The Instigator
alvinthegreat
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,152 times Debate No: 503
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (18)

 

alvinthegreat

Pro

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has been the preeminent superpower. Since then, America has actively interfered in many country's internal matters (i.e supporting one faction over another in a war, attempting to ouster a ruler ect), including some that have resulted in the violation of a country's sovereignty, and/or have made the country actively hostile against the United States. Moreover, the United States is actively working against countries such as Iran and Venezuela, and is blatantly antagonistic to emerging countries such as China and India. This policy of active intervention and antagonism is perceived by many as harmful to the United States world image - rightfully so. However, I believe that these policies that help maintain the United States hegemony and national security benefits the entire world.
However, I believe that this policy of active involvement is necessary to keep peace in the world - at least in the current state of affairs.
1) Many more wars would pop up should America withdraw it's hegemony - the prime example of this is Taiwan and China. China will attack Taiwan should America withdraw it's support and opt-out of its mutual-protection treaty with Taiwan. Without America's active intervention, brutal civil wars such as Somalia will propagate throughout the world, and genocides such as Rwanda will become even more numerous (think Middle East, Africa)
2) Prevent the rise of another superpower - EU, Russia, Pakistan, India, and China are all ready to grab the mantel of world leadership from the United States, and given the right opportunity they will. A bipolar world may result in a renewed cold war, with quasi-wars being waged by client states (like the cold war), or straight-out conventional or even nuclear warfare by the new power against the United States. This could result in the deaths of millions. However, right now America is keeping these countries in check both politically and militarily, and these restrictions must be enforced in order to ensure a safer tomorrow.
3) The war in Iraq may serve as examples of how America failed in it's role of world police - however, this war is only a pale reflection of might happen should the US withdraw from it's role.
Thus, America must maintain it's hegemony and actively assert it's policies in order to ensure future wars do not happen.
Korezaan

Con

hello, alvinthegreat. Thank you for starting this debate.

_________

I negate.

The affirmative gives me a nice an easy summary of his position at the end of his R1: "Thus, America must maintain it's hegemony and actively assert it's policies in order to ensure future wars do not happen."

1) TURN - Let others take over.

SINCE America is basically the last barrier for so many wars happening, we ought to withdraw now and not later. Conflicts such as the one he provides between China and Taiwan are not being solved, and the flames on both sides are just being fueled more every day. As we can see from the empirical example of Britain from its dominance in 1896 to 1916, a superpower can decline pretty rapidly. If we try to continue this hegemony and such an event occrus, then all those conflicts the PRO mentions will have extremely horrifying outcomes. It's better to step out now, because today, many other countries are already attempting to balance out the US's power, and THOSE countries can take over in watching the safety of the world. As they've always said, 'the more the merrier'.

2) TURN - Multipolarity good.

IF WE DO NOT, then the balancing will continue and results for US will be disastrous - "unipolarity appears as the least stable of international configurations."TM The two prior unipolar moments in international history—France under Louis XIV and mid-Victorian Britain— suggest that hegemony prompts the near-simultaneous emergence of several new great powers and the consequent transformation of the international system from unipolarity to multipolarity" (Layne, Christopher - "The Peace Of Illusions") And we know how THOSE two governments fared in the international community.

Unlike how the PRO has put it, the new rising superpowers in America's place will NOT be hostile. Again from Layne - "The major powers in Eurasia have a much more immediate interest in stopping a rising hegemon in their midst than does the United Sates, and it's money in the bank that some of them will step up to the plate and balance against a powerful, expansionist state in their own neighborhood."

I think in terms of who, either the PRO or CON, is getting more benefits in "keeping other countries in check politically and militarily", the CON already wins based on the intuitive notion that more people attempting to solve a problem is better than one person trying to do it alone.

As the PRO says, "world police". I believe a team of police can take care of more problems, more efficiently, and better than just a single policeman.

3) TURN AGAIN - Iraq war is solved if we withdraw.

Look. Terrorism directed against the United States only happens BECAUSE of hegemony. 9/11 happened BECAUSE we were screwing around in the Middle East. It's all happening BECAUSE of our imperialistic regime.

And uhh.

I don't think it'll be a "pale reflection" at all, as what's happening in Iraq is this: WE'RE KILLING IRAQI CIVILIANS; SETTING UP BOMBS, AND SNIPING OFF ANYONE THAT COMES NEAR IT AND THEN SAYING THAT THE IRAQI THAT WALKED NEAR THE BOMB WAS SETTING IT INTO PLACE. I WOULD THINK THAT IF WE WITHDREW FROM IRAQ, F***ING IMMORAL SH*T LIKE THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING.

