DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable.

Thanks to my friend Royal for accepting.Framework We have to view the resolution from a realistic viewpoint--we live in a world of aggressive nation-states, and no wrangling about the word desirable is going to change that fact. The only issue is the real-world effects of US hegemony. My opponent will try to bring up many examples of vile or destructive things the US has done, but unless she offer some explanatory analysis on how some real-world alternative would be superior, she loses the debate.I. A change in polarity would be destructive. Multipolarity is the situation in which multiple states have nearly equal power/influence and no nation has hegemony; historical examples of this would be the Pre-WWI and Pre-WWII worlds. Currently the world is in a state of unipolarity after the collapse of the USSR with the US being the undisputed hegemon, no nation even nearing it in military spending/power or cultural influence[1][2][3], the US spending nearly 5 times more than the closest nation (China) and having a much larger GDP than everyone else. Thus, the collapse of US leaves a power vacuum, as Niall Ferguson explains[4]: "If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world—and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age." This evidence shows that without US hegemony and no one to fill in the vacuum, the world collapses into a polar nightmare--with no nation to promote its interests by ensuring regional stability, the entire world order falls apart. Indeed, the use of force by the US is often enough to quickly crush regional conflicts, the Persian Gulf war being a typical example, and we can see empirically that periods of bipolarity (such as the proxy conflicts defining the cold war) or multipolarity (like pre-WWI) are more prone to warfare, and the conflicts are of a much more elevated nature compared to periods of unipolarity (like that status quo, or Post-Napoleon to pre-WWI). Thus in the world of nation states, the empirical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that having a hegemon is desirable. Moreover, in the volatile and dangerously equipped world of today, a breakdown of the Pax-Americana would be devastating. As Alexi Arbotav[5] explains: "A multipolar world...is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly." Instability and warfare are the natural results of the breakdown of the national hierarchy. Further, there is simply no nation capable of taking the place of the United States, and thus the world would collapse into multipolarity with various great powers grappling for regional influence. Surely the uncountable dead from the World Wars, the warring states period, and the Napoleonic wars tell us that these situations are bad, and the widespread possession of nuclear weapons (especially among two of the most likely to attempt to succeed the US, China and Russia) could easily lead mankind into a nuclear holocaust. At the very least, regional conflicts will intensify--how could they do anything else? With the sudden disappearance of the US other aggressive states would seize upon their chance to gain regional hegemony and secure their interests, and warfare would ensue. To name just two examples, the collapse of US heg. would likely cause a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran[6], and without US support much of the Arab world would attack Israel, who's well trained and equipped military would be able to resist (or win) for quite some time, causing perpetual warfare in the already violent region.It has been established that a global hegemon is necessary, and that there is no country other than the US capable of taking on such a role, so you can already affirm without looking at specific US policies. To negate is to cause perpetual war and death.I already anticipate my opponent making some critiques on the status quo or the concept of the nation-state itself, but understand that until she gives an alternative that has a legitimate chance of being implemented, we stick to the status quo. II. US policies are beneficial.A. Democracy and EgalitarianismThe US has been, particuraly compared to other historical examples, a benevolent power on the world stage. While there is no doubt that the US intervenes for interests other than democracy promotion, the US has a rich tradition of overthrowing dictatorships and replacing them with democracies whenever feasible (from Germany to Iraq). Moreover, the US has not ever committed genocide against weaker people during its tenure as the hegemon (compare this to other great powers which have committed genocides against their own peoples[7][8]). Much of this can be explained by the multicultural nature of the US, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman[9] writes about American culture: "This egalitarian tendency to mingle with and accept, admire, and even love another culture is an American strong-point. Because of it America was able to turn occupied Germany and Japan from defeated enemies to friends and allies." Unlike previous hegemons who ruthlessly exploited everyone else for strategic and economic advantage, the US does these things minimalistically, and when it does its policies often benefit the other country. The unique egalitarianism and multicultural state of the US prevents most Americans from looking on other nations as countries full of subhuman animals, allowing the US to transform devastated oppressive states into economic power-houses. No doubt the US is imperfect and has performed many inexcusable actions, but over all it benefits the world.Indeed, simple glances at East vs. West Germany, North vs. South Korea, or British India to Latin America provide compelling cases by themselves for US hegemony over that of other nations.B. Free Trade and peaceThe US has taken steps to encourage free trade. Franz-Gady explains[10]:"...the United States has been seen as a champion of free trade. In part due to its industrial supremacy and the onset of the Cold War, the U.S. government was one of the most consistent proponents of reduced tariff barriers and free trade in the last sixty years and helped to establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later, the World Trade Organization."Gady goes on to explain that free trade maximized the encouragement of peace due to larger economic interests between nations. For example, due to trade China would not want to destroy the US because doing so would ruin their foreign exchange reserves and a critical export market, and the US would not want China to collapse because then it would lose its comparative advantage and be forced to produce other goods here. Moreover, free trade is good because it allows for maximum economic exchange and hence wealth creation between countries, raising the standard of living everywhere. I seriously doubt my opponent will question the economic value of free trade given that protectionism, in the words of Murray Rothbard, is simply "dangerous nonsense".The resolution is clearly affirmed. Due to the fact that the world is, and will continue to be composed of nation states with different interests, a global hegemon is needed to keep global stability, and the US is the only nation capable of providing this. Even nonwithstanding the fact that US policies are generally benevolent, you affirm given the devastating effects of multipolarity. I greatly anticipate my opponents round.Sources:http://www.debate.org...