harmful to the land by Hitler. Remember, those who had no wrongdoings are treated like in a boarding school, but only for suspects and such, they get punishment. You don't detain people, your "Chinese government" does, and they consider such behavior harming them and not innocent, especially since they are subject to Chinese law. As someone likely as experienced as Zenz, you probably don't have a say on whether these people are considered innocent compared to who they really belong to, according to you.

So yeah, they are either a fabricated lie or they are non-innocent. Pro never proved his title statement correct. I rest my case here.

Round 3

07.30.2022 06:27PM

Pro

Zenz has conservative views, but far-right is an exaggeration. He's probably anti-communist, but so are a lot of people. As I explained before, having personal biases doesn't mean he's going to completely fabricate documents. He also works with a team of other experts—these aren't the accusations of one man. My opponent cites opinion articles from zexprwire.com with no sources in order to show that Zenz has lied in the past. Again, Zenz is making estimates which experts do all the time. We know that China is detaining a large number of innocent people but not the exact number. Obviously, estimates are going to fluctuate; this is not evidence of lying. We don't even know the exact number of people killed in concentration camps decades after the fact. How would Zenz know the exact number while in another country, while China doesn't even have a free press?

Zenz's works misinterpret "motivation and advocation of work" to "forced labor", then misinterprets "The Government provides them service" to "The Government assigns them and monitors them", etc.

People are forced to enter the camps and forcefully sterilized. This is clearly unjust and meets the UN definition of genocide [1].

Using job interviews and the internet to figure a statistic that was important enough to shock the world, would that be what you call "Good application"?

If there are a significant number of people working at relocation camps, this is pretty good evidence that those camps are significant in size or number. There's also a lot of other evidence I've shown from Zenz and from other sources.

"China Human Rights Defenders is a non-government organization of domestic and overseas Chinese human rights activists and groups" [2]. There's no evidence that BBC and CNN are US-funded, and even if they are, both of them have strongly criticized the US government in the past [3] [4]. Would a Chinese news source ever attack Xi Jinping for offending people in America? BBC and CNN are also free to publish articles in favor of China under free speech laws.

Fact-checkers attack CNN and other news sources for lying all the time [5]. If CNN was lying about the content of leaked documents, a fact checker could call them out on it. Regardless of whether these camps are called "prison" or not, people are being forcefully detained. A prison by any other name is still a prison.

without crediting what documents were "leaked"

The China Cables documents can be read here [6]. They've been published in plenty of places, CNN is just giving more context.

That's it. Only other difference.

China denying that the camps exist is a very big difference and it's definitely not the only difference. People in high schools aren't forcefully sterilized. Adults aren't forced to go to high school for having a beard or wearing a veil. The camps aren't meant to educate but indoctrinate, robbing people of their freedom. But because China denies that the camps exist, it's likely that there are a lot of human rights abuses going on.

As for [8], even Ambassadors in UK denies it.

Of course he does. He's a Chinese ambassador and probably doesn't want his family detained. According to AP,

While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor.

So the source is the interviews with 30 ex-detainees. AP and Zenz are two separate sources, corroborating each other on forced sterilization.

if Bloggers in China can be paid actors, so can these "witnesses", because the plan utilized by Zenz and the US is already presented.

Zenz and AP aren't controlled by the US government. Zenz is also a researcher with clear qualifications working with a team of people, unlike vloggers who are just giving opinion. The Associated Press is a news source with a history of giving reliable information [7]:

Recognized for its integrity and accuracy, the organization has collected and published presidential election data since 1848.

For example, Con [3] last round was never disproven straightfowardly.

This accuses Zenz of being ultra-conservative and mistranslating Chinese sources. But hardly any of his translations can be seen as inaccurate. Obviously people providing "service" to Uyghur detainees are monitoring them. Unfortunately, I don't know Chinese so I can't translate the terms for myself; if Con can send me a written source I could investigate the translation accusations more thoroughly using an online translator. I also don't know if the documents being highlighted in the video are even accurate.

The filter trick is with actual evidence.

The examples shown are just improving lighting. For all we know, the Chinese government are the ones changing the lighting and the BBC is telling the truth.

And if paying a few bloggers is easy, so is paying a few "witnesses" to speak against China towards news outlets in a lair of separatism(CNN isn't poor, etc).

But CNN is a large group of people and whistleblowers in the US have legal protection. They can't just invent a genocide, especially since the China Cables documents have been published in dozens of places. They're not even from CNN, CNN just wrote an article about them. China Human Rights Defenders is an international group. Creating a multi-national conspiracy would be near impossible especially since plenty of those countries have free speech.

In contrast, Chinese media has a long history of lying about human rights abuses [8]. Con's sources are just people on Chinese news media making claims. It's easy to say "this was called an internment camp but isn't" but that isn't reliable evidence at all, especially since China doesn't have free speech. The Chinese government has every incentive to accuse CNN of lying to defend itself. The Associated Press has every incentive to maintain its reputation as a reliable news source by not fabricating evidence.

If true, that would mean growing beard and praying is considered harming the Government. Jews were considered harmful to the land by Hitler. Remember, those who had no wrongdoings are treated like in a boarding school, but only for suspects and such, they get punishment.

