Clyde lost my vote with his straw man arguments. That doesn't mean his main thesis is incorrect.

Can you please point to an actual "straw man" argument? Because I know what that means, and that was the tactic of others, not me. A "straw man" is an easily defeatable argument which one superimposes on one's debate opposition, then defeats it, and claims to have defeated the opponents real argument. For example, the accusations that I was a Christian Fundamentalist "moralizing" were not quite "straw mans" but even worse, attacking the debater and not the argument.

But it would have carried more weight if he had made it specific to China with his chapter and verse.

As for your second point, I've lived and taught in 3 countries in Asia and found the same behavior in all three. There's no reason my arguments would be stronger if I applied them to just one of the countries that have the exact same problem. In fact, while some good teachers may teach in several countries, so may some bad ones.

He accused me of watering-down my response when I stated that there was a tacit acceptance that there may be an element of abuse of power.

I think your statement above makes "watering down" obvious. A tacit acceptance that there may be and element of abuse of power. How much more could you water it down. Yes, well, there was a whispering that perhaps the axe murder was the result of some measure of violence. Derp!

You lost my vote when you made milquetoast of a very important issue. Mind if I quote Yeats:

Your response lacked all conviction. I took up arms against the corruption. Cheers.

A vote against me is a vote for Romney!