America will remain the worlds dominant superpower
Just to clarify, shall the definition of "dominant superpower" be "the country which has the greatest ability to influence other states, whether it be through military, economic, cultural, or diplomatic means?"
I assume the structure will go something like
Second round for opening arguments.
Third and fourth rounds for rebuttals and arguments.
Fifth round for summary and concluding statements.
As for the structure you are quite correct, that is what I had in mind. Let"s begin!
The definition of "dominant superpower" you suggested I would mostly agree with, but I would like to add that a genuine superpower must be at the top of the economic, scientific, and cultural pyramids (as well as having military, political and economic prowess) in the context of this debate. For the majority of my arguments I will be comparing the USA to China as it is the only country I believe that is anywhere near challenging the USA in its superpower status as of current.
1)US economical size
The USA has been considered the world"s strongest economy ever since the end of the Great Depression (the one incurred by the Wall Street Crash), and despite many anti " Americans stating in earnest that in the current economic climate America is not the economic powerhouse it once was, it still has the highest GDP in the world by a significant amount. The USA currently has a GDP of approximately 16 Trillion Dollars (whilst China"s is but 9 Billion) as is growing at a considerable rate, roughly 4% a year. My opponent may wish to point out that China"s economy is growing at a rate faster than this, but allow me to put this into perspective: Assuming the USA grows at 3% until 2030, they will have an economy worth approximately $30 trillion which is a relatively moderate assumption considering how many predictions show that by 2030 US economy will be rising at a much faster rate than this. To match, China"s economy would have to grow at a rate of 12% a year until 2030, and when we account for the fact that a) Its economy is currently growing at about 9-10% and b) no large country has EVER grown at more than 8% over such a long period, this seems extremely unlikely. In other words, the progress made in the US economy from 1945 to 2030 would have to be achieved by China in little less than 2 decades.
On this note, if China by some miracle did achieve this feat, its per capita GDP would still be left lagging behind the US"s, merely a quarter of its Western rival.
Linked closely to the economy is China"s ability to create consumer brands that are known worldwide. This is an important factor when it comes to looking at global influence I feel, as they become a large part of everyday lives and represent innovation within the countries of their origins. For example, who doesn"t know the names of Coca-Cola and Microsoft? It is this kind of "brand innovation" that China lacks, and I don"t think it will be anytime soon that we see Chinese brands dominating advertisement. This does have an effect on US dominance though, not just pretty logos, as the sponsorship of sports events in developing nations is helpful in gaining favour from them, a favour that is not shared towards China. Advanced American innovation also spreads into the field of corporations, this however is a point I will advance on in the next round.
I don"t believe that China can catch up in this time, and if this continues then 40 years from now the US economy will be just as strong as ever, growing and improving with each new year.
2)Science and the Intellectual field
A large part of being a superpower I would argue is being at the forefront of scientific discoveries. Since the aeroplane and telephone 100 years ago to google and ebay more recently, the US has been pushing the boundaries of scientific innovation. Being in this position comes with a number of benefits; it helps in a commercial sense and on a more personal scale highlights a countries power and skill. The USA conducted 32% of all research last year, a figure that places it above all other countries in the world (including doubling China).
In the world of today, the fast paced, forever moving, constantly advancing world of today, this is hugely important to stay on top of all aspects of power. New research leads to new medicines, new technologies and general lifestyle improvements. The US is a significant way ahead of China in this field and there are a number of reasons for this, the first of which being that the USA has the facilities and the accompanying training that is required. The USA has roughly 17 of the world"s top 20 universities such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford. These "hubs" of learning are the source of many impactful researches and investigations to take place, and unfortunately China is not going to host such significant establishments in the near future. This from the start puts them at a disadvantage in the knowledge economy. Secondly, they aren"t attracting the young international talent, both through their lack of top universities, and their lack of hospitality to new talent. The US for example receives an approximate education import of $200 billion a years, countries are educating their people and they are moving to the US to study further, a hugely beneficial system for the USA that is both encouraging new innovation and increasing intellectual cross-pollination, which cannot be achieved by China when its only scientists are Chinese born. The final issue concerning China not receiving new talent is a widespread fear of their political system, but this I will tackle as a wider problem for China in a future round.
