The Collapse of US Hegemony is Imminent

The next paragraph will create the general overview, which will carry down into each specific argument. I will star those paragraphs which I believe are most important for the voters. **Connor, despite your great response, you make a crucial strategic mistake by conceding the definition of hegemony as unipolarity. 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. This means that I do not have to prove that either China or the EU will become hegemonic, nor that the US will collapse into oblivion, but merely that the US will share the international spotlight. Now to carry this analysis on, first to the EU. First, I will defend the EU as a nation-state. You attack the EU on points 1 and 3 in the previous post, but both of these are irrelevant if the EU forms a constitution, so essentially if I can prove that a constitution will occur during the next 20 years, I prove that the EU is a nation-state. 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, and have a general self-defense agreement to come to one-another's aid should an attack occur; so while they do not have an offensive military of their very own, they do have a defensive force—this is very similar to the situation in Japan which we can both agree is a nation-state. Further, the EU does in fact have an autonomous military body—60,000 troops so far, as per the Helsinki Headline Goal. And none of the above forces come from the US as you purported. Now to the discussion on the constitution. It is obvious that almost all members of the EU desire a constitution, indeed in the previous discussions to form the constitution there was a large consensus and agreement for the vast majority of the clauses. In the near future as eastern Europe grows more economically stable and Germany, France, and Britain grow more dependent upon the cooperative EU the constitution must occur. Also, the French and Dutch populaces were the only ones who rejected the previous constitution. Currently, however, the EU is one of the most popular organizations in Europe, and were the constitution to be tried again I have little doubt that it would pass. Also there is a good deal of autonomy within the EU, otherwise the Euro would have been unable to have the success it has had. **Finally, it is time to discuss the real meat of the European Union discussion—its economic influence and the impact that will have upon the United States. "Even, when the sum of the EU is compared to the US, the US still has 40% more purchasing power! !! which should outright refute your assertion that the EU combined is somehow more powerful then the US. " (Round 2) Ummm, check your facts bud. CIA World Factbook gives the EU its own section in which its GDP Purchasing Power is number 1 in the world, more than the US. . https://www.cia.gov... Also note that China is 3rd in the world, and clearly rising. **The next argument you make is that American are richer because they work more. This makes absolutely no sense. I still don't understand where you are coming from with that. In fact, I would put a different spin on that. The lower employment in the European Union simply means that it is not reaching its full potential. Once the EU has dealt with the level of unemployment its growth will merely increase more. You also concede that the EU has a better growth than the US (which I maintained in my argument regarding currency), so after the EU has dealt with that they will basically destroy the US economy in every form. Further, you also forgot to look to the conclusion of that article you cited. Sure, it says that Americans are richer because of better employment when it is discussing why America MIGHT have the better economy. The conclusion, however, of the article after comparing both is that, "The most important feature of the comparison is. .. that US growth, unlike that in the EU, is funded by a dangerously high mountain of foreign debt. " So while currently the EU's current advantage in growth is offset by the US's better employment, this simply means that the EU has more room for future growth, and that the US's current growth is unstable due to the large amount of foreign debt. **What a useful note to transition on—lets talk China's economy shall we? Okay, you do a good job of explaining what is going on when China is "floating the bill" for the Iraq War, but my argument is directed at your analysis off of it. While it is true that the economies are inextricably linked, you misapply the source. Because during this time AMERICA is in debt, their economic growth is severely limited by Chinese success, rather than the other way around. 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. Either one of which would DEVASTATE the US economy. So if you maintain that China's economy is approaching collapse, US hegemony will in turn be demolished when China calls for its loans. That is scenario 1. Scenario 2, and the US's best hope is that China's growth remains intact, for then the US can repay the loans as possible, rather than all at once. 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. By this time (again we must assume that China's growth remains stable or scenario 1 occurs) China will be using this gained money to at least equal, if not surpass the US by 2020. So either the Chinese government begins to fall, and chooses to drag down America with it, or the Chinese government overpasses the US due to the massive amount of foreign debt accumulated by the American government—either scenario leads to a collapse of American Hegemony, especially given the power of the EU economically. (See Above) Your next point about the Chinese Economy must slow due to rights is essentially is outweighed by the significance of the debt--see above, and also because only slowing the US economy is necessary. Even if the Chinese economy does slow, it will also slow the US's growth to a level where the EU will overpass it, eliminating Hegemony as per my initial analysis. **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. Essentially, you must win that the US will maintain both economic and military hegemony over ALL OTHERS in order for them to maintain the unipolarity necessary for hegemony. Further, if the US economy falters (see above) it cannot afford to spend the same amount on the military that it is now. BUT, you argue that tech can replace people. First, Iraq empirically proves this false, we have the tech just not the people. Nuclear weapons, furthermore, are useless in a world where everyone has them because of the principle of mutually assured destruction. We cant nuke Beijing unless we want a mushroom over DC too. Tech is important, but troops are just as important in todays world. Finally, I agree with your contention regarding globalization (No, I won't call you marxist), but I respond with two points. First, globalization benefits those on top, which include the EU and China, so this is void. Second, China and the EU are just as involved globally as the US. Look to Africa where China is often MORE involved than the US.