A United States of Africa exists.

Contention 1: SovereigntyI never said that the AU doesn't exist. I only said it wasn't a state due to the fact that it's not sovereignMy primary arguments thus far leads to the conclusion that the African Union (AU) is the United States of Africa, Con has not adressed thsoe arguments instead he argues about Sovereignty, territory and population which have little to do with existance. The African Union (and the United States of Africa) do not need to be a sovereign state to exist.Contention 2: TerritoryThe United States [of America] has territory as it has recognized boundaries. The Territory integrity is stating that they will not provoke reolutions in other nations or invade other nation's for land.2 points:a) The African Union (US of Africa) has recognized boundries which is the entire continent of Africa (and the adjacent islands considered part of Africa) except Morrocco.b) The United States of America is notorious for provoking revolutions (the extremist islamist Taliban insurgency in Communist Afghanistan) and invading other nations for land and puppet states, notable examples include the Spanish American war, the Mexican American war and the Vietnam war. Of course, the US of America will not say they invaded for land, but in the 2 of the 3 wars mentioned, the US of America did win and did take land. Therefore con's contention is invalid.Contention 3: PopulationMy opponent concedes here and this is highly important. In order for the 'United States of Africa' to exist that my opponent is talking about, it must be a state, not an organization.The fact that the United States of Africa is an organisation (which Con himself implies) shows 2 things:a) The various states of Africa have agreed to be united into this organization. b) It existsI will say this yet again, the US of Africa does not need to be state to exist. The United Nations is not a state but it is an organisation and yes, it does exist. The metaphor I used in the previous round further proves the point:"When water drops are united the result is, say, a lake. The lake is not a water drop but it does exist and consists of water drops. Now replace 'water drops' with 'states' and the word 'lake' with 'United States of Africa'. "Contention 4: United States of AfricaThis means that Africa is completely united under such an organization, but this is incorrect based on the fact that Morocco leftNo, this does not mean that the entire continent is COMPLETELY united under this organization. The United Nations has not COMPLETELY united the world under their organization but they do exist. The African Union exists yet it has not completely united Africa.Conclusion:The fact that African Nations have come together for the African Union shows that they are to an extent unified, while they may not be as unified/federeated as the US of America, there is a level of unity similar to that of the United Nations.To simplify things: The African Union has some level of unity between African states, hence the African Union can be called a United States of Africa. Since the African Union exists (even Con acknowledges this), a Untied States of Africa exists as well.The United States of Africa does not need 'sovereignty', 'territory' or 'population' to exist anymore than the United Nations does.All Contentions of Con sufficiently rebutted by Pro, Pro's premise have been unchallenged apart from unity premise where con's contention was sucessfully refuted. If there was no unity within African Union members, well they would not be in the union.I rest my case. Thank you for the debate.