That is all I will cover in this round, I will focus on military prowess and other wider issues (including the other potential powers) in the next few rounds. However, feel free to touch upon these issues if you feel necessary.
I eagerly await your response!
(SIDE NOTE: unfortunately I could not copy across the graphs of data I wished to use, however the majority of useful graphs can be found on my 4th source!)
I would like to repeat the point that the timeframe of this debate has been shortened from at least a full century to forty years.
As such, many of my arguments have had to have been rewritten. I leave it to you to decide whether or not this has made it more difficult for me.
However, I hope it shall nevertheless be clear to you that, in forty years time, the United States will no longer be the world's dominant superpower. The best of luck to Pro.
All things in this world must, one day, end, whether they were good or bad.
This is a fact.
And, someday, the United States of America will cease to be the world’s leading superpower.
I don’t think anybody could dispute that. Someday our star will grow to a supernova and, well, then there won’t be an America for the United States to be of. What I’m going to argue is that the U.S. will stop being the leading superpower in less than forty years, and that it won’t take a supernova to do so.
As a side note, pay attention to this word “leading”. I’m not arguing that America won’t be a superpower of any kind – in fact, I suspect it probably will. But it certainly won’t be the leading superpower.
First: America’s Position is Decaying
A superpower can’t go it alone – unless, that is, it was imperial China or the Roman Empire. The U.S. is neither of those things, and it needs its allies in Europe and the Pacific (though some certainly more than others).
Take, for example, Japan. Japan is the U.S. number 1 military and economic buffer against China.
With Japan, the U.S. can project naval and economic force deep into the heart of East Asia.
With Japan, the U.S. can shut down the possibility of Chinese expansionism to the East.
But the way a superpower attracts allies is through shared values. In the Cold War, this was obvious – the U.S. stood for capitalism, personal freedom and religion, whilst the reds in the U.S.S.R. stood for communism and gulags and spit-roasting babies.
Nowadays? Things are muddier. The U.S. just doesn’t share the same values as its allies. Take a look at these statistics  comparing American and West European values.
I find the statistics on religion and personal freedom to be particularly fascinating. Western Europeans place much, much less emphasis on religion and personal freedom – half as religious and half as liberty-loving, if the statistics are anything to go by.
Furthermore, take a look at this image  which I shamelessly lifted from Wikipedia. It shows the general trend of where countries have a national health service of some form, which America has been famously resistant too (just look at the controversy surrounding Obamacare).
American allies which have turned turncoat and have some form of national health service include:
The United Kingdom
And South Korea.
But never fear! The U.S. still has such steadfast ideological brothers to rely on such as:
And, of course, China.
So, what common ground do the U.S. and its allies have now?
I mean, they’re all capitalist. Though not the same brand of capitalist. And so is the other guy (sort of) – China. So, what’s to stop American allies deciding to hop over to the other side of the fence?
Oh, right. Of course. Unlike China, the U.S. is a peace-loving nation with no militaristic intentions. Right?
At a quick count , the U.S. has been involved in 27 separate wars and military operations these past 20 years.
China has been involved in none. Zero. What have they been doing during that time?
They’ve been building up their navy. 
They’ve been building up their economy. 
They’ve been educating their people.  A lot. 
This was my opening statement and first argument for the decay of America’s position as the world’s leading superpower.
America and its allies are drifting apart rapidly.
I now pass back over to Pro for his round of rebuttals and arguments. Have I the time and space later, I hope to detail some of my other arguments, including:
Why China isn't the only one America should be afraid of.
Why America's stagnation is inevitable.
And a broader perspective on global power politics.
The best of luck to Pro.
