（视频10分左右会议开始，18分左右辩论开始。）
正方：Hal Brands, Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
反方：Melvyn Leffler, Edward Stettinius Professor of History Emeritus, University of Virginia
辩论前投票结果
-
推特投票：YES中美关系为新冷战 1339 (55.2%)；NO中美关系不是新冷战 1086 (44.8%)。
-
辩论前观众投票：YES中美关系为新冷战 22 41.5%；NO中美关系不是新冷战 31 58.5%。
-
辩论后观众投票：YES中美关系为新冷战 37%；NO中美关系不是新冷战 63%。
以下为个人笔记，未翻译，加粗部分为自己感觉比较有意思的说法。
正方（Hal Brands, HB）
-
US-China relation is not the same as US-USSR relation, but the two relations share many similarities that we can learn to inform present-day policy decisions.
-
They are both long-term, multi-decade competition between great powers, and is the most relevant to America.
-
The cold war is not only about geopolitical challenges, but also about ideology.
-
Lesson 1: For cold war with USSR, US strategy was to contain its expansion, and let soviet's system erode itself. US has not formed its long-term strategy to deal with China yet.
-
Lesson 2: Maintain the coalition with allies, or solidarity with the world's democracies.
-
Lesson 3: US can't rely on negotiation with a totalitarian regime as a replacement for competition, but negotiation can be used as a complementary strategy to take pauses.
-
Cold war is not a zero-sum rivalry; there had been cooperation even in the most intensively competitive periods.
-
The notion of "ideological rivalry" of China is not looking to overthrow capitalism, but is seeking to build a different world that is safe for autocracy.
反方（Melvyn Leffler, ML）
-
Invoking the historical analogy of cold war is not helpful to describe US-China relation today. We need to ponder whether thinking of cold war helps to "nurture ponderance."
-
The geo-strategic (Soviet had the opportunity to use the power vacuum after WWII to exert its influence on many adjacent areas, China is surrounded by US allies and cannot make geopolitical games like USSR could), ideological (in cold war era there was real rivalry of ideologies like communism vs. capitalism, but China today does not offer any real ideological appeal), economical (during cold war US had almost no economic ties with USSR which isolated itself from the rest of the world, China is central to the world economy) landscapes is very different.
-
US needs to react to China, but US does not have the same cards as it did in the cold war. A cold war with China had much smaller prospective benefits and much higher prospective costs. Why make an rival into an enemy, while competition is inevitable but cooperation is indispensable?
-
While we can learn from cold war that it is important to have sustained competition, alliance, and negotiation during competition, it is not necessary to employ a cold war analogy that can be misleading.
-
Yes Chinese authority believes in authoritarian capitalism but they don't have the ideological resilience Soviet Union had; we don't fear Chinese ideology as we did Marxism/Leninism ideologies.
问答：
-
Q: Does China pose a different form of ideological challenge? ML: Probably a different form of challenge, but not the same in magnitude. The attractiveness of Chinese model radiates from the perceived failure of American economic/political systems. US and its allies have to make democratic capitalism work effectively, to use the government to make market-place economy work effectively..
-
Q: How do you respond to the notion that for China and North Korea the "cold war" never really stopped? HB: True that there is always belief that US tries to overthrow the socialist government even during the engagement periods (1990s and 2000s). It's true that the ultimate goal of the engagement policies was that economic changes can bring about political reform.
-
Q: If there is no similarities between the Soviet cases and China, why did China party members extensively study the "Soviet lessons"? ML: If looking at Xi's policies he had minimum focus on foreign policies, but on domestic policies. Chinese leaders want to make China stronger and we don't need the analogy of cold war to understand it.
-
Q: Do you see security dilemma dynamics in China-US relationship similar to that in Soviet-US relationship (up power to enhance security which brings about more competition and thus insecurity)? HB: Classic arm race security dilemma is uncontroversial, but what's important is the player's intent. China has envisioned ambitions in east Asia (e.g., Taiwan), attempting to change the status quo, so it's about responding by strengthening your own capabilities, or failing to respond and inviting in insecurities. ML: The security dilemma was very much at work in the early cold war (e.g., Marshall plan). It's important to understand what each side's vital interests are, and whether it will step back in response to the other's moves.
-
Q: Is it necessary for both parties to have a grand strategy to call it a cold war? ML: Not sure if China has a grand strategy but has its goals. While it does want to expand its influence it spends much less in amount and % than US in military spending. US does not have clear concepts of its vital interest today (e.g., control of certain areas). HB: China is consistently projecting its influence in Asia and Africa, so the intent is there, but it will take China a long time to have the military influences comparable to US.
个人感想：我比较赞成正方。