Reflection?

Who's fighting in iraq?

Us.

Versus anyone that looks suspicious.

What will happen if you leave then, you ask?

I'll tell you what'll happen. Like Layne says, the eurasian community will step in if we step down from our self-proclaimed dominance and solve Syria and whoever else wanted a piece of iraq. Nothing other than diplomacy will arise.

Terrorism itself outside of that can never be solved.

The US Government keeps telling us about this "war on terror" like "terror" is some sort of country, or an organized crime syndicate.

It's this whole godd*** misconception.

Let me tell you folks, the "war on terror" makes just as much as a "war on stealing". Stealing is never going to be solved, unless you put every last person on earth into their own locked steel cubicle. If you give people freedom, there IS going to be some people that abuse that freedom. It's like catching a teenager shoplifting and then saying he's linked to some stealing organization. It just doesn't work that way.

And even then, with groups such as al-qaeda,

Catching the leader won't do anything. The next person will just come to the top position. And then the next one. And then the next one. And then the next one........

That's how ORGANIZED terrorism works.

How about UNORGANIZED terrorism?

How the hell do you solve that?????

You don't.

What you do though, is take America out of its hegemonic imperialistic position in the world, so terrorists have no reason to direct their attacks towards us. There is going to be no "reflection" as Eurasian powers aren't trying to control the Middle East and they AREN'T in Iraq just for oil, and terrorists won't have a reason do direct attacks against THEM either.

Terrorism will always exist. But withdrawing from the international arena as the "leader" will not result in organized terrorism attacking our or other governments.

__________________

In short,

There will be a more peaceful world if America STOPS ENTIRELY its hegemonic and imperialistic regime.
Debate Round No. 1
alvinthegreat

Pro

Hey Korezaan, thanks for accepting my challenge, your arguments are well argued…and you seem to use a lot of debate lingo, but w/e, to topic. Since I have exams next week, I really don't have the time to do all the research needed to substantiate my points; however, I will do so once my exams are over. Since you're doing a policy debate format – I'll do the same.
Argument 1) Let others take over. This won't work for several reasons.
1)You said it yourself – "SINCE America is basically the last barrier for so many wars happening, we ought to withdraw now and not later." – this proves my point – we have to stay the world power and not let these wars happen
2)The Taiwan and China conflict shows signs of improvement, i.e this recent article is just one example – "In a surprise move, Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian May 2 proposed setting up "a military and security consultation mechanism as soon as possible" with China, to improve communications between military and security forces and cut the risk of misunderstandings and unintentional conflicts." (http://www.pww.org...)
3)As for your historical example…Britain dominated for longer than the 20 years you have placed in that time period. I would argue that Britain had dominated from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the Start of World War I, or at least the Boer War.
4)Those countries that you mention are more hostile to the United States than not. They have their own problems to worry about. I.e Look at China's struggle with democracy and Russia's slow descent into Dictatorship.
5)Since we're going by a debate format – you never specified how other powers taking over will solve regional wars and civil wars – I mean a group of powers taking over will only exacerbate the problems in these regions, at least the US is doing something. Multipolarity fails in resolving civil wars empirically – look at Rwanda and Somalia.
Argument 2) – Multipolarity good
1)Your Layne evidence is mistaken in it's empirical examples. France under Louis XIV arguabley was the sole world power from 1661-1815. And England was the world power from the end of the Napolenoic Wars to the Start of WWI. Thus, these powers lasted a hundred or more years. This time is more than enough for the current conflicts to settle down and for US to establish better relations with other countries.
2)Your point that they're not going to be violent is contradicted by your supporting evidence: "The major powers in Eurasia have a much more immediate interest in stopping a rising hegemon in their midst than does the United Sates, and it's money in the bank that some of them will step up to the plate and balance against a powerful, expansionist state in their own neighborhood."" – The bolded lines sound a lot like military hot or cold war brewing in their midst. The increased military spending of Russia and China show that these Eurasian powers will not be peaceful in their Rise to power. Moreover, recent tension between Russia and China against the West shows that peace is not a likely outcome of them taking over.
3)"I think in terms of who, either the PRO or CON, is getting more benefits in "keeping other countries in check politically and militarily", the CON already wins based on the intuitive notion that more people attempting to solve a problem is better than one person trying to do it alone." – But different people will bicker and disagree. When two people disagree, their arguments could turn violent – on the world stage this means a hot war. Moreover, you're discounting the chance of a Cold or Hot war happening between the new leaders of the world (*points to cold war*)
4)"As the PRO says, "world police". I believe a team of police can take care of more problems, more efficiently, and better than just a single policeman." – same argument as 3
Argument 3) – Iraq War is solved if we withdraw. You fail to discount the present tension in the region.
1)Shiite vs. Sunni – Sectarian killings account for most of the civilian casualties in the War. The United States is the only effective thing keeping the violence in check
2)The Iraq gov. is unstable – The government can barely decide what to do with oil revenues, they're unlikely to deal with a religious civil war
3)Iran will fill in the power void and thus create more unstability between the Sunni and Shiite powers in the Middle East
Argument 4? – Terroists
1)Terroists will plague whatever new Eurasian power that comes into power – look at Chechen muslim terrorists attacking Russia, and the various democracy groups in China aching for power. The possible Eurasian power has neither the stability nor the infrastructure to carry the role of the world leader.
2)Terrorists will always attack the United States for its support of Israel, no matter what.
3)Should America withdraw America – worse things will happen – look at argument 3
4)Hegemony is not the reason terrorism happens – it's mainly because of America's support of Israel, which I would not classify as terrorism.
The Con repeatedly discounts the impacts of other powers taking over, he only counts the positive possibilities and he discounts the possibility that these powers may prove hostile to one another. He's assuming that America will not survive another decade as world leader; however, based on his examples, we still have 100 more years to go. Thus, during this time, the current conflicts plaguing the world can be resolved and the other possible powers could be kept in checking for a peaceful transition of power should America fall.
Korezaan