Detaining innocent people is wrong. It was wrong when the US and Canada did it with Internment camps. It was wrong when Hitler did it in Germany. Might does not make right. Just because a one-party tyrannical government detains people to prevent criticism doesn't make it justified. Also, the topic we're debating is whether innocent Uyghur Muslims are being detained, not whether this is justified (it isn't). One of Con's sources basically admitted that Uyghurs were being detained when they said that the detainees were just being "serviced" instead of "monitored".

07.31.2022 10:49AM

Con

BoP

There is no specification in the description so it defaults to Pro. If nothing has been proven and we are still in the middle ground by the end, Pro still loses.

Zenz

ZexPrWire is NOT a Chinese-biased media and is both considered well-sourced and is founded and funded in America. Also, that article cited in R2 agrees with Con1 [3], in which the only rebuttal he has given for that as of this point is doubting the translations. We will get there. Said article does quote another article with even more sources from Grayzone founded by Blumenthal and is not a Chinese-based source.

Con commits reductio ad absurdum by saying that Zenz being far right is a stretch, despite him working in Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a far-right foundation funded by the US who downplays the historical importance of the holocaust. That couldn't be a sign of credibility. He also published in Jamestown Foundation, another US-funded platform, along with the ones we know like RFA and CHRD(quoted here too).

Zenz does not speak Chinese. Not only that, he openly quotes not only from job interviews, but a separatist group on Istiqal TV, infamous for defaming China in other occasions, even supporting other Muslim terrorist groups on occasions. Pro says that his estimation is a result from that he can't obtain accurate figures due to China being strict, but if that is the case, if the figure is basically unobtainable, that could mean only one thing: fabrication. The fact that Zenz hasn't even been in Xinjiang in 1.5 decades and only gathered from biased or non-representative sources while himself being US-biased and thought it was "the will of God" to be anti-China basically tells you how unlikely it is for him to be credible at all. He should be allowed nowhere near a research group of his "profession" after creating such an unreliable report.

And, APnews wrote an article about Uyghur Muslims being terrorists and separatists, due to separatist forces like ETIM. Another article written by another non-Chinese source agrees with Grayzone. If you say it again with the "no sources" thing, I will say one more time, using Zenz as primary sourcing is like none.

Another source from Grayzone shows how the US government funds anti-China media to speak bad about Xinjiang, such as CHRD and RFA. This time, the documents are there, in original condition, in English like it should, without any chance of mistranslation.

Rebuttal: Sources

People are forced to enter the camps and forcefully sterilized. This is clearly unjust and meets the UN definition of genocide

Said who? Zenz and RFA(all else likely sprung from those 2, including CHRD). CHRD says it is "reliable" despite evidence showing it is funded by the US to defame China. (No Pro response on Zenz's line regarding how much Xinjiang media attention to be deflected from US Middle East wars). Also, Zexprwire and Grayzone also say this despite holding opposite view.

There's no evidence that BBC and CNN are US-funded, and even if they are, both of them have strongly criticized the US government in the past [3] [4].

Except Con1 [3] shows that BBC and CNN are given Zenz's report and thought it was accurate and passed it around. The source material was never proven to be accurate, along with him having biased sources and him being biased.

If CNN was lying about the content of leaked documents, a fact checker could call them out on it.

I did. Many videos, many articles about proving Zenz's sources wrong. Some of them went dropped. Also, there is nothing stopping CNN and BBC from publishing anti-China articles, as I have shown R2.

But because China denies that the camps exist, it's likely that there are a lot of human rights abuses going on.

Or...because they don't exist. With the US's history of funding media to speak bad about China, because the US denies it, it is likely there lies shady business, according to this logic.

[6]

The 1st bulletin only concerns people without a visa nor a passport. That is considered illegal for everyone in China.

The 2nd only concerns people suspected of crimes and not everybody.

The 3rd one is about bringing more effort in investigation of people, and treating the people with crime history more seriously. Most people would pass through here.

The 4th one is about deleting an app that spreads terrorism and separatism and stating the harms of the app.

I know Chinese, I can confirm.

The telegram states those that are common in a boarding school. People are supposed to learn the ways of their land they are on, not leave without permission, and defend against such as earthquakes and COVID variants, and not leak important data to outside groups (such as ETIM).

Similarly, the English version was more "urgent" in tone due to many words being uncommon and associated with authoritarianism despite them being extremely common in China and in fact used in Schools. A Chinese expert have stated that it is near impossible for Americans to understand what these are because of the different conditions. In China, schools taught that obedience and patriotism is vital in the education.

TL:DR: People in Xinjiang are being treated like normal students.

if these are simply educational meetings instead of government propaganda, why are people being detained for wearing veils or having long beards?

Because people aren't detained because of that, the evidence just isn't enough. CNN uses Zenz sources and a replication in English, when it is very prone of misunderstanding and making the tone sound harsher, and unlike a carbon copy, is fakable.

But CNN is a large group of people and whistleblowers in the US have legal protection. They can't just invent a genocide

Zenz and his fellow Americans and Australians invented it, CNN just took them as authentic and forgot to check. Only sterilization source was from Zenz, justifying it would be circular reasoning.

Creating a multi-national conspiracy would be near impossible

Reductio ad absurdum again, despite presented evidence

Rebuttal: Translation

Pro never debunk the truthfulness of Con1 [3], merely doubted the translations(because he didn't know Chinese). Let me put that into Microsoft translation.