Before I begin on that however I would like to answer the question of "Did my changing of the time scale make this debate more difficult for you?" My honest answer is no, it has made it no more nor less hard, I felt it would be a positive for the debate as a whole in the fact that it makes the debate more interesting and "realistic" in a sense. looking to 100 years in the future I would argue opens the door to too many assumptions and guesses, more in need of a crystal ball then facts and statistics!
I will begin with rebuttals:
Near the beginning of your argument you state how nothing lasts forever, using the seemingly immortal mass that is our Sun as an example of this. Of course this is true! Change is a part of the universe and it always will be, but unfortunately the life cycle of our Sun is a lot less complicated than politics and ideals in society.
I say this because in your argument about changing ideals I feel you have given the situation far too general of a look. It is true that in many of the statistics you gave the USA is different to Western Europe. To say that these statistics are signs of the USA drifting away from its Allies is unfair though, as I would argue that in the world of today, an era of relative freedom of travel and mass immigration/emigration permanently in motion, does it really surprise you that peoples views vary so much? It is the cross pollination of different cultures and people that causes variation, something that in my mind is a very good thing. After all, you and I clearly have opposing views on this topic of debate, but it CERTAINLY doesn't mean I am any less of a friend to you as a result. It is in the nature of human beings to have different thoughts and views to others, and it doesn't necessarily always have to result in dislike of one another. To give an example, the British Empire at its peak had a huge presence in India, a land heavily dominated by varying Eastern religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism... yet despite these religions and there differences to the strongly Christian England, the people of India were some of the kindest and most beneficial Allies to England for many a year after we first set foot there.
As for Obamacare, I am aware of the controversy surrounding its creation and implementation, but surely I am not the only one who's first thought on the matter was "This is positive, America (or at least its leadership) evidently realises change is happening, more available healthcare is needed to compete with other countries socially".
Using another historical reference, was it not Britain in the early 1900's (when it was the unrivalled dominant superpower) in an attempt to compete with Germany created a welfare system, not the NHS, not a completely free healthcare system? I believe it was, and controversy was rife over the matter, the public was split over the new Government implications and many scoffed at the idea. 50 years later... the NHS had been created and implicated all across the country, who's to say the USA won't follow a similar pattern, it seems highly likely in my opinion.
The proposed "hopping over to the other side of the fence" confused me considerably. You seem to make it clear that this "other guy" China is on the opposite side of the fence to the USA, and by asking the question of what's to stop the allies of the USA from hopping over to their side is a contradiction of what you had just stated. By your own argument, one of the key reasons that the USA and its Allies are drifting apart is because of a difference in ideals, in particular Americas lack of a healthcare service. Well then, surely it is China's lack of a health service as one of the US's "steadfast ideological brothers" (as you put it) that would make this jump illogical and ultimately a waste of time.
A much larger issue lies here that would ever prevent this jump, the banner of communism given to China by the outside world. I myself had the opportunity to visit China last year and I saw first hand just how much of a capitalist communist state it really is, but not everyone has had this opportunity. The fear of China by Western Europe is similar to that of the fear of the USSR experienced during the cold war. I'm not here to tell you that China is an evil place, far from it, but for many the fears of gulags and spit roasted babies is still at the forefront of their minds, communism is scary, a regime representing totalitarianism and the bane of capitalism in the publics eyes, the same reason China isn't attracting international talent and minds, and it will take more than the USA lacking an efficient healthcare system to break this fear, especially considering how unique the UK in particulars bond with the USA is.
Most people that I have met like the USA, lets be honest, despite their slight differences in ideals and faith, their culture is very much similar to ours - more similar than China to say the least! Should we really be surprised at this, was it not the British Empire (and other Western European countries) that set up many of the foundations of the USA? I would now like to look at an analogy of my own, one of brothers. I would class the USA as extremely close to the UK, a bond that is similar to that of a family. Two brothers lets say! Two brothers wouldn't (in most circumstances) break a lifetime of unity over a difference in ideals, I certainly wouldn't, especially when the alternative is a person almost entirely unlike ourselves in all that they do! Human beings are not machines, that is fact, we are packaged with empathy and attachment, we need to consider these factors when it comes to talking about the continuing existence of Alliances.