Con

The only debate lingo I'm using that I'm aware of is "TURN", but the meaning for that seems obvious enough.

"Since you're doing a policy debate format – I'll do the same."

I have never done policy in my life so I will be consulting friends if you use terms I do not understand. The debate I DO participate in is LD.

As an overview to ALL of his responses to my arguments, he is never attacking the idea itself in each of my points; only the individual parts.

Keep that in mind.

C1---

1) You're cutting that quote off from the rest of my point. It's SUPPOSED to say that since we are the world power right now we ought to step down NOW.
2) TURN - If China and Taiwan show signs of improvement then we're not needed as a hegemonistic power. Even then though, it does not mean the rest of the worlds problems are going like that too. Link this to response #5.
3) I never said that Britain was only a world power for 20 years. What I DID say was that they FELL from power in those 20 years, and that empirical fact is something you have not or cannot disprove.
4a) TURN - If they have their own problems to worry about then they're not hostile then are they?
4b) Commenter Ninjanuke - "I would like to point out that now much of the world is against us because of our invention policy. For example, most of the EU, Latin/South America, and our own long ally Britain has started critizing us on our foreign policy."
5) I do not do Policy Debate. After consulting my friend however, he says that the argument I'm making here can be called "INHERENCY". Alright so you say that multipolarity does not solve for Rwanda and Somalia. His only defense is that "At least the United States is doing SOMETHING". Well, uhh, we're failing. You never refute this part of my point ---It's better to step out now, because today, many other countries are already attempting to balance out the US's power, and THOSE countries can take over in watching the safety of the world.--- so I'll assume that to be true.

Impact: The world will be more peaceful because 1) If the world has so many problems as it is, we ought to step down now while the rest of the world is trying to balance out our power and problems aren't so bad yet, 2) Since other countries are trying to balance out our power, there will be a tightly knit world police instead of our faulty one right now (which DOES do a worse job than the EU or others).