下乡宣传引导：Go to the countryside to publicize and guide

劳动力自愿参与：Voluntary participation of the labour force

打造“站，组，企”三位一体的管理服务体系：Create a "station, group, enterprise" trinity of management service system

First, the labor is merely advocated and voluntary instead of forced. Second, the Management service system works FOR them, instead of monitoring against them. by definition. Dictionary definition states that "service" is working FOR them also, making their lives easier and not harder. If you consider them hard, chances are that it is as hard as the average Chinese student, like me.

These translations are all mistranslated terms highlighted in Yellow in Con1 [3]. Even a machine does a better job than Zenz. The documents never imply that people are forced to go. Also, such as BBC have been EAGERLY requesting for evidence in Con1 [3], something not debunked, it is not impossible that they would bribe people to say bad things about it when they know it is against the rules they once agreed upon, and it is not impossible that separatist groups like ETIM have infiltrated the "camps" and bribed or brainwashed the people with coordination by the US's funds(shown by Grayzone, existent)

Rebuttal: Innocence

First, the "guiltiness" of veils and praying, etc. have never been proven by either documents nor by real authentic sources. Only REAL suspects are being contained like prisons and there is no evidence otherwise that is reliable and intact from Zenz's malicious deceptive works funded by the US.

Second, if Pro is true, that means they are at least Chinese people and are subject to Chinese law, which they are sentenced as guilty according to them, according to Pro's sources. Pro's morals have no say on people in other countries. You can always advocate for people, but until a verdict has arrived, they are always what they were: Guilty according to sources. They are always detained for a reason, which is seen as harmful to the people running those "camps", so they aren't exactly "innocent" no matter what narrative we look upon.

Pro never proved that "Innocent people" are detained because when they are detained(as opposed to just being school-like environment), they are already guilty.

Dropped points

A US agent speaking out about a plan of using Xinjiang separatism to topple China
Bloggers going to what was considered "concentration camps" by sources are actually NOT camps, some of them are research facilities, housings, and real prisons, etc

We don't know if there is even such camps existing.

For such as raising a child with no proper credentials, such policies are enforced everywhere in China
The vast majority of Con1[3], with US tied to many separatists and anti-Chinese agencies, and Zenz citing biased sources from himself being biased.
Non-Chinese sources that are considered credible agree with CON

Other Conclusions

Pro used reductio ad absurdum to refute doubt about Zenz, and fails in doing that
Evidence used states in Chinese that the condition is not that bad and forced labor is debunked
No evidence that CNN's allegations used authentic evidence(we have seen how even a small change affects the tone)
The US directly funds such as RFA
Zenz is not a reliable source based on his bias
There has been zero documents of China actually manipulating data, and the only argument supporting this was that China did it once before, whereas there is DIRECT evidence that the US manipulated data
Either they don't exist or they aren't innocent because they are Chinese citizens.

Vote CON!

Round 4

07.31.2022 08:51PM

Pro

ZexPrWire

Con's source that ZexPrWire is well-sourced comes from ZexPrWire itself. But my main issue is that the specific articles Con links to from the cite don't give an author or any sources to back up their claims (except for Grayzone, which I will soon address). So far as I can tell, anyone could be writing articles on ZexPrWire. I can't find any information about them outside of their own website, suggesting that they aren't a very credible source.

Grayzone

Grayzone's entire premise is that the UN did not report that China has internment camps, when in fact ONCHR did report this. ONCHR is a body of independent experts, as Grayzone states, but it does operate under the UN [1]. Max Blumenthal, the founder of Grayzone, is known for spreading conspiracy theories [2]. Note that much of Con's evidence in the previous round comes from this site.

Zenz

Zenz works in the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. This would be no worse than working in a Victims of Fascism Memorial Foundation. Both communist and fascist regimes have killed many people [3]; recognizing this does not hurt Zenz' credibilty. Despite its name, the CCP has adopted many capitalist policies [4] and is more of a mixed economy than anything else. Furthermore, a stupid thing Trump said does not equate to the entire US government downplaying the Holocaust, and it definitely doesn't implicate Zenz. By this logic, anyone working for any organization funded by any country would be guilty of downplaying the Holocaust.

Perhaps Istiqlal TV is right about some things and wrong about others. Istiqal is a political group but doesn't have the same history of lying that Blumenthal has. The fact that one of their articles was republished on Newsweek suggests it may in fact be credible. But none of my evidence has come from that specific article; I've cited only the evidence that I believe is the most credible.

Pro says that his estimation is a result from that he can't obtain accurate figures due to China being strict, but if that is the case, if the figure is basically unobtainable, that could mean only one thing: fabrication.

Not necessarily. Zenz was very clever to use employment records that China wasn't trying to censor. These don't give an exact number, but do give a rough estimate.

An AP News article wrote about some Uyghur Muslims being terrorists, not all of them [5]. My issue is with innocent people being detained. Con has anticipated that I will criticize his article [6] for having no sources. Zenz is credible because he uses actual documents and evidence to support his claims. I wouldn't have a problem with these opinin articles if they gave evidence for how they arrived at their conclusions. I've already addressed the claims they make about Zenz' credibility.

CHRD says it is "reliable" despite evidence showing it is funded by the US to defame China. (No Pro response on Zenz's line regarding how much Xinjiang media attention to be deflected from US Middle East wars).

There is no evidence that CHRD is being funded by the US to defame China. It's not an offshoot of any government [7].

