The next major world superpower will come out of Asia

.. The con will take the position only to counter the pro's claims and not put any forth of his own. So what this debate will center on is if con can give a solid reason why the pro's claims are false then he wins, but if pro defends these claims then they deserve the win. .. Now on the pro's argumentPro first makes the claim that the United States is the current reigning superpower. But aside from just stating that he gives no evidence to support this claim. The only reasoning he gives is that other countries who seem like superpowers have economic troubles and a lack of unified military that make it impossible for them to be major player in world affairs. But this argument at best constitutes a double standard and does not talk about the united states current economic problems(Rising National Debt[1] and Record High Unemployment[2]) and military woes. I would also like to note that the pro did not give any sources for their example about the EU, so that can at best be interpreted as a false claim. Now that the pro's current superpower has the been dethroned lets talk about the pro's limitations on the Con. The first of many sudden limitations is that the Con cannot discuss what currently is a superpower and may not dispute the united state's current position, but that is necessary in this debate to determine what is currently a superpower and who will be he next. I would also like to headline the point that pro made many rules about the resolution based upon the comments in order to limit what the con can and cannot do. (I will discuss this point again at the end)Now lets look at the pro's accepted definition of a superpowerSuperpower: A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. Source-. http://en.wikipedia.org...This source does not limit what can be called a superpower, But I would like to note the pro gives random limitation to the con. .Now in this source, it discusses the possibility of the European union being a superpower, which immediately counter's the con's original claim that it(EU) wasn't and the other claim that international organizations cannot be considered a superpower. If my opponent does not allow for the acceptance of these international organizations then he is obviously breaking his own definition. Now to my opponents current argumentsContention 1-MilitarismLet's take a look at the military of these countries currently and compare themChina versus the united states[3]2,810,000(China) and 1,366,000(United States)Russia versus the united states[4]1,520,000(Russia) and 1,366,000(United States)India versus the united states[5]1,303,000(India) and 1,366,000(United States)Now lets relate this back to the claim of the united states being the superpower. In the military aspect the united states is clearly beat by both Russia and China, and barely beats India. Now if these two countries are currently besting the "best" the would that not make them the "best"I would also like to highlight that this argument is not an argument,but actually a list of happenings from the world. So lets take a look at them shall we? I will address the sources in chronological order, not in numerical order(Which would have been more easily to follow)Source 1-The united states is ranked second in military spending, and I would also like to note that Actually there are only four countries in the top ten from Asia, Japan(4), Russia(8), India(5) and China(3). And also if china, Russia and India can surpass the united states with military and spend less money doesn't that already hint at economic and military superiority? Source 9-Yes, this article talks about how China and Russia are increasing their arms spending(Weapons), but not direct military(which I have point out earlier are already superior)Source 2-This is just a goal of china and does not have to do with militarism. But, this sources shows the amount of money China spent on it's military(160 billion) and the amount the united states spent which was 550 billion not included the wars in Iraq and AfghanistanSource 5-Again this is just one countries activities an was only done because the drone was monitoring Iran's nuclear facilitiesSource 3-Another example about one country's activities. Source 4-Just showing how the united states doesn't listen to countries that has a bigger military than itself. Source 6-Now this one is a load of bull. Not only does the pro not give a brief explanation but also straw man's this article. This article talks about the resources in the arctic circle and that countries want to claim them using their military, but the countries have all gathered and are talking about it, as the article states. Source 10-Another straw man of an article. The pro wants to say that all countries are becoming aggressive but this article on applies to china. Now when you compare what the articles really say and what my opponent has claimed then you can see that they are two very different thing. So all of his arguments can be labeled as a deliberate misinterpretation of the information. Contention 2: EconomyThis brief contention can serve to back up my main point(Which I will explain in closing). If the united states spends more money and has more money, why does china have a larger military? Does this mean china is more economically efficient thus a better economy? Of course it doesContention 3-PoliticalAnother brief contention which I really want to drop because it follows the logical structure of a Non Sequiter as it does not make any sense in this resolution context, which the opponent wants to define as not having any groups of sets of nations having unity. So if this argument is allowed then this allows for the con to have nation groups in the world as its superpower. After all, aren't these groups just becoming politically closer to gain more powerClosingFor Starters this debate has been purposely limited by the pro based on the comments section. His limiting would have been fine if he would have label what this debate was going to be about instead of luring the con in with a basic debate and then limiting it based on comments and his own arguments. But taking a look at his arguments you see that they all contrast each other. His claim that America is the only superpower is rebuffed by the fact that china and Russia both have a bigger military and smaller and better economies and both Russia and China spend less on their military and have better co-operation with their neighboring countries then the united states. Now with this since Russia and China are both current superpowers and argument concerning them can be throw in the trash. Only his statements about Iran can be held. And his final argument about political unity can be addressed to nation groups such as the EU or NATO as he is essentially promoting nation groups by discussing a treaty that basically makes Japan and china a nation group. . The pro purposely made it so nation groups could not be include because it would be likely the con would pick the United Nations. (Which includes all of the countries so far in this debate) But if this argument is not drop then the con will use treaties from around the world to verify nation group unions and such. Thank youSources-[1]-. http://zfacts.com...[2]-http://data.bls.gov...[3]-http://www.nationmaster.com...[4]-http://www.nationmaster.com...[5]-http://www.nationmaster.com...