C2---

1) The evidence here also does not claim a time length. The only other arguments you have on this point is "more than enough time for us to settle relations with other countries" and "more than enough time for current conflicts to settle down".
1a) No warrant for a settling relations with other countries. They don't like our foreign policy (the hegemony) right now, and I don't think it'll change a hundred years from now. Nations in the Middle East want us out of there, and you have the burden of proof to show that things WILL change.
1b) Apply the same burden of proof here, along with the following: Even if current conflicts are solved, more will arise in the future. You're assuming that since we're the world police right now, the only problems that will ever happen from here on out is what's already started. We're not that good. And you haven't given analytics or evidence of that.
2a) MAD assures a peaceful rise to power and a peaceful fall from power for us, and even if that's not true, I don't see why that means a hot or cold war. To me, it sounds more like they're trying to keep the peace and they'll stop any random troublemaker in their midst as a group.
2b) TURN - The reason that there's increased tension is DUE TO our hegemony and our imperialistic foreign policy. If we keep this going then tension will just keep rising and eventually it will burst. Link this back to my first contention - If we fall from power like England within a very short amount of time, then all the increased tension from that time in which we COULD have stepped down.... well, we're f***ed. Already a reason to vote CON.
3&4) "There must be, not a balance of powers but a community of powers; not an organized rivalry, but a organized peace." - Woodrow Wilson. You seem to think that only a balance of powers will arise from this. Although I have used that phrase in my case, that is not what I meant. I thought that me using Layne would've pointed that out but that was also misinterpreted.

Impact: Multipolarity is still good, and creates a more peaceful world compared to America and its hegemony.

C3---

1) Sectarian violence is happening because we're trying to divide up the country for oil. Sectarian violence is happening because we keep installing rulers that favor the West (overthrew Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran - http://www.nytimes.com...). In short, Sectarian violence is only happening BECAUSE we're over there.
2) It didn't seem to be happening before Hussein was taken down, eh? Peaceful does not mean Democratic.
3) Link Mossadeq. He had a peaceful government, but then we just HAD to screw things up. If Iran comes in and fills in the power gap, it'll be our own damned fault. Thankfully that won't happen. Link multipolarity here.

He does not respond to the fact that "WE'RE KILLING IRAQI CIVILIANS; SETTING UP BOMBS, AND SNIPING OFF ANYONE THAT COMES NEAR IT AND THEN SAYING THAT THE IRAQI THAT WALKED NEAR THE BOMB WAS SETTING IT INTO PLACE. I WOULD THINK THAT IF WE WITHDREW FROM IRAQ, F***ING IMMORAL SH*T LIKE THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING."

Impact: The Iraq war is happening due to American hegemony, therefore the world will be a more peaceful place if we stepped down from power.

C4---

1) Not Eurasian power, but Eurasion powerS. And that argument is nonunique, terrorism has plagued mankind since mankind's inception. I also do not agree with your implying that China's democracy groups are terrorists. You do not provide evidence that terrorism will overwhelm the future eurasian power, and we cannot assume so because terrorism has not overwhelmed one yet.
2) We're using hegemony to get involved in Israel. If I learned history right, the reason why Israel is so hated because the land was taken from the Palestinians for the Jews, and the Palestinians were displaced. Who did this action? The West.
3) I don't understand this but since I've covered argument 3 I think I've got this down too.
4) And support of Israel comes from our use of Hegemony. It all links together.

But even before that, terrorism is directed towards us because of our hegemony. True, the preceding argument is not warranted well, but the fact of the matter is, if we step down from our dominating position, then we give terrorists no reason to direct their actions toward us. As I said in R1, "There is going to be no "reflection" as Eurasian powers aren't trying to control the Middle East and they AREN'T in Iraq just for oil, and terrorists won't have a reason do direct attacks against THEM either." You can link that to the first refutation on this contention.

Impact: Less terrorism for everyone, resulting in more world peace.

Again, the PRO's thesis is: "Thus, America must maintain it's hegemony and actively assert it's policies in order to ensure future wars do not happen."

We seem to think that everyone in the world needs Democracy. The reason why Iraq is in such deep sh*t today is because we tried to get it up over there. We need to start listening to the wisdom of past presidents - as JFK once said, "There cannot be an American solution for everything".

For all that are confused, the basic point in my case is that many wars are happening DUE TO America maintaining its hegemony, and for all other wars, the international community would a better job of solving them than America, because they don't go in and assert their policies like we do.
Debate Round No. 2
alvinthegreat

Pro

Sup korezaan, I have to go on a vacation from Friday afternoon to Sunday…so I might not be able to respond to your next round of arguments in time. I would like to ask you to postpone posting your arguments until you're near the end of your time limit, so I can respond. OK, now on to the debate:

Ok, here is how I understand your argument: let America withdraw and Eurasian powers to step in as a coalition, and the world will be more peaceful, and America is ruining world peace b/c of Middle east (Iraq).