China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) is a non-government organization of domestic and overseas Chinese human rights activists and groups.

Con further speculates:

No Pro response on Zenz's line regarding how much Xinjiang media attention to be deflected from US Middle East wars

We could literally say this about anything. Covid drew attention away from the Hong Kong protests; should we suddenly assume that China released covid intentionally? This is pure speculation that doesn't provide any reason why Zenz would invent a genocide in a foreign country.

Con doesn't attack BBC and CNN, just their sources; he mainly attacks Zenz and others for misinterpreting the documents. I'll deal with that now.

People in Xinjiang are being treated like normal students

Except I provided a lot of evidence from multiple sources that adults are being forced to enter the camps and being forcibly sterilized. The leaked documents I showed stated that people were being detained for cultural customs like wearing a veil or having a long beard. The telegram documents Con is discussing simply give more information about these detention centers (we already know about the human rights abuses from other sources).

Translation

Con attacks Zenz for mistranslating certain terms. He's not attacking Zenz for mistranslating the more serious claims I've made (such as that people are being detained for religious customs). Instead, Con argues that because Zenz mistranslated one document, he's probably fabricated the other documents entirely. A lot of these translations are subjective, so it's ridiculous to claim that because Zenz translated the document one way out of several possible ways that he would invent new documents altogether.

下乡宣传引导 can be translated as "Going to the Countryside [for] Propaganda and Guidance", according to Google Translate. Another translator refers to "publicizing" instead of propaganda. Since the next part talks about voluntary participation as a separate thing, it's implied that the first program (Propaganda) isn't voluntary. Zenz argues that there's a clear distinction between the voluntary participation and the government-led version, implying that the second isn't voluntary. This is a reasonable assumption to make, and Zenz doesn't lie about anything in the documents. This doesn't give any indication that he would completely fabricate other documents. If this was really just "motivating people to get employed," why would it be clearly considered separate from the "voluntary labor" system? Con is providing evidence against the Chinese government here.

Zenz isn't translating directly here, he's summarizing. The "management system" is clearly going to "manage" the workers (and it has been implied earlier in the document that not all the labor is voluntary). Zenz is connecting the dots here, taking into account the entire document.

it is not impossible that separatist groups like ETIM have infiltrated the "camps" and bribed or brainwashed the people with coordination by the US's funds

Did they go to eight separate villages and bribe everyone to lie about people being taken away by the government when interviewed by human rights groups? I'm aware that Pro has the burden of proof here, but if Con is going to rely on outlandish conspiracy theories from a known conspiracy theorist, he's going to need more than speculation.

First, the "guiltiness" of veils and praying, etc. have never been proven by either documents nor by real authentic sources.

I provided sources, but Con rejects anything that's passed through Zenz' hands. ICIJ said that 40% of the adult population was being detained (The I stands for International). Clearly a significant number of innocent people are being detained, according to multiple reliable sources.

they are at least Chinese people and are subject to Chinese law, which they are sentenced as guilty according to them

By this logic, it would be impossible for a government to harm innocent people, because the government does not consider them innocent. Innocent has a legal definition and a moral definition. When a government is accused of harming innocent people, it's clearly implied that those people are innocent of wrongdoing, and unjustly targeted by that government. Innocent people were enslaved in America. Innocent people were prosecuted by their own government in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany.

Dropped points

All of these are individuals speculating without evidence. The sources Con linked to are non-credible, controlled by the Chinese government, or don't support his case. (I've addressed this in my points above.)

There has been zero documents of China actually manipulating data, and the only argument supporting this was that China did it once before, whereas there is DIRECT evidence that the US manipulated data

Every government manipulates data, but the sources I'm using are independent of any government. China controls its media. That's the difference.

Conclusion: Who should be trusted?

I've cited Adrian Zenz, a think tank member with a master's degree and years of experience [8]. I've cited trusted media outlets and international human rights groups who've interviewed first-hand witnesses. Con has cited state-controlled propaganda outlets, a blog run by a known conspiracy theorist, and vloggers; essentially individuals speculating. My sources make conclusions based on evidence, not speculation. Con hasn't attacked this evidence but instead argued that my sources are unreliable altogether based on minor translation arguments.

I noticed something Con said in Round 1 that I think ought to be relevant here:

I suggest downloading a Chinese VPN if possible in case if some of my sources cannot be accessed by US or other countries' internets, because some sources are from Bilibili, which is a Chinese video site like Youtube and Niconico.

I accessed these sites easily. It should be noted that China's method of censoring information is completely unheard of in America, and it begs an important question. Which government really has something to hide? Which government doesn't want its citizens to find the truth or think for themselves?

Who is more likely to bend the truth, democratically-elected officials or a one-party state that doesn't even trust its own people?

08.01.2022 09:59AM

Con

1. Dropped points

The sources Con linked to are non-credible, controlled by the Chinese government, or don't support his case.

Con1[6] is original English footage of a US gov. agent speaking about this plan. If Pro can see the video about BBC filters, he should be able to see this.

The blog posts involving Buzzfeed's faulty research about camps are collectives of unaltered screenshots from non-Chinese websites.

Con1[3] still has not been challenged aside from translations(we will get there), which also involves snapshots of original documents in English, including ones such as the US funding RFA. Such documents, also appearing in original text in English, appears in the Grayzone report. These documents are never properly addressed by Pro. If CNN's English remake of a Chinese document is "accurate", then dismissing an English document in English like it is supposed to be is baseless.

but the sources I'm using are independent of any government. China controls its media.

