Could Canada and it's allies beat America and it's allies in a war.

IntroductionAs this is the last round in this debate, I would like to extend my gratitude to both my opponent and the readers for making it this far. I will conclude the debate by utilizing this round to rebut my opponent's arguments and rebuild my own. Thank you.SeparationMy opponent says that our separation from Britain was violent. While true, we had tried peaceful revolts in the past, to no avail. Moreover, in those days, Britain was imposing unfair taxes and laws that stifled our freedom, the same as it hand in the UK itself. [1] Furthermore, we also supported Britain's cause, to a greater degree than Canada, in WW2. [2] Moreover, our involvement ultimately ended the war, ensuring victory for the Allies. [3] My opponent also insinuates that the UK is objectively better than the United States. This is not true, as proven by military power [4] and their global presence. [5] These statistics both place the US above Canada as well.ShunningMy opponent claims that the US is shunning Great Britain. I will countervail this claim through three angles. Firstly, the evidence he chooses to use from "theblogmocracy" is an opinion poll and is very partisan and biased. Secondly, both cards of evidence used by my opponent are old and outdated. Thirdly, Barack Obama =/= Americans. Just because the president (which is what my opponent's evidence is referring to) may shun Great Britain, that does not equate to America as a whole. Moreover, Obama's approval ratings do not suffice to even remotely prove that America shares the same views. [6] Furthermore, obscure opinions disagree with this notion. Without non-partisan evidence citing more than one reference, the US cannot be proven to "shun" the UK.Multi-CulturalBeing multi-cultural doesn't require a policy, as my opponent believes it does. A country that accepts and allows other cultures can be multi-cultural. This, the United States is, and has been. [7] This multicultural state also extends into education. [8]SocialismI was referring to total socialism, which is a moving trend in both Europe and Canada. Natural tendencies direct more and more towards socialism when the governmental system is set up. Men in power seek for more power, and social democracy (Europe and Canada) transition into socialism, which eventually ends up in communism. There is no denying the fact that socialism and communism, however small it starts, often waxs worse and worse. Take, for example, the known fact of Hitler. Prior to his rule, Germany was not as horrific and immoral. However, when he took over, things began to go down. This is not to say that such a thing would or will happen in Canada or the UK, but it does show that capitalism is often times more pleasing to the populace.HappinessThe happiness argument does not pertain to the debate. However, I will counter it regardless. Happiness holds no water when a war is started, because war angers the people. People are not happy when war is happening. [9] This counters the argument, showing that happiness will not matter if this scenario takes place, as everyone will be upset. The women argument has no pertinence in the debate whatsoever, so I will not address it, as it is a moot point.SnipersMy opponent has yet to refute any arguments I have made, nor contested the American examples I provided. For example, the US has greats like Christ Kyle and Carlos Hathcock. [10] Battle HistoryThe United States have proved themselves throughout more major battles than Canada. [22] The US was also able to route the British in the Revolutionary War despite being outnumbered 3 to 1. [23] In the Vietnam War, the United States was still successful in some ways. [24] The US took action in WWII that eventually ended the war, proving with uncontested finality that they were indeed the true global superpower. [25] Canada did nothing of the sort.ConclusionMy opponent has brought up many points in his conclusion, and I will attack each one.First, he/she mentions that he was "only pointing out how unpredictable people can act" when he was talking about Zimbabwe joining. He then proceeds to bring up two other countries that "could also randomly go to war with you" and cause the US to lose. However, we must attack this point from two angles. First, being how Russia is afraid of the United States. A Russian publication backs up this claim, and brings to light how Russia has more concerns over the US than Islamic terrorism. [11] Moreover, new US developments in missiles also cause Russia to be "deathly afraid." [12] This shows that Russia would not have intentions of attacking the US based on its fear of US missiles and its entirety. Moreover, Russia has a "soft-alliance" with China. [13] I will later explain how that is a problem. Secondly, we find that China also has a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with the US, and would decline entering a war against them. [14] They also rely on the US, so they wouldn't break off this relationship just because Russia wants them to. The US provides China with soybeans, cotton, and and meat [15], among other things [16], a primary reason for them maintaining a good relationship. Furthermore, the US gives billions of dollars back to China for things we buy from them. [17] These billions of dollars help keep China's economy in check by providing jobs and business. Even more, China needs the US as not only an economic partner, but also as a strategical political partner. [18] Also, the relationship works both ways: China and the US need each other. [19] Thus, China would be unwilling to cut off relationships and join Russia to attack the US. This creates a three-way stalemate, where each country needs the other to sustain their economy.In reference to the elite forces for each country, the US still has superior forces. In a ranking of the top 10, the US has two forces ranked: Delta Force and Navy SEALs. Canada has only one make the cut: JTF2. The SEALs are above JTF2. [20] This gives the US the advantage. Moreover, the US has multiple different special forces, far exceeding the three my opponent brought up. [21]My opponent has not proven that Canada will have allies, as each one of the countries he provided has been refuted.His claim that Canadians will fight harder than Americans is bogus: they would both be fighting for their homelands as the countries share two borders.In total conclusion, we find that I have successfully refuted each of my opponents points, while he has left some of mine either conceded or weakly argued. They are as follows:1. Canada must face the US alone.2. US is a superpower (conceded).3. Military Presence belongs to the US.This leaves voters no option but to vote Con. Thank you for your time.Sources:[1] http://www.loc.gov...[2] http://www.history.co.uk...[3] http://2001-2009.state.gov...[4] http://www.globalfirepower.com...[5] http://www.mapsofworld.com...[6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.lmg.pf.bw.schule.de...[8] http://www.sunypress.edu...[9] http://www.themoscowtimes.com...[10] http://www.wearethemighty.com...[11] http://www.themoscowtimes.com...[12] http://theweek.com...[13] http://www.ecfr.eu...[14] http://www.state.gov...[15] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[16] http://www.forbes.com...[17] http://www.forbes.com...[18] http://www.cnn.com...[19] http://content.time.com...[20] http://www.therichest.com...[21] http://www.businessinsider.com...[22] http://www.va.gov...[23] http://www.military.com...[24] http://www.virginia.edu...[25] http://news.bbc.co.uk...