They way I see it, korezaan will have to prove Eurasian powers (and/or international community) taking over will be more beneficial than the current state of affairs under the United States (in other terms, more peaceful in the future). Thus, you will have to give reasoning and/or evidence why Eurasian powers will be better equipped to solve the world's problems than the United States. This is because you took the route to suggest an ALTERNATIVE solution to my solution; thus, I would expect you to advance evidence and/or reasoning to support your COUNTERPROPOSAL However, I would like to advance a few arguments for reasons why the international community WILL not be better than the US at maintain peace

1)Internal Bickering – Ever since the dawn of time, coalitions of various nations had internal bickering and fighting. The internal bickering of the international community is clearly evident in the UN and other organizations, thus if the international community were to take over, solvency for world peace will be greatly.
2)A group never works efficiently when resolving various conflicts – one empirical example is with the league of nations and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, and UN with Rwanda, Somalia, and just about every peacekeeping effort it's embarked on.
3)Certain factions will never corporate with each other (i.e India + Pakistan)
Back to my original solution

Argument 1
1)I don't see how your first arguments in R1 makes the you now claim, it merely says that America is the last barrier to wars, and my point is that should we withdraw, the whole world will go up in flames
2)China and Taiwan just one example of things that are improving – there are many others that are currently not in improvement (*points to Ethiopia, Eretria, and Somalia*) that needs American help in order to stabilize
3)Sweet, they fell from power in 20 years, yet they had 20 years of relative peace. And what happened after they fell? WORLD WAR I – a clear example of what we want to avoid. We have to stay in power far longer to facilitate the peaceful solution to the World's problems.
4)A. Yes, one more reason that they will be more aggressive when they do not face repercussions when dealing with their problem, and another reason why they can't take on the mantle of leadership after America withdraws. B. I don't see how that helps your point.
5)OK, maybe we're not getting the job done – at least we're doing something – what will the world do? What happened during Somalia in 1991 – when US forces attacked and actually took aggressive action while UN forces sat idly by. And we're actually doing something – as the recent establishment of an organized African command by the US army and the recent participation of US army in hunting down dissidents in Somalia show. Again you advocate the point.
6)Impact – if you say the world is going to do better – you have to prove it first – see my arguments why it would not be better than the US. Any current possible actors that could easily supplant America's place has either a lack of a peacekeeping and conflict resolution record, or a bad one (UN).

C2
1)Things in the middle east will change – see recent middle-eastern conventions in Annapolis, moreover, conflict between Palenstein and Iseralis have lessened now, since Fatah took over the west bank. B. Yes, conflicts will arise, but the US is a better agent to deal with these problems then a whole host of other nations (again back to my point about how other nations fail)
2)Your own evidence says that they will try to stop "rising hegemon in their midst" – is this not a clear statement of the aggressive impact of what your scenario? MAD doesn't provide for much, as the numerous quasi-conflicts between US and USSR shows (i.e Vietnam, Korea ect). Your evidence clearly states that they will be aggressive when taking over power – not passive as you suggest. B) Sure we may be part of the cause of the heightened tension, but the fact is – your evidence states that they will be violent in their rise to power.
3)Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was a complete and utter failure, it failed to settle Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, and the other events that led to WW2. This empirical evidence shows that Multipolarity never works as well as a single power at the helm, and many others were provided by me earlier.
4)I have no idea which Layne evidence you're referring to that states that powers will work together peacefully unless you're talking about the Eurasian quote, which clearly states that they will aggressively maintain their local hegemony and stop rising powers, and somehow still manage to keep peace?
5)Impact: Multipolarity is bad, the possible agents you mentioned that might supplant America's place are all worse off than America at maintaining peace.
C3 –
1)ISn't the major conflict between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds? So once we leave, things will magically fall into place and the three groups will magically become peaceful? I doubt it. The reason for the conflict is between the long sequestered Shiite majority's discontent at the minority Sunni's harsh rule under saddam
2)Once we retreat, the Iraq gov. will collapse – I don't understand your point – I'm saying that the Iraq gov. is unstable and will collapse soon – but mentioning saddam does not support your point it will be more peaceful. Are you suggesting we supplant another ruthless dictator instead of the US occupation?
3)Big deal – that was 50 years ago, during the height of the cold war – circumstances are different now.

C4 –
1)You have to show that your Eurasian powers will somehow be better peacekeepers than the US, which I don't see happening, since they still have internal problems to deal with
2)Terrorists attack the US for a multitude of reasons - religious, socio-economic, and others.
3)Even if terrorists against the US stopped, the possible wars arising from other nations taking over will outweigh the impacts caused by terrorist actions.

