Thanks Bill for the quick reply!
I will now begin to rebut once more.
General Criticisms:
- My opponent directly contradicts himself on his original position of support for my argument regarding international security.
- Once more, my opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation. I have pointed this out once, which means my opponent is knowingly continuing with blatant plagiarism.
International Security:
My opponent posits two counter-arguments to my argument regarding international security.
1. Firstly, my opponent states that "there are lots of people that say hewaii isnt a security risk."
Then, my opponent cites a source that does not make this claim in either the cited section nor the article as a whole. In fact, the source my opponent cites says this:
"Huawei code has a lot of vulnerabilities. The United Kingdom's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Center (HCSEC), a testing facility that reviews Huawei-made equipment for security flaws, exposed in its 2019 annual
report that Huawei systems contain "many vulnerabilities ... [of] high impact." There are "serious and systematic defects in Huawei's software engineering and cyber security competence."
...If Huawei is providing backdoors to Chinese intelligence agencies, they're enabling Chinese government cyber efforts. If Huawei is leaving bugdoors in their systems, they're complicit. If they're just really bad at writing software (also a possibility), they're apathetic actors."
In other words, my opponent's source is simply claiming that not all vulnerabilities are evidence of impending doom. This is true, but it does not at all dismiss the danger of Huawei as a security risk. The simple presence of such vulnerabilities, whether malicious in intent or not, are not something EU nations want to invite into their nations. If the Chinese government does not exploit these vulnerabilities, then others shall.
Moreover, we should not assume the best about China's intentions, especially since China gets frequently caught in the act.
To reiterate an example from my constructive:
"according to CNBC,
U.S. prosecutors charged two Chinese citizens for their involvement in a global hacking campaign to steal tech company secrets and intellectual property. They were also accused of stealing the personal information of more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Navy, and were allegedly working with the Chinese government."
Back in June, according to the
Wall Street Journal, Chinese hackers backed by the Chinese government allegedly hacked into telecommunications networks, just like they may do to the EU.
"Hackers believed to be backed by China’s government have infiltrated the cellular networks of at least 10 global carriers, swiping users’ whereabouts, text-messaging records and call logs, according to a new report, amid growing scrutiny of Beijing’s cyberoffensives."
2. Secondly, my opponent claims "a lot of this stuff is just politicaly motivated propoganda it isnt really a thing."
My opponent does not cite any evidence for this claim aside from re-pasting the same citation. Furthermore, my examples showing Chinese malicious intent and software failure are more than enough to disprove this claim.
Untouched Arguments:
My opponent still does not respond to the following arguments:
- BRI equates to Chinese leverage over EU in political/human rights affairs
- BRI puts EU nations into debt
- Neo-imperialism
- The EU and US are capable of 5G without China
- Plagiarism on behalf of my opponent
I hope judges will vote accordingly, thank you!
Hi Jeff, while I sound super formal - it’s an easy mistake ; and an issue we haven’t been able to fully resolve yet, so don’t worry.
Please be aware that there are also rules surrounding voting, and what qualifies as valid. You can take a look here for when you’ve met the voting criteria: https://www.debateart.com/rules
No hard feelings about the deleted vote. Sorry for voting when I should not have.
Maybe you've heard something like this before, but it seems like the website simply shouldn't let me vote if I'm not eligible.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con's arguments were more fleshed out and better structured. In the end, Pro forfeited.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
You are on the green side, which means you are Pro. I understand that you accepted this thinking you are Con to the topic but you're Pro, sorry.
Fair, I may take Pro next time to make the debate more attractive
It's a good topic - I just happen to agree with you.
If no one accepts the Pro position on this, I may make another debate and be Pro to make the debate more attractive.
That is one stance, but there are others that I would hope someone on Pro could take. For example, the EU is very much behind in 5G, and China is very much ahead of the US. So in a way, one could paint it as necessary to not "fall behind."
You do point out the core Con position and I would say I agree: I tend to value the security of nations and the denial of Chinese hegemony to be more important than economic profit.
I would imagine the only real argument for this would be based off pure liberitarian free market principles.
Yes there is little free about china's economy, however that is public knowledge and private compabies have been more then willing to freely hand over their IP in exchange to access to chinese markets.
I am not a liberitarian and am not willing to risk national security for private profits. I believe we as a society have a greater duty to our people, our economy, and our nation, then we have towards some blind, self defeating ideology.
Fair point. I'd hoped that some people would look at an article or two and accept. (Pretty much all the research you need for this.)
This seems a like a niche topic, which is probably why people aren't accepting.
Bump. No takers on this one?