The USA is NOT drifting away from its Allies.
To briefly address the idea that China is building up it's power base economically and militarily whilst the USA is out fighting wars, it may well be true, but who is to say that war is a negative, that war is not in search of peace, that is more down to opinion than fact, a topic of another debate, and secondly, there was another country that did the exact same whilst other countries fought wars around the globe... it was Germany under Adolf Hitler. He grew Germany's economy rapidly (like China), raised a great army, particularly his Navy (like China) and he took a lot of land that he claimed belonged to Germany (Tibet springs to mind!), and I'm sure we are all aware of how things ended up for Germany, a complete loss and takeover! I saw the education first hand on my visit to China, in Shang Hai, the city that according to your source was the best educated, and myself and the teaching staff attending were appalled by the disorganisation and work ethic of many pupils. Many didn't wish to work altogether and children at age 17 were covering things we already had! Even if this is true I feel their lack of good universities will still cut this education burst short as they simply cannot continue to the levels of the USA without better further educational systems.
Looking briefly at the military difference this round, I will start by simply stating this - China is 20 years behind the US in terms of its military, and that is a fact announced by the Chinese themselves, 20 whole years, think about how large a gap that is, the Chinese officials admitted this gap was "very big" and I agree. The USA is still the only country in the world that can be involved in multiple wars across multiple continents and still attain few casualties.
I will expand upon this next time, but to finish this debate I would like to kindly ask that Con makes sure all his facts are correct next time, China has been involved in many wars over the past 20 years: (sources in comments due to character count restrictions)
I look forward to your reply!
Before we begin, my opponent points out that he “would like to kindly ask that Con makes sure all his facts are correct next time”. I agree to this. In return, I would like to kindly ask Pro to make sure he reads his sources.
The source he cited for China’s military involvement in wars within the last 20 years was a Wikipedia page which does not list any wars which China has fought in within the last 20 years.
It does, however, list attacks on Chinese civilians by the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement”, an extremist organisation condemned as a terrorist organisation by the UN , as a war. As such, it is perhaps understandable how Pro’s confusion could have arisen.
The only other possible source for Pro’s confusion – at least, which I can think of – was the Wikipedia page’s listing of China’s peacekeeping force in Mali as a war. But what are they doing there?
They’re building a campsite. Complete with 190 residential rooms, a “football range” (my source’s words, not mine), and 3,000 metres of road. 
Camping, football and building roads – when will the carnage end?
However, I am sure that this incident has embarrassed Pro, and will thus leave it alone for now.
Rebuttal One: China’s Economy WILL Overtake the U.S.
Pro claims that I have used humour to mask the content of my arguments. If that is so, then let me make myself clear now.
The Economy of China 
Will grow to be larger 
Than that of the U.S. 
Within the next sixteen years. 
I was very surprised by Pro’s claim that China will not surpass the U.S. economy by 2030. I was even more surprised by his mathematics.
To be honest, the numbers didn’t sound right. For a start, if China really did only have a GDP of 9 billion dollars, then Bill Gates would be worth 8.53 Chinas. It’s actually almost 1000 times that figure – 8 TRILLION dollars.
But, hey, that’s an easy mistake to make – to say billion when you mean trillion. However, the numbers still didn’t feel right. So I pulled out a calculator to check the numbers.
16 [the GDP of the U.S. in trillions of dollars] * (1.03 [the 3% growth rate] ^ 16 [the number of years of growth]) = 25.675
Oh. So, not quite the 30 trillion Pro was promising. What about China’s side of the equation?