Just saying the Eurasian powers aren't in Iraq doesn't mean Iraq won't fall in shambles when we leave. Moreover, Eurasian powers are even more resource-hungry than the US is, and any actions they take against the middle east will probably be aggressive.
To conclude:
1) Since you have clearly advocated the position that other powers will do a better job than the US at keeping peace – support it
2) While America may not be the perfect solution to world peace – we are still better than any alternatives
3) Although it may seem that my scenarios are not being solved – they are, recent developments point to a new trend to world peace – being facilitated by the US

I'm really enjoying the debate up till now, and this allows me to polish some of my long-lost debating skills - if you would like to debate some other political, historical, or religious topic, we can set up another debate.
Korezaan

Con

Korezaan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
alvinthegreat

Pro

everything i said is above
in conclusion,

America must support of its hegemony because of the following reasons
1) MY opponent has not provided a better alternative, and thus my plan of action is still the best one on the table
2) The impacts of withdrawing are yet unknown, and my opponent's arguments that eurasian powers will somehow preserve world peace is ungrounded
3) The US must maintain its hegemony due to other threats in the world today, as i have listed
Korezaan

Con

Korezaan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
wow, this is one heck of a debate

so I'm gonna keep it simple

the united states needs to keep it position in the world for when another enemy superpower does arise

but now Europe has more influence on the world stage, not through force, as the United States does, but through aid and its combined votes in international organizations

Europe's aid to foreign countries is twice that of the United States

As for Russia and China, I'm not sure, if they continue to globalize, i wouldn't worry as much

India and Pakistan will reach an agreement eventually (i hope) and i believe that India will come to play a bigger role in the global war on terrorism, Pakistan also needs to learn that war with India will destroy them

Pakistan worries me with the latest news, time will tell, but we must have a friendly relationship with them but several issues need to be addressed in order for the relationship to work, they need to educate their children and public on the benefits of democracy, i think if this happens, a democratic Pakistan will look good, and inform them how a good relationship with the United States is good for them, Churchill said..."Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" and i think he'd say the same for Pakistan
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE CON / THE IMPACTS OF EVERYTHING:

Basically what I've said throughout this debate is that we ought to pull out now and not later, because the horrors that will arise out of us pulling out now are much less compared to us and our inevitable fall sometime in the future in a very short amount of time, possibly resulting in another world war. As for the horrors that will result if we pull out now, I solve for that with multipolarity. His arguments against multipolarity are a turn of the Layne evidence, and some new arguments he brought up in R3. I un-turned Layne and took out his R3 args, so Multipolarity still stands. I prove that Hegemony does not work and that Multipolarity could work so it's true that although I never really show that Multipolarity will be more peaceful, it's impossible to do it in the first place since it hasn't happened yet or before. However, I've shown that Hegemony has disastrous results and therefore, there will be a more peaceful world if America does not maintain its hegemony.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
C4---
1) I responded to this at the very beginning and throughout this round.
2a) How would you know? Are you a terrorist?
2b) Okay, they attack us for several reasons. Wheres the impact?
3) Correct, country-level wars outweigh noob-suicide-bomber-level wars. Which is why I win, because he never proves that these wars will happen. His only place where he comes close to doing that is in C2, where he tries to turn Layne. But since he gives no link and no analysis, this point cannot be taken as true.

Shambles arg - Look to C3(2).
Resources - I doubt it, we're pretty freakin' crazy for oil.
More aggressive - Two levels you should not take this into consideration - 1) it's a new argument, and 2) he gives no analysis, backup, or evidence for this, and if the audience is going to vote based off of common knowledge and opinion, then it's clear that CON has won this arg - We're pretty freakin' crazy for oil.

1) I can't really do that, as it hasn't happened yet or before. What I can do however, is show that multipolarity will not be violent in its rise to power and show that it's better than unipolarity - And that I have shown to be correct.
2) No we're not. We CAUSE violence. "He had a peaceful government, but then we just HAD to screw things up."(R2)
3) The only arg that supports this point is the one he made about Taiwan and China, which I have shown to be false due to no link: He does not show that the recent developments of relations getting better are DUE to the US's Hegemony.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
2b) "2b) TURN - The reason that there's increased tension is DUE TO our hegemony and our imperialistic foreign policy. If we keep this going then tension will just keep rising and eventually it will burst. Link this back to my first contention - If we fall from power like England within a very short amount of time, then all the increased tension from that time in which we COULD have stepped down.... well, we're f***ed. Already a reason to vote CON."(R2)
3) He hasn't argued anywhere in his case that hegemony works better than multipolarity, only that hegemony works and multipolarity does not.
4) Again, I see no "clearly states" in my Layne evidence.
5) The only agent I mention is Eurasia.

