The United States overall is a benefit to mankind

Before I begin I would like to reiterate my framework which is if the US Benefits the majority of the people worldwide in at least 2 of the 3 listed categories, then they win the round at hand. He claimed I lied about South America being occupied. I didn't lie, I was misinformed, there is a huge difference there. So, keep that in mind voters. My opponent never responded to the framework, so that means he agrees with it. Let's move to the key issues. Innovation + Tech My opponent is saying US contribution benefits society. However when I show that the vast majority of contributions are not from the US in technology, like in phones, hybrid cars and computers, the US does not benefit society overall because they do not contribute the majority (as stated in the framework) of society. He even admits this to an extent. He claims that because the US invented them, they benefit society. But when I show you that it's Asian countries that control and advance the industry, the US really has no benefit. He claims US innovations drive Asian economies, that's not true. Private companies are what drive economies and considering the main contributors are Asian companies, that means they drive each other, not US innovation. With rocket fuel, if space exploration was truly a benefit, the US wouldn't have shut down their shuttles, and cancelled their constellation program. It's really not relevant be abuse it doesn't benefit society economically, something he never responded to. For the record - Motorola is a phone company, not a car company... He never provided sources for his medical innovations either, so those could have been founded by anyone. Telephones: It was mainly developed and invented in Canada, because that's where Bell lived. If it weren't for him, the telephone would never have been patented. http://www.telephonymuseum.com... For the inconvenient truth, Just because China pollutes more now, that doesn't mean the following two factors, 1) The US almost pollutes more than them, despite having 800 000 000 less citizens 2) Their overuse of CFC's decades ago that caused a hole in the Ozone layer has made the US the catalyst of global warming (As stated in an Inconvenient truth) http://en.wikipedia.org... As for the Bessemer process, my source says it hasn't been used since 1968, and it's been one upped. But, even then, my opponent has not provided how skyscrapers benefit society, he just assumes they do. So, because the US does not benefit the majority of the world, they do not benefit the world OVERALL, so innovation point flows to Con today. Now onto world peace. Noam Chomsky is from Israel, and has studied middle eastern cultures for over 30 years. So this, "old man" you seem to believe is not credible, actually knows more about foreign policy than almost anyone in the world. You clearly did not watch the other 16 parts to the documentary, but that's understandable, so even though he explains in detail the issue with East Timor, i'm going to call this point moot here since the US did not do all of the work. But, by calling this point moot, this makes the following points of yours moot. Britain- RAF took out the biggest threat, and they still had a navy of their own, making them the majority contributor. France- France contributed the most in defending their country in WW1, and it was a collaborative effort from Britian, the US and other allied nations, so the majority contribution was not from the US. http://en.wikipedia.org... Israel- You even conceded this one yourself when saying that the US only contributed arms. Africa- Other nations give substantial amounts of aid too. But also, you never provided one specific example where their aid actually provided substantial benefits... Philippines- Their "mistake" led to over 200,000 civillian deaths, and you never listed how they ever benefited the Philippines, just that they allowed for them to leave Japanese occupation. http://www.historyguy.com... Cuba- Really, it was to prevent World War 3? Is that why it's still around now and breaks UN international law? To prevent world war 3? http://www.amnesty.org... Here is some evidence as well to show that the US supports Palestine oppression. http://en.wikipedia.org... Afghanistan- Regardless of whether it was the US's intention to overthrow the Taliban, there were better ways to handle the situation, as stated by Chomsky. It wasn't the Army the killed Bin Laden, the attack was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command forces working with the CIA, so the army really was not necessary to remove Bin Laden, and lead to the killing of over 25,000 civilian deaths. The US never considered any other options, and simply just attacked and bombed Afghanistan, and not for the better. He claims his "sources" say Afghanistan is better now, but he never provides any. Plus, considering that Afghanistan's only industry is opium, they really will not able to benefit the world economically, regardless of what the US does. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) Iraq- The situation could've been handled much better here as well, as stated by Chomsky. Considering that their claimed to be primary reason for attack was for weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no weapons of mass destruction, this clearly shows that the handled the situation terribly. Even though they overthrew Hussein, there are still tonnes of dictators around the world that oppress their countries, so why else would they be attacking Iraq? Oil. http://en.wikipedia.org... The US is lacking in oil within their country, and in order to remain as a world power, oil is crucial to their success. South America- considering that South America has not had the US do anything to "help" them since 2002, and the fact that the nations there have been doing well economically directly shows that these nations do not need help from the US. Some points my opponent never responded too Rwanda- never intervened, and is now verging on the highest amount of genocide in history Khmer Rouge- never intervened, and Cambodia was ruined because of that So, because the US does not handle situations properly, and because they fail to pick and choose their battles properly, a con ballot is urged on this issue. Now onto social idealogies. I wasn't able to fully respond to this last time because I ran out of characters. He claims I made stuff up, so ill just go down the list and refute his ideas he had. 1. Religious tolerance- The US is not very tolerant actually. But, despite that, they don't influence the world in this category at all. http://www.firmstand.org... 2. Calvanism- That was during the protestant reformation in the Dark Ages... The US wasn't even around then. 3. Constitutionalism- http://en.wikipedia.org...- this source shows only 5 countries only really adopted it, so not really a benefit. He never actually shows how this benefits the world overall 4. Enlightenment-http://en.wikipedia.org... it started in Europe and the US just followed suit. 5. Feminism- http://en.wikipedia.org... It started in the UK and Australia, the US just followed suit. 6. Universal suffrage- as I tried to say before, the Us just followed suit. 7. Rehabilitation of criminals- The US has the highest crime rate in the world http://www.mapsofworld.com... so this system doesn't even benefit their own country, let alone the world. I thank my opponent for today's round, he is a STRONG debater! For these reasons, I urge a con ballot in today's round. Thank