Overregulation Was a Significant Cause for the Fall of the Roman Empire

My opponent has given me a compelling argument, good job! Due to the rules I must only show my arguments right now. C1: Humanities and Causal/Determinant Factors First, in order to establish what contributed to the fall of Rome, and what actually causes the fall we must define those factors. Enter causal and determinant factors. A Causal factor will only contribute to the fall, but it isn't the cause of the fall. The determinant factor is the causing factor to an event to start. So lets take WWI for example: the causal factor would be the alliances formed and the nationalism that occurs before the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The actual determinant factor in this case would be the assassination. Here, we must keep this in mind with the fall of Rome, as no determinant factor exists; why? Simple! Rome never actually “falls”, because it still exists today, so what were left with is technically the decline of the Roman Empire, not the fall of it, which in turn leaves us only with causal factors. C2: More Than One Factor Historians generally agree that there was several causal factors to consider when the decline of Rome takes place is summarized in categories: political, economic, social, and military. Political due to the autocratic rule of Rome; which would cause consistent contests as to who inherited the throne next as the legitimate ruler. Provinces would eventually split into 3 factions fighting one another in a civil war, and we call this the crisis of the third century. About 25 Generals claimed to be the heir to the throne, which resulted in civil war. Social due to the constant fighting between Christians and Pagans. Continuous barbarian attacks upon Rome and it's consistent sacking, and economic as my opponent has already noted. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... C3: So What Factor Was Most Important? The problem with claiming that one factor was more important than all others under the Hitchen's Razor requires extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. However, I would also like to note that we cannot confuse economic errors with the errors of public policy, otherwise that makes it a political issue and not an economic one. As well, the military undoubtedly effected the political shape of Rome as well due to it's structure, and what it enabled the military to do legally. Thus, I shall argue political factors were far more significant than economic ones. Source: http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org... C4: The Final Summary! How do we know political issues were a huge source for the decline of Rome? Several things: First the contests between Senators and the Emperor. In fact, it was the wealthy Romans who eventually cause a huge fall for Rome, as they were at odds with the Emperor trying to gain more power, even though they were just advisers. Second the story of Sejanus and the Roman Guard who were the Emperors personal body guards became so politically corrupt that they literally decided who could and could not rule Rome. Couple this with too fast an expansion of the Roman borders (which were unable to be guarded properly), barbarian knowledge of Roman military tactics, huge military spending (which also impacts the economy btw .. ergo public policy = political factor) and Constintine becoming a Christian causing civil issues, you have yourself a huge political problem which will cause your decline to be inevitable. Source: http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org...Thank you! I now turn this over to my opponent! He must now refute why political issues in Rome are not as signifigant as over-regulation.