There has been evidence in documents of Zenz fautily gathering data from biased sources, mistranslating pivotal terms, half-assing a report requested by BBC, being funded by the US, while he himself being anti-China, is not in Xinjiang, nor speaks Chinese at all. There has been no document that shows the Chinese government manipulating data, at least none brought up. Dismissing sources just because they have something to do with China does not work, as there has only been a history of China doing so, but them doing it now is pure speculation. What I have for US and Zenz's manipulation is text, documents, in English, yet to be debunked.

2. Media

ZexPrWire

Says the person who openly quotes CHRD saying they themselves are reliable and independent despite being funded by the US. (Documents in English) If Zexprwire is of concern for Pro, then CHRD and RFA sources ought to be nullified as well.

Grayzone

Blumenthal has only been a part of a Russian conspiracy, but there has been NO evidence that he has any business to do with China, no documents, not even Wikipedia statements. Plus, ignore Grayzone's "hot takes", and what you are left are a mountain of evidence, coming from elsewhere:

Separatist and Racist tweets from Istiqal TV, making it a biased source
AP news article(the point is that separatism lure people into becoming terrorists, not that some are innocent)
That VFM foundation, where Zenz worked, downplays holocaust
Unaltered documents in English(already shown)
That Zenz thinks it is "Godly" to be racist

You are dismissing all these sources from elsewhere, just because they are quoted by Grayzone. You never debunked them.

Just because Communism did kill people does not automatically negate VFM foundation from being a racist organization. There lacks counterproof. Maybe Istiqal isn't that open, but the fact that Zenz use it as a source while being biased shows how unreliable his report is. Just because they are being published on Newsweek and arguing for it is an Appeal to Authority and proves nearly nothing.

3. Translation

it's implied that the first program (Propaganda) isn't voluntary

Said someone who said they don't speak Chinese. In context, the two terms together mean: "We tell you the benefits of this program, but you can also go straight to the application" The clear distinction is whether your knowledge to the program is through recruitment or not. Recruitment tells more "Hey comrade, check it out, it is good" rather than "This is not your choice, come with me." Do you see US military recruiters randomly pulling young men out of streets forcefully? No. Propaganda, publicizing and guide all mean similar things: To inform, suggest, convince, and NOT to order you to do anything involuntarily.

These terms are the foundation of Zenz believing that Xinjiang people were ordered and watched against volition, it is pivotal. Yet, even English definition disprove this. Zenz messed up something even a computer couldn't(while not speaking Chinese nor understanding), he is obviously not qualified.

The "management system" is clearly going to "manage" the workers

I assume all these conclusions were from an English version, and you saw how faulty they could be. Also, I can confirm that my interpretation was in-context, as opposed to Pro's.

4. Zenz

Zenz is credible because he uses actual documents and evidence to support his claims.

Name one reliable evidence. Don't say RFA because it will be circular reasoning.

Not necessarily. Zenz was very clever to use employment records that China wasn't trying to censor. These don't give an exact number, but do give a rough estimate.

First, Pro did not prove my interpretation to be actually wrong. If China won't reveal it easily, then there is no reason to believe these figures were accurate in any form. Second, Con1[3] also says that the figure comes from Istiqal the biased source, which isn't to be trusted. This figure came from sources not fit for representation but he gave BBC and such media as if they ARE sure evidence, even after he himself admitting it is an estimate.

It's not an offshoot of any government [7].

The Wiki article cites directly from CHRD itself. Of course it is not gonna tell you. I respond with the figures in English for the Grayzone article, in pictures.

This is pure speculation that doesn't provide any reason why Zenz would invent a genocide in a foreign country.

Not unless you are working with US and Australian agencies who are internationally anti-China. Pro has provided no credible evidence that Zenz is not controlled by them but credible evidence from Con disproves it.

Con doesn't attack BBC and CNN, just their sources

BBC is infamous for requesting a report(which turned out to be half-assed) from Zenz(and citing him), and CNN took "People arrested for beard" from a "replica" without the original Chinese version present, while misinterpreting another one(while also citing him). Honestly, these are easier to fake than the US funding checks.

BBC and CNN are free to report anti-Chinese content, and they are handed a report they thought was more reliable than it really is. Saying those are unarguably true without anything else is an appeal to authority.

but Con rejects anything that's passed through Zenz' hands.

Because quoting Zenz as the foundation of a report makes it a LOT less reliable, I have given my uncontended evidence.

Did they go to eight separate villages and bribe everyone to lie

Considering the US's reputation of funding media to thrash China who they don't like, if China can bribe bloggers, so could the US bribing them. By saying this, either this collapses, or that Chinese reports cannot be just dismissed(there is no evidence of them doing that like Zenz and the US did). In either of those scenarios, Con proves his point. Also, the impossibility was never proven.

that adults are being forced to enter the camps and being forcibly sterilized.

The main statistic for all that was given by Zenz, which makes it extremely questionable. Reliable media given unreliable source. If Pro dismisses Grayzone and its sources for its author, then by that measure I could dismiss all articles that quote Zenz. A different statistic about it, and evidence beyond obviously fakable interviews, was never given.

