If they're called "China bad" they are making their "bad" assessment based on a comparison to something else in their life they do not consider bad or accept and do not relentlessly attack every day. Benchmarking China against something they accept is obvious and necessary.
I really haven't seen anyone use anything other than non-chinese sources.
When the opponent provides "evidence" it is necessary to perform takedowns of that evidence. Those get lengthy. The imperial machine is outputting a MASSIVE amount of fake shit and every single one of those things has to be taken down. This is how it gets to be ridiculously lengthy.
If they're called "China bad" they are making their "bad" assessment based on a comparison to something else in their life they do not consider bad or accept and do not relentlessly attack every day. Benchmarking China against something they accept is obvious and necessary.
I really haven't seen anyone use anything other than non-chinese sources.
When the opponent provides "evidence" it is necessary to perform takedowns of that evidence. Those get lengthy. The imperial machine is outputting a MASSIVE amount of fake shit and every single one of those things has to be taken down. This is how it gets to be ridiculously lengthy.