8 [the GDP of China in trillions of dollars] * (1.08 [the meagre 8% growth rate Pro claims that China will achieve, despite the fact that 25 out of the last 30 years saw greater growth than this] ^ 16 [the number of years of growth]) = 27.408
Huh. Well, China’s 27.408 trillion is bigger than America’s 25.7 trillion after all. Of course, these figures are all calculated from nominal GDP and not PPP GDP and fail to account for exchange rates and price differences between the two nations.
Fortunately, you don’t have to take just my word for it.
These institutions agree with me.
The CEBR says 2028. 
The OECD says as early as 2016. 
The Peterson Institute says it has already happened back in 2010. 
Rebuttal two: 8,000,000 Dead Disagree with Pro
My opponent also mentioned British imperialism in India as an example of how nations with radically different beliefs and ideals can still be allies. In fact, he goes as far as to say that “the people of India were some of the kindest and most beneficial Allies to England for many a year after we first set foot there”.
IF THEY WEREN’T, WE SHOT THEM.
I would like to kindly ask Pro this question;
Are you familiar with the method of execution of “Blowing from the gun”, as used to great effect in India?
While I await my opponents reply, I shall quickly sketch out for other readers what this involves.
This was a favourite of the British army in India.
And then there was the small matter of the Great Famine of 1876-1878 which ravaged India under British rule. At this time, even though India could produce more than enough grain to support itself, the British governors of India insisted that huge quantities of it be exported back to England.
The net result?
Famine. And what did the British government do?
They made sure to hoard the grain for themselves.
Five million Indians died.
Well, hey, none of us are perfect. I mean, it’s an easy mistake for an Empire to make – letting five million starve. So it won’t happen again, right?
Fast forward to 1942. The Chief Minister of Bengal warns the British government that famine is imminent.
Do they begin a relief program?
Do they give the Chief Minister the tools he needs to fight the famine?
No. They fire him.
A year later, famine strikes. Again, the British army hordes as much grain as they can. The British government, frankly, just doesn’t care about the starving Indians.
Up to four and a half million Indians died.
So, in conclusion?
There will be conflict between the U.S. and their “allies” – not necessarily military conflict, but almost certainly ideological and economic conflict.
China will become the world’s greatest economy within the next sixteen years.
America will no longer be the world’s dominant superpower in twenty six.
I now pass the baton on to my opponent. The best of luck to him.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk... [for further reading about British involvement in India]
Embarrassed? Far from it I'm afraid, I'm very glad you expanded in fact you have saved me the trouble. I do recognise that they are fighting the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, but what I found more interesting is that on the link you gave the overarching title of the matter is "Security Council Committee Perasuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and assosciated individuals and entities". I'm not going to patronise the readers as to who Al-Quida is, but as I'm sure you also know Al-Qaida is a terrorist organisation that the USA has been in wars against. I'm not here to debate about whether George Bush really had the intention of fighting these people or whether he had ulterior motives but the US has publically gone great lenths to fight these terrorists.
I would like to begin my rebuttal with a correction.
Pro has claimed that the U.S. gave China a billion dollars in financial aid in 2011.
This is not true.
In fact, China only received $18 million in 2011. Last year, this was down to $14 million.  This is less than 2% of what Pro claims.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury owes China $1273.5 BILLION. 
This is equal to 8% of America’s nominal GDP, as provided by Pro. 
Secondly, Pro makes the argument that China is still involved in military conflict against Tibet as it has troops stationed there.
By this logic, the USA is at war with Germany , Italy , and Japan .
Also, I would not support the definition of a military operation as “Activity by a military or naval force”. Again, by this logic the U.S. Army is engaged in military operations against the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Croatia, Turkey, Georgia and Bosnia. 
I fear some confusion has arisen over my GDP calculations.
Pro claims that two sources I used –  and  – contradict the evidence and figures for GDP and growth which I put forward earlier.
I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding here. I didn’t put forward those figures.
