Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

I have a few questions about your case. 1. First, I would like to question your argument on humans being equal. While it is true that all people are created equal, is it true that they end up being equal? Remember that there are those in poverty and there are those who are millionaires. 2. Second, I would like to address your point on all humans deserving equal protection. If I hire a bodyguard, is it true that you also deserve the protection of that bodyguard even though you've signed no contract with him/her? If not, applying the same concept to this situation, why should the US protect non-citizens that don't live in the US and don't follow our laws or pay taxes to our government? 3. Third, you may think that borders are arbitrary, but most of us would disagree. Arbitrary is defined as subject to individual will or judgment without restriction (reference.com). So you're saying that I can draw lines around the entire continent of Asia and claim it as my land? 4. Fourth, define what human rights should be protected by all nations and people. You make it sound like autocratic governments slaughter their own civilians for sport. While that may be the case for some countries, it is certainly not the case for the majority of countries, and the proof is that the ruling class is still the ruling class in those countries. 5. Now I will interrogate you on your second contention. For your point A, you stated that democracies rarely go to war with each other because of similarities in ideology and the difficulty of gathering public support for the war. I concur that people with similar ideologies are less likely to go to war. However, the converse is also true. People with different ideologies are more likely to go to war. I would think that Israel's ideological difference from Middle Eastern states about Israel's right to exist would far outweigh any shared ideology about form of government. Also, your conclusion that public opinion would hinder war efforts is false. As Nixon and the US presidents preceding him proved, you don't have to gather public support for the war. Just don't tell the public what's going on. Ideological differences between the Middle East and the West is too large to bridge, and public opinion isn't needed to support a war, so how would promoting democracy in the Middle East increase the safety of our allies and ourselves? 6. For your point B, you stated that democracy reduces state violence, since democracies kill less of their civilians. However, you fail to mention such atrocities in US history as the 2nd Red Scare and Bleeding Kansas. Democracies are no more immune to violence than are autocracies, and statistics of murder and death are not the only statistics for violence. How then does promoting democracies reduce state violence? 7. For your point C, you stated that democracies are more likely to engage in free trade. I would argue, however, that national interest is much more significant in determining whether a country engages in free trade than form of government. It would explain why Communist China is engaging in free trade, even though Marxism requires that ties with Capitalists be broken. Since form of government is at best a minor factor in whether a country engages in free trade, how does democracy promotion increase free trade? I will refute your 3rd contention in my second speech. 8. Now I will rebut your rebuttals. Your rebuttal to my first contention states that it is not the unsuitability of democracy, but other factors that led to the failure of certain democracies in history. I argue that these factors are present if the US decides to promote democracy. "The French revolution was from its beginning an illiberal democratic movement." A revolution controlled and manipulated by the US is liberal? "The Weimar Republic's form of democracy...failed...because of tough circumstances." Afghanistan and Iraq are going through easy times? Tunisia and Egypt are having good times? Your rebuttals for my 2nd contention were answered y the above questions, and I will defend my 3rd contention in speech 2.