RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

Before I begin, I'd like to extend both of our thesis' and iterate the fact that, since my opponent concedes to his given thesis, if I prove it illogical, impractical, or in any way fallacious I win this round by default. Opponent's thesis: "Since a country is like an organism, it should express its right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive" Due to the burden of proof on the affirmative side, this thesis is deemed illogical until my opponent proves it true. ___________________________________ Now to argue my opponent's case. My opponent, once again, stresses the notion that a country has obligations, sounds more like a government to me, but I'll allow him to take that stance in order to sway away from a semantics debate. Furthermore, my opponent states that in order to remain "alive" it must protect and secure its populous. In response I'd like to say that I have already argued this point within round one, when I stated, "This logic is muted by the fact that whenever a nation undergoes any type of utilization of imperialistic methods, it threaten its national security. If a nation is threatening its national security it is, in effect, not upholding its first obligation, to protect it's constituents. Remember, you gave that responsibility to a country." Meaning since the country is not protecting it's citizens, rather instigating war, imperialism is not consistent with my opponents own social contract evaluation. This has yet to be refuted so I'll ask the voters to extend this argument. Government defined: http://dictionary.reference.com... ____________________________________ My opponent now decides to add new arguments and he quite frankly creates an entirly new case. I don't know if this is fair or not to do in your second round, but I'll argue it regardless. Opponent states, "Imperialism deters overpopulation. As a country lives, its populous grows exponentially. For a country to protect and secure its citizens to insure its own continuity, it must expand for more land. This way the populous can thrive." Exponential Growth : occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. The basic formula of exponential growth is the following. x(t)=a*b^t Where a quantity(x) depends exponentially of time(t) if where the constant a is the initial value of x, and the constant b is a positive growth factor If b is greater than 1, then x has exponential growth. If b is less than 1, then x has exponential decay. If b is equal to 1, then x is constant. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, if I can prove that there are countries with a population that has exponential decay or at least a constant populous, then my opponent's argument drops. The exponential decay law of populations is further examined on the basis of new observations of Japanese and Swedish cohorts. It is shown that the populations decrease exponentially at higher ages in accordance with the theoretical prediction, which confirms the previous conclusion... The results showing that the exponential decay law holds in sufficient approximation. All the evidences accumulated so far suggest that the decay law is a general theorem. On the basis of this information, we derive a general expression that estimates the limit age as a function of population. The predicted curve is in excellent agreement with the observed limit ages in Japan. -Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 39, Number 4, December 1999, pp. 231-238(8) France had a period of population decline as well. http://www.un.org... This means that there are country's out there who in fact are not suffering from overpopulation. Overall, assuming imperialism DOES deter overpopulation, my opponent has yet to show for as to WHY we should take such drastic measures in order to deter overpopulation. His job as the affirmative is to give proof and a substantial amount of evidence to back up his claims. He doesn't uphold his burden of proof, thus I am winning off this argument as well. __________________________________ Opponent states, "Imperialism deters conflict. If a country is to insure the protection and security of its peoples, the country must thwart all threats. Any adjacent country has the same needs as the country itself, and will fight to accomplish these needs." My opponent conjures up another unwarranted argument. He states a in order for a country to insure protection, is through the thwarting of all threat. Imagine if all the nations in the world agreed with my opponent. It would be catastrophic. You'd have North Korea shoot nukes at the United States and Russia, simply because they felt threatened. In response, of course, these nations would retaliate, ending in a nuclear holocaust. This is not an extreme approach, rather reality. Today in age we weapons capable of blowing up this Earth times over. Simply put, a world of nukes and deranged leaders couldn't survive the utilization of imperialism. Opponents State, "Since every country is capable of imperialism, it should be allowed as globalization is just another impossible idealistic view." Please prove this claim. As a counter-claim I'd like to say third world country's do not have the expenses to carry out a successful imperialistic reign. (ex. Sierra Leone) http://allafrica.com... ___________________________________ "As of now, I can only see a CON vote" -Alexander