They were taken from his opening arguments in Round 2. I merely followed the calculations through from what he provided. There I found a discrepancy – not only with what my sources said, but also what Pro himself says.
So, do my sources conflict with the figures and calculations that Pro provided?
Of course they do. I leave it to you, the community, to judge Pro and my sources and to determine which is more reliable.
And, finally, as for the point of dispute over India’s relationship with the British Empire, I have only this to say.
I am disappointed that Pro decided not to answer my question about the method of execution of “Blowing by the gun”.
Thus I conclude my rebuttals. The best of luck to Pro.
Thank you very much for your arguments Con. As we come into this final round I would like to clarify the rules in case I failed to make them clear at the start of our debate. In our concluding statements we will summarise arguments given previously in prior rounds and will refrain from:
We must also keep in mind the fact that even if by some chance China’s economy does overtake the USA’s in terms of GDP, this will not affect the USA’s prominence as dominant superpower as it will still be leading in a variety of other fields.
China is currently 20 years at least behind the USA in terms of its military capabilities which are shown through both the fact that China’s technology is so far behind and in that the USA displays this military imbalance through waging battle (many of which are officially in the name of peace) across the globe simultaneously whereas China is to focused upon suppressing the religion and lives of the peaceful Tibetan folk.
The USA currently holds the title for the most scientific discoveries and breakthroughs per year. This leaves them as a beacon, to many countries, of power and modernity.
This is achieved through there sound education system coupled with some of the best learning facilities in the world (Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc.) and promising deals to brilliant minds from abroad.
The USA will continue to stay at the top of the scientific “pyramid” as countries in parts of Europe lack the funding and places such as China simply lack the diversity and cross pollination of intellectuals from different countries.
Similarly, the USA is the inventor and owner of most huge international companies and businesses, be it Coca – Cola, Microsoft, Apple… you name it!
This is achieved again through an open and encouraging society that pulls in innovation from all corners. These companies, although they may have bases in other countries, ultimately benefit the USA in 2 ways:
i) A lot of the money and investment in these corporations ends up in the hands of the USA.
ii) The publicity of having international fame with many of these products gains the USA much support from many nations that look up to the USA as a serious trading country and an innovative leader in industry.
No other country or countries have such brand fame on a global scale and with Western culture differing so much from Eastern culture I really cannot see any Chinese brands breaking into the West any time soon.
For those that don’t want to wade through the above, this YouTube video sums up the above points beautifully without bringing in any new information:
If these reasons are not enough to convince you then I ask that you simply stop and think for a moment… what comes to mind when you think “Modern China”? For many the first things that will come to mind are communism and repression, i.e. not a very nice regime. Or maybe just honestly sit and think for a moment “Would I rather live in a Western culture (e.g. America) or an Eastern culture (e.g. China), I’m sure I can guess which you chose.
The point I’m getting at is that China (be it correct or not) is not viewed with the same respect and familiarity that the USA is, a country with whom many countries are, and will remain to be, allies for the next 40 years without a doubt!
It is this lack of trust and brotherhood towards China by most Western (and many Eastern) countries that to me makes the USA’s standpoint as a leader among nations as steadfast and sturdy as I claim.
THE USA CAN, AND WILL, REMAIN AN ALLY TO MOST OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES, STAY IN THE LEAD IN TERMS OF ECONOMY, MILITARY AND SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WILL REMAIN THE WORLDS DOMINANT SUPERPOWER FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS!
I would like to thank Con for being a good opponent and always sticking to the rules of the debate and answering within the set time limit, the best of luck to him.
As you can no doubt see, I have included some relevant music for you to listen to whilst you read. Before I make my concluding statements, I would also like to thank Pro for a fascinating and lively debate, and the debate.org community for pushing this far through the walls of text both me and my opponent have posted.
One day, we will wonder how this question could even have been debated.
We will wonder how we could have possibly believed that China would stay down for so long. Despite China’s growth. Despite China’s power. Despite China’s ascendancy.