Also, people who does not understand the Chinese version of the documents in context are less qualified to speak about this issue, consider Zenz misinterpreted the meaning of a word and the context while being biased, an error that can be avoided by bots today, and Zenz allowed media to enlarge those discrepancies.

5. Innocence

There are acknowledged by Pro two interpretations of "innocent", one legal, which would prove my point. The reason they are not considered "innocent" is that no matter who they are, they are given a reason to be "imprisoned" even if we follow that narrative. On the contrary, detaining people for no reason is detaining innocent people. Being Jewish or indigenous is not illegal, yet in the past they are being slaved and detained, that is for "Innocent people". In this case, all of them were given a reason they are being detained, and not just because they are Muslim(In this case, the "crime" is praying unauthorized, not being themselves), which makes them legally guilty for the country they belong to, according to Pro's sources.

And if it is "moral innocence", there has been no proof of an objective moral system nor was there any evidence that "the majority of the people disagreed with this decision" that were presented here. So yeah, Pro still didn't prove their innocence, or even existence.

Conclusions

Pro trusting Zenz and CNN just because they were certified is appeal to authority, if not outright circular reasoning
Mountain of evidence piles against Pro, even if we dismiss the publishers:

Zenz, RFA, CHRD, etc. worked with the US, and Zenz worked with ASPI and Jamestown, also funded by the US

CHRD quotes itself to be "reliable"

Zenz made obvious context and translation mistakes on pivotal terms and then speculates on that, as "evidence"
Zenz is a racist, and quotes the biased Istiqal TV

AP news proves that separatism and terrorism is harmful in this case

Zenz passes estimates as accurate figures to BBC and such
BBC and CNN are free to be anti-China

CNN used obviously non-solid evidence, so did many others

Buzzfeed's published locations are debunked
US Gov agent openly admits such a plan

Pro saying that China is less trusted than US on this matter is pure speculation with no real evidence and goes against solid evidence
Pro does not understand context in Chinese and is not reliable to give such an argument
Pro never proved those people to be innocent even if we trust his sources
Overall, Pro failed to fulfill his burden of Proof, and Con illustrated why. Vote CON.

I rest my case.

whiteflame

08.27.2022 05:10PM

#42

-->

@Intelligence_06

@christianm

I do plan to vote on this one, received a request to do so from Intelligence. Should have it up by the end of the weekend.

Barney

08.17.2022 06:57AM

#41

-->

@Intelligence_06

@christianm

@Best.Korea

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Insufficient weighting.

To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************

Barney

08.17.2022 06:49AM

#40

Best.Korea
Added: 15 days ago
I was asked to give the vote. So here it is.
Since there is a chance sources are false, there is really no way to know which sources to trust. Media being free doesnt mean media wont lie.
So if it was up to these sources alone, we wouldnt be able to tell who is correct or more likely to be correct.
But the arguments seem to be in favor of Pro. His probability argument, Chinas great history of violation of human rights, and Chinas censorship label China as suspect in the least case. So while there is no full proof that favors Pro, there is probability argument mentioned by the Pro which makes him more likely to be right than wrong in this debate. Sources, while they may be equal when considering this isolated case, when used with the argument of probability and the history of China including its modern history they add to the pattern. So the odds are in favor of Pro especially considering that topic doesnt say millions of muslims. The odds that there is no, for example, 8 or more of innocent Uyghur muslims being detained in any way seem unlikely, especially when we are talking about the country famous for doing much worse things on much larger scale just as Pro noticed and Con never refuted. Con even confirmed Chinas mass censorship, which is another thing turning the scales in Pros favor.
So while there is no full proof, the proof of probability of being right is greatly on Pros side. Now, if the conditions of winning an argument require full proof, then let my vote be removed. I just voted because I was asked to vote.

whiteflame

08.15.2022 11:27PM

#39

-->

@Intelligence_06

I’ll vote, seems like I have a while.

08.15.2022 11:19PM

#38

-->

@whiteflame

please?

08.14.2022 03:04PM

#37

-->

@RationalMadman

@Intelligence_06

I've found that when you "give to get," RationalMadman just insults you

RationalMadman

08.14.2022 06:39AM

#36

-->

@Intelligence_06

Give to get

08.14.2022 06:38AM

#35

-->

@RationalMadman

@Barney

@oromagi

@Bones

@Novice_II

This debate clearly needs quality votes.

08.08.2022 07:13AM

#34

This debate needs more votes.

Barney

08.06.2022 03:16PM

#33

Interesting kritik. I'll probably get around to voting on this.

08.02.2022 04:07PM

#32

-->

@Best.Korea

I did. You can do your own thing now, and I move on with mine.

08.02.2022 04:01PM

#31

-->

@Intelligence_06

I will say it one more time. If you think my vote is invalid, report it. I am not going to have endless debates about debates.

08.02.2022 03:42PM

#30

-->

@Best.Korea

"So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something."

Yes, and this is why you should not be voting Pro. Pro has agreed with the BoP to be on Pro, so the middle ground, which is likely what we have here according to you, actually favors Con.

Obviously Pro can just bring up proof of 2 suspects of the Uyghur ethnicity that turned out didn't commit crimes, but he never did that. We can't just assume we have created all that is possible under some lining foundation. An unused argument is one unused. Literally all of us except you knows that Pro needs full proof, or, just borderline, the best proof wins, not just probability.

"But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt."

