The Collapse of US Hegemony is Imminent

A great final round! You have a well outlined argument that is easy to follow. Let's see what I can do: "At the point where hegemony MUST be unipolar by definition, so long as the voters believe that the EU or China will BALANCE or EQUAL the US, they believe that hegemony will be lost." -Round 3 Ah not true! If the voters think that the EU and China will equal the United States within the next twenty years they agree with you. *****The whole point of my argue was not argue that the American hegemony will be lost (because it inevitably will) but instead that because of preserving forces such as, globalization, superior military capabilities, and a massive GNP that is still growing, the American hegemony will be preserved for a while (20 years). Also, it's important to note that even in order for China or the EU to even balance the United States they would have to become characteristic of a hegemon as defined in Round 1. Whether or not the international system becomes multipolar is irrelevent, it will take a country of hegemonic proportions to dismantle the United States' unipolar control. "if I can prove that a constitution will occur during the next 20 years, I prove that the EU is a nation-state. " This is a problematic argument because how do you know that the constitution will grant the EU any significant autonomy? How do you know it would grant the kind of military capabilities required to compete with an American hegemon? What I'm suggesting is that any constitution drafted within the next twenty years is unlikely to be drastic or widespread enough to suddenly turn the EU into a nation state. There are also soooo many opposing forces to this kind of development: National identity would be infringed, state's sovereignty would be comprimised (nation states generally dont like to give away their political autonomy freely), and economic redistribution would undoubtedly fuel some affluent opposition. Also, just the fact that the EU will incorporate the agendas of a multitude of countries with a variety of cultures has to inhibit it's ability to have one country exercise any considerable influence over the international community. "However, I also believe that in the CURRENT system the EU at least partially meets point 1, in that they currently have several peacekeeping forces already deployed" I find this argument unconvincing because "peace-keeping forces" barely constitutes a national army. I know you're trying to argue that this peace-keeping force would somehow constitute a national army and qualify them as a nation state, but I don't think this is an honest argument because in round 2 we agreed on criteria that assumed the military would fulfill the conventional role of an army. Peace-keeping forces aren't even suppose to fire their weapons! Keep in mind, this national army would still have to at least compete with the United States military. And I fail to see how the EU or the Chinese or indeed the military capabilities of the entire world would pose a significant threat to the United States. We spend over a half trillion dollars every year! Thats more then national economic activity for most countries in the world! Your arguments regarding EU's GDP and potential purchasing power are convincing but we appear to have contradicting data! Taurillion.org is an "online community of Euro citizens" and its the source I used when I claimed that the United States has 40% more purchasing power and although you claim this fact is wrong you proceed to use the Taurillion arguments to claim that Europe's unemployment is actually helping them dismantle the American hegemony! You can't have it both ways! Either you discredit the source or you cite it. You have done both, but I urge the voters to read it for themselves (http://www.taurillon.org...). "The EU was meant to bring us a golden future, but instead it has brought us stagnation, unemployment and social discontent has become a familiar refrain. What is worse, lest we abandon our relentless pessimism, our eternally optimistic American friends excel at reminding us that they are richer, enjoy faster growth with lower unemployment and are generally better off in every way." -Taurillion.org I wanted to include this quote because I think your conclusion that "It is obvious that almost all members of the EU desire a constitution" is a dangerous blanket statement. There are plenty of opposing forces to the EU. I discussed some of them in the above paragraph but the debate over EU's power and role is heated and ongoing and is likely to continue for years to come. China Time! "If the Chinese economy begins to fail, China can withcall all of its loans to the US—at which point the US is given the option either to pay up or admit bankruptcy." There are conditions to loans! The United States agrees to payback the loan over a period of time at a certain rate. The Chinese government cant simply demand that every penny be paid back on a whim because 1.) this would devastate the Chinese economy even more... the whole American market would be paralyzed. 2.) It's not part of the loan's conditions! Take for example, when a bank makes a loan to you. You establish a payment plan and make payments accordingly. If the bank were to fail, it doesn't mean they have the right to "demand" that their money be given back immediately. In the case of the US and China, such demands would fall on deaf ears because the Chinese military is incapable of forcing such payments from the United States. It's like what Teddy Roosevelt always said, "Tread softly but carry a big stick." Compliance on the international level depends on a nation state's ability to command that respect and cooperation. "But in this view the US economic growth will be hampered merely because it must pay out a great deal of money to one of its main competitors, China." I think this is where you misunderstand my argument. American economic growth is dependent upon these kinds of foreign investments! The primary reason for our times of unprecedented economic growth is because we have chosen to use foreign loans and allow other countries to invest in our success. That allows us to greatly enhance our purchasing power and promote economic growth with the surplus. So your main point against me is, ironically, my main point for the preservation of American unipolarity. Is that a word? I dont know. But lets all remember that "debt" is not a new phenomenon for the United States. I bet that for your entire life the United States has been in debt. I would even predict that for the entire life of your parents the US has been in debt. Debt does not mean weakness. It has become integral to our economic growth and we shouldn't equate the presence of debt to any collapse of a hegemony. "The final point is the military. First, even if you win that the US has a significant military advantage, you will still lose the debate because of the economic component of hegemony." I don't know if I can agree with this. Adolf Hitler's Germany had a much smaller economy then France but because he applied an isolationist policy and turned his country into a factory he managed to build an army that dominated richer countries. I do not concede to losing the economic component of this debate because I am still unconvinced that there is any nation state that will balance the American hegemony. EU is not a nation state but rather a treaty agreed upon by many different countries and China is growing at an alarming rate but due to social and economic pressures that are inherent with emerging world powers, the Chinese economy will slow which will not result in an IMMINENT threat to American hegemony. Thanks for the debate ishamel - its been a lot of fun and don't hesitate to challenge me sometime! -connor PS Voters click the "X" next to Con. I've programmed the button to spit candy out of the monitor onto your keyboar