Is it ignorance or arrogance which drives us to deny what is obvious? We take the United States, and we wish that its dominance will last forever unchanged. We know this cannot be true. Yet we still wish for it.
There is a long line of past superpowers, each of whom thought at their power’s zenith that they were invincible. That they would reign forever. The Roman Empire. Mongolia. Spain. But time marches on, and eventually these superpowers were superseded.
And, one day, we will wonder how this question could even have been debated.
The U.S. will still be a superpower in forty years time. This is a near-certainty. It will still hold almost total influence over hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.
But it will not hold as much influence as China.
And, someday, China too will be superseded. There will be a new and fast growing superpower which will challenge its dominance, and China will lose. This is the way of the world. Superpowers rise, and superpowers fall.
And, one day, we will wonder how this question could even have been debated.
How we have debated this question also interests me. We have focused on GDP calculations, as if they were a holy indicator of the true power of a nation’s economy. You, the debate.org community, have read our discussions about whether or not China’s economy will overtake that of the U.S. by 2030 – and it must have crossed your mind too that this is still fully 14 years before the specified cutoff time of the debate.
We have even discussed India’s support for Britain in the Second World War, as if this was particularly relevant to the discussion. And, of course, we have talked about which of the two nations has a superior standard of living (hint - it's not China). Which one we would rather live in (hint - same one as before). This is not relevant. For my concluding statement I would like to draw the debate back to its nucleus.
The Chinese government controls many of the biggest companies in the world. Four of the world’s ten most profitable companies are owned by the Chinese state – more than the number of top ten companies based in America.
Chinese industry, and the Chinese economy, is a powerhouse.
But now, I must move briefly to a different topic.
I must admit, I was highly conflicted about the inclusion of the three videos you can see above.
On the one hand, both I and my opponent had reached a mutual agreement earlier.
The terms of this agreement were:
Not to present any new arguments.
Not to present any new sources.
And not to present any new information.
So you can imagine my dilemma when compiling my concluding statements. Is not the Sound of Music a compelling argument? Is not the Chinese national anthem a valuable source of information? And is not the hour-long mix of Chinese relaxation music included extremely informative?
But, eventually, I reached this conclusion. If Pro can post a nine-minute monologue in the final round, then I’m going to unveil my secret weapon: The Sound of Music. May any deity up there have mercy on my soul.
So, in conclusion?
But now, let us cast our thoughts back forty years. Forty years ago, to 1974 (4610 in the Chinese calendar).
The Vietnam War was still in its dying stages.
There was no such thing as a unified Germany.
The IRA was exacting a terrifying death toll on the British public.
Spain was a dictatorship under Francisco Franco.
There was no such thing as a home computer.
Ethiopia was still ruled by an Emperor
And, of course, the Soviet Union, the U.S.A’s greatest rival and threat, still existed.
In forty years, so much can change.
And, now, let’s see forty years into the future – to 2054 (or 4750 in the Chinese calendar).
How much can we really hope to remain the same?
Want, regrettably, doesn’t enter into this question.
This question isn’t a matter of want – unfortunately. Personally, I’m quite a fan of the Netherlands – but I don’t think that they’ll be a superpower anytime soon. This is a matter of the truth. Will the U.S. still be the world’s dominant superpower in 40 years’ time?
One day, we will wonder how this question could have been debated.
The answer is no.
And this debate isn’t truly about that question. It is about whether or not we need to wait until 2054 to see the errors of today. It is about whether it is possible to predict the truth of the future, despite the pressures which surround us.
It is about whether or not we have foresight.
Sources used by Pro in this debate:
And, of course, the infamous
file:///C:/Users/harry/Downloads/HAT_SPECIMEN_TEST_PAPER_2012.pdf (If link fails see Oxford history 2012 past paper)
Sources used by Con (me) in this debate:
I again thank my opponent for this fascinating debate, and the debate.org community for reading it. I hope we will be able to have another such debate in the future.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|