The Instigator
PolicyDebateTOC
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
ComradeJon1
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

US Hegemony is bad

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: 2/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,335 times Debate No: 2629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

PolicyDebateTOC

Pro

Hegemony is counterproductive:

Multipolarity now -- other powers are emerging such as Europe and China. This non uniques any claim as to why hegemony solves war because thats empirically denied -- we should be in a large scale war right now then

1. Hegemony causes counterbalancing -- other countries will try and balance out the US, killing any attempt at reform, especially in foreign policy. No US engagement will work, and our army becomes overstretched.

2. Causes proliferation -- other countries will proliferate WMDs to combat US heg since its the only way for them to feel safe. Proliferation increases the likeliness of nuclear war by making it easy for rogue states to launch nuclear missiles.

3. Spurs terrorism -- the reason there is terrorism is because they're hostile to the american value system, especially hegemony. Terrorism is obviously bad, and if someone wants to indict this impact, be my guest.

4. Kills our economy -- deficit is bad now, if we keep increasing hegemony, we will plunge our economy down the drain. Keeping our military up costs alot of money and we cant afford it anymore right now.

4 offensive reasons why heg is bad, just need to win one
ComradeJon1

Con

Thanks for the topic, its a very good one

Ill start by running down your points:

1) Theres no reason multipolarity and hegemony cannot co-exist. Hegemony only substantiates the US as a leader, not total ruler. Europe and China may emerge as powers, but thats all the more reason to concentrate ourselves on hegemonic power. As the UN grows legitimacy, US interests have the best chance of being served if we gain hegemoic power.

2) Your assumptions are very elastic. I fail to see any logical reason hegemony cultivates the wrath of other nations, nor how ignoring global issues makes other nations less aggressive (if we assume your first assumption is correct). Non-US involvment is not going to solve global issues, but exacerbate them. Look to Darfur (not that there arent other examples)

3) Now i understand as a policy debater, your life revolves around linking nuclear war in any way possible, but your 3rd assumption is extremely baseless. The US has been the hegemonic world leader for the last 100 years. Never has proliferation been because our hegemony "doenst make them feel safe".

4) Terrorism is in response to american values, but hegemony is by no means the source.

5) Your confusing hegemony with a non-existant ideal. Hegemony doenst cost money, it is only a state of mind.

Hegemony's benefits:

1) Gives us the ability to stop genocide and other human rights violation
2) Grows partnership with strong nations (i.e. European nations, China)
3) Establishes an untouchable status among powerful nations
Debate Round No. 1
PolicyDebateTOC

Pro

Well first: the entire purpose of multipolarity is multiple world powers. US hegemony cannot coexist without backlash or counterbalancing from other countries. In other words, a benign US hegemony does not work, other countries inevitably get angered.

There is a ton of evidence saying that hegemony causes negative side effects.

Extend the 4 offensive reasons. I'll definitely win proliferation though -- other countries feel the need to back themselves up with WMDs if we are the world hegemony. Proliferation causes nuclear war.

Your defense on prolif isn't true though. We have not been the hegemon for 100 years, it was just after the cold war, and it has been declining since 9/11. There is an article by Khanna, came out on january 3rd I think (10 page article) saying that we're now in a multipolar world. Other countries are just as powerful as the US.

WMDs have only existed in the past 20 years really, and obviously they haven't been used since the US WAS the hegemon but now that we're in a multipolar world, it forces us to adopt multipolar responses.

Hegemony is the source of american values -- the idea that we're supreme is what generates negative feelings towards us. Its easy for terrorists to gain access to dirty bombs etc.

Hegemony doesnt benefit:
a) Other countries can intervene, and multipolarity solves your offense -- we can still intervene, just not be the major police man making unilateral decisions
b) Actually kills relations and causes counterbalancing either in soft power or hard power counterbalancing
c) We aren't untouchable when WMDs hit US homeland or terrorists deploy dirty bombs in the white house.

I have a tournament at harvard so I probably wont be able to respond for a while. . .

But look at this in a non biased lens -- the US must accept its not the world leader. We can still solve world problems, just in a multilateral sense working with other nations.

Here is the uniqueness in the article I talked about:
The New York Times
January 27, 2008
Waving Goodbye to Hegemony
By PARAG KHANNA
http://www.nytimes.com...

Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it's 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It's as if the first decade of the 21st century didn't happen — and almost as if history itself doesn't happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them. Maybe the best way to understand how quickly history happens is to look just a bit ahead.

Here is counterbalancing:

The web of globalization now has three spiders. What makes America unique in this seemingly value-free contest is not its liberal democratic ideals — which Europe may now represent better than America does — but rather its geography. America is isolated, while Europe and China occupy two ends of the great Eurasian landmass that is the perennial center of gravity of geopolitics. When America dominated NATO and led a rigid Pacific alliance system with Japan, South Korea, Australia and Thailand, it successfully managed the Herculean task of running the world from one side of it. Now its very presence in Eurasia is tenuous; it has been shunned by the E.U. and Turkey, is unwelcome in much of the Middle East and has lost much of East Asia's confidence. "Accidental empire" or not, America must quickly accept and adjust to this reality. Maintaining America's empire can only get costlier in both blood and treasure. It isn't worth it, and history promises the effort will fail. It already has.

Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It's very much too late to be asking, because the answer is unfolding before our eyes. Neither China nor the E.U. will replace the U.S. as the world's sole leader; rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa, while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game.
ComradeJon1

Con

- Youre assuming the US is going to aggrivate backlash. A good hegemon and any hegemon are two different things. The US has sustained its placment as a hegemon and used that to get the UN and its related bodies to promote US interest.

- Countries will see the US as an enemy no matter what. unless you suggest we purposley down grade our selves as to not be powerful enough for anyone to care, we will always have the threat of opposistion. US hegemony only places us in a better position to deal with it.

- actually, since the end of the Sp.-Am. war over 100 years ago, weve been the forefront of world politics. We established the league of nations, we established NATO, our envolvment ended WWII and started Vietnam, we have been consistantly upholding the TR corallary in our hemisphere and have front runners for the war on drugs/arms. Soviet Russia was known for paying little attention to organizations like the LON or UN.

- i agree that we have become multi-polar and that nuclear prolif. is a threat. But i cant agree that US hegemony has any logical tie nor that a lack of it will solve the problem.
Debate Round No. 2
PolicyDebateTOC

Pro

Benign hegemons still cause counterbalancing

Christopher layne 2002 "offshore balancing revisited"
other states will draw the opposite conclusion: that the united states is too powerful and that its hegemony must be resisted. Even if the us foreign and defense policies remain relatively benign, other states always will fear that such benevolence might disappear in the wink of an election.

we WONT be seen as a hegemon if we adopt multilateral policies, that is the entire point of the concept of multilateralism.

I dont know if you're citing evidence, but I actually know for a fact after doing alot of research on hegemony, that we are declining now. Yes in the past we had heg, but its DECLINING.

You cant just say no link about terrorism or prolif when I'm reading evidence that hegemony leads to counterbalancing and all that offense.

Hes dropping way too much.
ComradeJon1

Con

Im not sure what world you live in where hegemony and pulling together other powerful nations to accomplish a single cause are seperate entities, but in this world, multilateralism has been a part of almost every major hegemon's plans in recent history.

Im not sure how it declining proves its a bad thing. If anything, our poor stnading in Iraq, bad economy and issues with other major powers prove that hegemony is a missed entity

you can cite as many reasons for counterbalancing as youd like, you need to give evidence on terrorism and nukes if you want to prove terrorism and nukes.

either way, thanks for your time. good debate. wish ya luck at harvard if youre going
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Well, that is not, my real Neg, I just negated your points. I am from Clovis East and I am going to Berkeley this weekend. I don't post any of my cases, because i am just like that. My friend actually, used some of my contentions and definitions, it was funny to me.
Posted by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
hes talking to me. good luck with your debating. id revamp your neg a bit. Where do you go to school?

Ill have a rebuttal for you tomarrow after school, CXdebate. im just strapped to study for APUSH
Posted by PolicyDebateTOC 9 years ago
PolicyDebateTOC
I didnt argue you about russia...
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Hey, you are just sad that I beat you at Russia. You had a good case though and i stole some of your ideas. What I think is funny is at my school, my teammates printed off that debate, and did not know it was me, who wrote it. It was hilarious.
Posted by noobsavior 9 years ago
noobsavior
damn it xtos i was about to go against u
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by LDdebaterCG 7 years ago
LDdebaterCG
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kantus 7 years ago
Kantus
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
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 polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
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 sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
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 ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
PolicyDebateTOCComradeJon1Tied
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