What are we doing here? Picking sides or justifying them? We are DEBATING. The best argument wins. You did not show that. Pro did not use this probability argument either, so what you are doing is actually PICKING SIDES AND INVENTING A NEW POINT FOR THE SIDE, which is frowned upon on this site. You are supposed to show that Pro has the better set of points if you vote in favor of him, not because his side is easier to win.

08.02.2022 03:30PM

#29

-->

@Intelligence_06

If China has violated human rights before, that doesnt mean China will do so again. It just greatly increases the possibility of the new violations. Now, if China constantly violates human rights, that additionally increases the possibility.
Now, if China is famous for violating human rights of its own citizens every day, it becomes highly unlikely that none out of 12 millions of Uyghur muslims experienced bad treatment from China. Hence, the probability argument.
And you didnt really help your case with the "if detained, you are guilty" logic. That logic made no sense. To me, that seemed like an argument Stalin would make. It was refuted by Pro as an excuse to lock up anyone.
Now, the only thing going in your favor was the lack of full proof by the Pro.
But does the win require full proof,or a proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a probability outweight? Its not reasonable to doubt Pros position with the arguments he presented. The chance that Pro is wrong is actually so low it cant be considered a reasonable doubt.
So the only thing thats left is lack of full proof. But full proof, in my opinion, is not always required to be greatly convinced in something.
If one case has 99.99 percent of chance of being true, its an obvious preference over the opposite case that has 0.01 percent chance of being true. Taking these cases as equal is impossible.

08.02.2022 02:02PM

#28

-->

@Best.Korea

I suggest taking off your colored sunglasses and read my arguments again. I have wrote:
)an argument from tautology that only guilty people are detained if any
)that just because China’s history here doesn’t mean there is automatically someone detained there.
)Pro has the BoP, which he admits

It is one thing that you consider my sources not able to outweigh the other, and another to disregard my evidence and just speak from probability(especially since you admit Pro has no full proof, which he is supposed to have). The first one is fair, the second not so much.

I am strongly for you voting again. If you vote against me with a more credible verdict, I will take it, but I will not accept it if my reason for a loss is THIS.

08.02.2022 01:54PM

#27

-->

@Intelligence_06

U.S. is not even mentioned in the topic of a debate. But even if it is true, U.S. involvement doesnt lead to conclusion that China is completely innocent or that all Uyghurs are guilty. Just because U.S. is bad, that doesnt make China good.
Its not my fault you accepted a debate with topic that is impossible to disprove.
If the topic said millions of muslims, it would be different. But the topic didnt say what number of innocent Uyghur muslims is being detained. So it can be any number. 1000 or 500 or 100 or 20...
As I said, the only way you could disprove Pros position is by proving that no Uyghur muslims are innocent or that China has some advanced system of detaining only those who are guilty. The first one you didnt even prove, last one was disproved by history of China mentioned by the Pro.
After reading the debate, I was about 99% certain that Pro is right. So how could I vote for you, with the odds working against you?
Again, if you dont agree with my vote, report it and if mods think its not suitable they will remove it.
Also, if there is someone who thinks you have won the debate, that someone can vote for you. I am pretty sure everyone here has the ability to vote.

08.02.2022 12:38AM

#26

-->

@Best.Korea

You are dismissing my sources just because an unrelated thing China did. That is the opposite of what I told you o do.

There has been no evidence that China manipulated this event(only speculation), but there are several showing that the US did, with hard-to-fake evidence. Using what you used as a reason is arguably biased. Explain it further.

Did you even read my argument?

08.01.2022 06:01PM

#25

-->

@Intelligence_06

I already explained why I didnt give point to anyone when it comes to sources.
I can explain it even further.
The sources have no proof.
Cons sources dont disprove Pros position. They only served as counter to Pros sources. But since Pros position didnt depend on sources alone, but was also supported by historical facts of Chinas behavior, negation of Pros position by sources was impossible.

As for the arguments, it was obvious that Con cant possibly prove that all Uyghurs are terrorists, or that only the guilty Uyghurs are detained.
Pro didnt fully prove that innocent Uyghurs are being detained.
But he did prove that China does have a habbit and history of detaining innocent people. Well, not just detaining. Also torturing, killing...ect.
So the chances of being right are on Pros side. Why would I give my vote to Con who has much smaller chance of being right?

08.01.2022 04:23PM

#24

-->

@BearMan

Fair enough. Although, my sources should be judged by how much supporting evidence it has, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because it is "Chinese" or "its author is involved in other conspiracies", because then the fault is on the author if anything at all, and not on the supporting evidence.

BearMan

08.01.2022 03:58PM

#23

-->

@Intelligence_06

The problem is that news reports often exhibit bias that paints sources as saying something they aren't, unlike Wikipedia. I won't be voting on this debate because im probably the most biased against China (liberal taiwanese-american bru), so u dont need to worry about my bias in the voting section.

08.01.2022 03:46PM

#22

Agree with @Intelligence_06. Try to be impartial when voting.

08.01.2022 03:40PM

#21

@ALL

IDK if you can see this before voting, but PLEASE do not walk into this debate voting with the mentality that the western media is auto-true, that China is already going with it. Please don't vote with prior bias common in the west. Don't come in it thinking it obviously did or didn't. Vote as impartial as possible, don't take sides.

