DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable.

My opponent agreed that I could attack his case in this round and defend mine in the next round. Before I do that, I just want to clear up one thing. Desirability is about what is ideal, not what is the “best” of all bad alternatives. If my mom tells me that I have to pick between chocolate and vanilla ice cream and I dislike both of them but like chocolate slightly more, neither is desirable. If I dislike all ice cream flavors and am given a choice between all of them, this principle still applies. I also think that it’s unfair for me to have to defend an alternative because there is literally no way to measure the impacts of another country taking power or of a multipolar state. That creates an evidence skew against me that basically gives my opponent the win for free. That really isn’t fair or conductive to the spirit of debate. I expect my opponent will not accept this though, so whatever, I guess . . .MultipolarityI think the important thing to note here is that he has not proven that no nation could replace the US if it were no longer the hegemon. The only thing that he has to “prove” this is the Ferguson card, which is just a bare assertion and not an analytic. Since BOP is equal, he has to actually prove that nobody could take over for the US if he wants to access his impacts. The only thing that he has that is close to this is that we spend most on the military and have the most cultural influence. Turn the first because it’s a massive drain on spending-maintaining the military in order to have that type of empire is extremely expensive and is a drain on the economy. The second is just blatantly false. Most nations are either socialist or traditional conservative; there is basically no other nation like the United States. In fact, the US is becoming more socialist, which suggests that socialist states have more cultural influence than the US does. By his own definition, the US does not have cultural hegemony. Third, I would note that multipolarity is preferable to US hegemony. Multipolarity leads to less conflict because it forces states to cooperate with one another and deal with one another on a substantive level and respect each other’s concerns. Hegemony allows the hegemon’s allies to use their position of power to run roughshod over the other states that they are dealing with and thus sparks violent confrontation and breeds resentment. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a great example of this. Fourth, multipolarity is inevitable. The World Bank estimates that by 2025, the US will no longer have economic hegemony and six other powers will emerge to join it as an economic hegemon. (http://blogs.worldbank.org...)The rise of other nations and the economic decline of the United States.means that the US has to think about how it will conduct itself. We can continue to attempt to have hegemonic status and alienate everyone, or we can cooperate and ease the transition in the multipolar world. If we ease the transition, there will be a basis for cooperation. If not, there will not be. Fifth, he assumes that no other nation can stop regional conflicts. The fact of the matter is that plenty of other nations have stopped conflicts, and he has provided no evidence that conclusively proves that another hegemon could not or would not stop conflicts. He also has no evidence that the UN cannot stop conflicts. Given that the UN has stopped regional conflicts in the past, there is no reason to think that this impact is unique. In fact, the US does not stop every conflict. It only stops the conflicts it wants to. It did not stop the genocide in India in 84, the genocide in Rwanda, etc. Perhaps if the US loses its influence, other genocidal conflicts in areas it has no interest in will be stopped by the international community. Sixth, even if you don’t buy any of this, turn the idea of the US stopping conflicts. This is bad because it allows other states to spend less on the military and swindle US citizens into taking care of their problems for them. It’s destructive to the economy and gives us a bad image while also letting the rest of the world free-ride. Seventh, turn the Israel example. The US is perpetuating the violent conflict by blocking Palestinian statehood, which the rest of the world seems to approve of according to the UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member state. If the US was not blocking this, the UN might be able to resolve the conflict without costing the lives of thousands on both sides. DemocracyFirst, cross-apply the socialism argument from above. The US is not egalitarian in any sense-it has horribly discriminatory practices, has committed genocide and apartheid in the past, invades other nations to take resources, builds bases in nations like Japan and Germany and then commits atrocities against them without punishment (thus fueling terror), etc. What is softening the world is socialism, not the US’s egalitarianism. The US often hinders progress when it overthrows democratically elected governments like those in Nicaragua and replaces them with fascist dictators and/or supports people like Pinochet. Second, even if this is true, the US’s role as hegemon is actually hindering the full spread of democracy. Blowback against the US makes democracy and western ideology less attractive to foreigners, so they are less willing to become like the US. If the US showed that it was willing to cooperate and be egalitarian in practice and not just in name, perhaps it would be able to spread its influence.Third, this is nonunique because he has no proof that the new hegemon will conduct genocide and that genocide will increase in a multipolar world (especially considering that the US has blocked aid to people being harmed by genocide within the past two decades)TradeTurn the claim that free trade is good for everybody. If that’s the case, it will happen in a multipolar world and if there is a new hegemon like China. It’s absurd to believe that the nations will act against their interests if they gain power, so this impact is nonunique. On top of this, multipolarity would bolster trade further. According to the World Bank, “A more multipolar global economy will, on balance, be positive for developing countries as a whole—though not necessarily for each of them individually. Growth spillovers—flowing from trade, finance, migration, and technology channels— will induce technological transfer, spur demand for exports, and improve the terms of trade in developing countries as well as enable them to develop their domestic agricultural and manufacturing industries. For example, since 1990, bilateral trade f lows between the least developed countries (LDCs) and the major emerging economies have increased threefold; trade wiThemerging economies now accounts for a greater share of LDCs‘ bilateral trade flows than their trade with major advanced economies. Moreover, a more diff use distribution of global growth will also create new external growth drivers, meaning that idiosyncratic shocks in individual growth pole economies will have less impact on the volatility of external demand in those countries than at present. This characteristic was evident in the aftermath of the 2008–09 financial crisis, when cross-border M&A originating in emerging economies accounted for more than a quarter of the value of all deals in 2009 and 2010. Greater multipolarity could also have a tangible effect on patterns of foreign aid, as increased aid disbursements by emerging economies push official development assistance to even greater shares of gross national income in LDCs.”