His blanketing idea on this arg is that Layne states that Eurasia will be violent in preventing a hegemon from rising in their midst. I don't see where this is, and he doesn't show you where it is either.

On the contrary, Layne says that "unipolarity appears as the least stable of international configurations."(R1)

C3---
1) Apparently it isn't. (Refer to R2 for more details, I'm runnin out of space)
2) What I said in R2 was that we didn't seem to be hearing about all this sectarian violence when Hussein was still in power. My point is that it's probably true that Hussein to some extent kept violence in check. As for your other arg here, my response is that we ought to leave them to solve their own problems. If their government collapses sure, they'll run into a few problems, but eventually they'll form a government type that they want. Us going in and being imperialistic will solve nothing.
3) Absolutely correct- Circumstances are a lot worse.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
---
I'd like to go out on a limb here and point out that his case says that every problem that we're supposedly directly linked to fixing (which he doesn't show in the first place) is a reason that we're succeeding, while all the problems that we're failing to solve is a reason to keep us in power so we can solve them. If we are failing in doing our job, then we should let others take over; it's not a reason to stay as the hegemon! He's providing y'all the image that America is perfect.... which it is not.
---

3) For the WW1 thing, refer to my previous refutation. As for relative peace, I see no evidence of relative peace. There was New Imperialism and then they had WW1. I can't find his 20 years of relative peace on the world timeline.

4A1) MAD solves; they won't attack us.
4A2) Why should they face repercussions when solving their own problems???
4A3) We're not perfect in government either, how can we expect anyone else to be?
4B) Ninjanuke did a turn here, he said that if we stay as the world hegemon then they're gonna be pissed at us anyways.

5) The world doesn't need to step in on every single problem. Some things are better left alone to solve for themselves. Maybe that's what the world thought of Somalia. As JFK once said, "there cannot be an American solution to everything". Intervention is not always the best policy.

6) How can I prove it if it hasn't happened yet? As for the other arguments, I have already disproved them.

C2---
1a) He STILL doesn't prove that the Middle East will start accepting our hegemony.
1b) I have taken out his arg that other nations will fail, therefore his argument that we're a better agent is incorrect.
2a) I provided an aggressive scenario??? I don't see where Layne says that.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I'll just copy/paste and cut sections.

The reason why I forfeited R3 was because I didn't want alvin to lose his R4 or have too little time for it, so I postponed my arg like he said.... but then my holiday festivities took over xD

And so, I lost my R3.

I'll go over his R3 points first, jump around between the previous rounds, and then prove to y'all why I still win based on the three burdens he crystallized in R4.

_________

He is incorrect in "understanding my argument", as I have more than one. But he gives an accurate summary of one of them.

Response to 1,2,3: NON-UNIQUE - America is also a group. I'm assuming your definition of America is the United States Government, which consists of multiple parties and quite a few different opinions. Result is no impact.

C1---
1,2) "SINCE America is basically the last barrier for so many wars happening, we ought to withdraw now and not later. Conflicts such as the one he provides between China and Taiwan are not being solved, and the flames on both sides are just being fueled more every day."(R1) His only refutation to this is a piece of evidence from a website, which has no impact whatsoever on this argument. However, "TURN - If China and Taiwan show signs of improvement then we're not needed as a hegemonistic power. Even then though, it does not mean the rest of the worlds problems are going like that too."(R2) On top of that, he also never provides a link between his evidence and his case; Just because we've sent over a couple of people to try and calm things down does not mean we are linked to solving those problems.

JUST BECAUSE we're the hegemon and problems are being solved doesn't mean that problems are being solved BECAUSE we're the hegemon.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Dude wtf, my timer still had 30 minutes on it.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Oh goodie, I have 2 days to post.

:D

Sorry about R3.... I had a lot of christmas stuff goin on x_x

and I STILL do!
Posted by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
sorry about that...i remembered this just in time to post lol...
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Oops. Gave this thing too much time to run.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HwangJongWon 9 years ago
HwangJongWon
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
alvinthegreatKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30