08.01.2022 03:21PM

#20

-->

@BearMan

News reports to me are just hubs of sources like Wiki. Most western media on this topic majorly quotes Zenz the questionably infamous scholar while Grayzone has a wide array of evidence.

I am not defending Grayzone, I am defending Grayzone's citations, which is untouched by Pro. Grayzone sure does cite a hella lot of stuff, whether we like it or not. It is what it cites that is valuable to me, not Grayzone itself. Same with Chinese blogposts that are just screenshots of non-Chinese sourcing.

Dismissing them just because they are Chinese or their author is affiliated with some conspiracies is logically fallacious. I say it isn't a Chinese source because Pro has essentially prevented me from doing so(and Chinese reports generally has no citations because it assumes we already agree with them). Just because I say so does not effectively weaken my argument.

08.01.2022 03:18PM

#19

-->

@christianm

"does it just mean the onus is on me to show that China is probably detaining innocent people?"

yeah that. That is the general concensus of users here.

08.01.2022 03:17PM

#18

-->

@christianm

@Best.Korea

I would consider a vote passable if it in any way weighs the sources and points. Best.korea did not do this and started judging at the standpoint disregarding most evidence, while admitting Pro didn't have full proof.

We judge on who has the better proof, and sources are an important consideration here. Maybe christianm is right here, but you can't just vote like that.

08.01.2022 03:14PM

#17

-->

@Intelligence_06

Wikipedia defines BoP as "the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position." Interpret that how you will.

08.01.2022 03:11PM

#16

-->

@Intelligence_06

Does BoP require 100% certainty or does it just mean the onus is on me to show that China is probably detaining innocent people? "Proof" in a debate isn't the same as in court. You're arguing the negative either way. "That China isn't detaining innocent Uyghur Muslims" is also an assertion. Obviously, the accuser can't make accusations without evidence, but I'd usually consider it a win if Pro showed there was a > 50% chance that they are correct. BoP just means they have to demonstrate that.

BearMan

08.01.2022 03:00PM

#15

-->

@Intelligence_06

Non-Chinese doesn't mean reliable, just as Chinese doesn't mean not reliable. Most of your validation of sourcing is based on if a source is Chinese or not. For example, you validate the Gray Zone as reliable despite being a known far-left source > "Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting. [...] In general, The Grayzone promotes a socialist left perspective that promotes conspiracy theories and pro-Russian/Chinese propaganda." - MBFC.

08.01.2022 02:14PM

#14

-->

@Best.Korea

The BoP is on Pro which he agrees, so that requires full proof. Also, if you can see my sources, by the end, most of them are obvious non-Chinese evidence, even if they are included in Chinese media.

So yeah, delete it, probably.

08.01.2022 11:26AM

#13

-->

@Intelligence_06

Well, it's good that you're forming your own opinion, one way or another.

08.01.2022 11:18AM

#12

-->

@RationalMadman

@Mall

@Best.Korea

Vote if you have time!

08.01.2022 11:17AM

#11

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

@oromagi

@Bones

@Novice_II

Vote if you have time!

08.01.2022 10:06AM

#10

-->

@christianm

Yeah, thanks to you too. Ironically, this debate has made me MORE confident in my stance because I have never seen this many sources supporting my position before this research. Before this I thought the western media had a point and generally didn't care(due to it not being a problem in China so I didn't see reports on this for a long time).

I just accepted this debate thinking either I will be blasted so quickly or I will get an easy GG but your move of cutting me off CGTN was a good move and made me think a lot harder on this one, especially on a computer where the main browser is Baidu.

07.31.2022 10:51PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Likewise, thanks for debating! It's not often I get the opportunity to talk with people actually living in China.

07.31.2022 08:51AM

-->

@christianm

First I would appreciate you for being this fast and be a catalyst for my thinking. Second, I am surprised that there hasn't been any anti-chinese language used here, you are just citing sources you think are true and speaking in a relatively objective tone. This conversation has been more civil than any I have had before about this topic.

07.29.2022 05:18PM

-->

@christianm

Eh, it isn't that big of a problem. The problem is that all VPNs were automatically classified as Non-Chinese so I couldn't download them easily. I had to borrow my mom's phone to look up some sources but at least it is possible. If I didn't have a backup I would have never accepted this so quickly.

But still, even if I think China is not guilty for this, I just disagree with the fact that I can't watch cute puppy dog and kitty cat videos on Youtube. Surely I am just pissed. Maybe I will eventually wear out but I am content with Dart still running.

07.29.2022 04:14PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Sorry, I didn't even consider that it could be an issue. You can maybe use a VPN if you're willing to take that risk. To my knowledge, China isn't super strict about VPNs, but I can't tell you firsthand.

07.29.2022 04:10PM

It has never been more hilarious that the local setbacks on the internet will make this argument 5x more difficult to write due to I can't just visit Pro's sources.

No, if you are a Chinese internet agent, you can come freely, you can even fine me and arrest me. I am literally being denied opportunity to prove the innocence of my country by the same barriers meant to do aligned missions. There has and will be no doubt that I would long for such barriers to be removed.

07.28.2022 03:55PM

-->

@Novice_II

I'm not going to get nitpicky like that

Novice_II

07.28.2022 03:25PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

To win this debate christianm only has to show that China has detained at least 2 Uyghur Muslims

07.28.2022 03:10PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

I actually didn't know if anyone held the opposing position.