U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Pro Case: Preface: First, I would like to point out that nowhere in the conditions was a "drop" defined as a "direct refutation," as a refutation implies disproving the substance (as opposed to the structure) of the opponent's argument, and as we will see, the ambiguous phrasing of my opponent's relevant points ("empirics"), along with the inaccessability of his evidence (until now), had forced me into a position to be incapable of "refuting" his evidence. As such, I have operated on the assumption that any counter-argument, including those of logical structure, would continue the debate over specific points.C1: Yes, I have admitted that the U.S. has great influence on the world, especially over smaller and weaker nations, but that in and of itself is a neutral statement, it in no way demonstrates the desirability of that impact. The positive desirability is contesed by Pro mainly by what he has termed his "empirics." These, I have argued throughout, have been ambiguous claims that have failed to elucidate how the U.S. allegedly accomplished them, and what actual impact they may or may not have had in the general promotion of "democracy." Which in itself, I will mention as I did last round, is a standard that has been consistently, and conveniently, undefined by both the evidence from Kagan and Pro's arguments.In response to Pro's claim that I didn't respond to the substance of the "empirics" in my ambiguity claims, I will point out that the ambiguity claims themselves were meant to demonstrate that the substance of Pro's "empiric" claims were unelucidated throughout the debate. As Pro's only method of defense against those claims has been to continually claim that I have dropped them, when in fact I haven't, he has ultimately failed to elaborate on the specifics of what they accomplished and how, and thus failed to establish any true correlative, let alone causal, link to the impacts.As evidence, I will quote my counter-arguments in response to these claims, as requested, from both relevant rounds:R2: "The last is that 'U.S. primacy was necessary... wave of democracy.' This claim is ostensibly supported by several reasons presented by Pro. However, the first such reason is demonstrably false. The U.S. never 'reversed' support for autocratic leaders in general, and in fact continues to support such figures. [1][2][3] The rest of the reasons provided, besides being rather ambiguous statements, fail to elucidate how the U.S. accomplished these alleged actions (e.g. 'promoted democracy' or 'gave the edge necessary'), and more importantly, why they necessitated 'Democracy's 3rd Wave' at all."R3: "That the U.S. has influence as a superpower is unquestionable. How they use that influence isn't, and is far more relevant to this debate. The only connection Pro has established between U.S. hegemony and the spread of Democracy are the "empirics" he is trying very hard to lawyer me out of, but in fact I have addressed them, and will again point out that they (almost) all commit fallacies of ambiguity (e.g. 'compelled the international order' and 'influence on governments') and are unsupported by any accessible (i.e. verifiable) evidence. Therefore they still fail to demonstrate that the U.S. spreads democracy at all, how it does if it does, and to what standards Kagan even holds himself to when applying the word 'democracy.'"As for my own arguments being ambiguous, I think the voters will disagree when they read them, but that is up to them. As for them being "rambled off premises," the specific example given by Pro to support that notion is simply a case of me drawing a conclusion from evidence that is easily accessible to both Pro and the voters. I would also like to point out that an argument is, by definition, a logical extension of premises supported by evidence.Pro is right that the inaccessibility of the evidence should not count against his case, but his continual failure to elaborate upon the details of how they were accomplished and what they entailed should.I, again, did not drop or concede the point about U.S.-supported autocracies because I directly addressed it in R3, C1, P4. Furthermore, my questions were relevant as pro's own argument against them demonstrates, because the idea of the U.S. promoting "democracy" and supporting any autocracies at the same time is logically incoherent, especially when such governments are "useful" to U.S. interests as my own evidence has demonstrated. This, along with the vague supporting evidence pro has given to support the link between the U.S. and democracy, the conceded point about democratic regression to autocracy, and the two arguments he makes against my own interpretation of the real intentions of the U.S. hegemony that are nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, it should suffice to say that, at best, U.S. primacy and democracy are lowly correlated, and the 1st impact of most democracies not going to war is offset by the U.S. itself going to many wars, which is a point I made that Pro never responded to.And finally, Pro makes a mistake regarding my evidence against the feasibility of spreading democracy. In the first place, the first source, and my own argument, didn't address the Middle East directly, it was a criticism of the self-contradictions in the idea of trying to spread democracy by force, in general. Secondly, the second 2007 source did address the Middle East, but pointed out that the people of the Middle East (as no people would) didn't want to have to be invaded and bombed in order to have a Western-approved democracy installed. And as Pro sensibly notices, the Arab Spring is promoting democracy, however that is a bottom-up movement of the consciousness of those nation's own people, and not a result of outside interference by the U.S. (they're protesting in some of the U.S. ally-nations I've mentioned...)Claiming I'm simply wrong about Hugo Chavez will have to weigh against my previous evidence and arguments. C2: I didn't drop Olson and Pro's final argument is that Free Trade doesn't cause or worsen disparity because it sometimes already exists. It can always be made worse.C3: Perhaps China couldn't win, but Pro's own evidence shows that they are trying to compete, and thus Pro's position would eventually result in conflict between the world's largest powers.Con Case:C1/C2/C3:I agree that you should prefer the actual to the rhetorical. That being said, my own unanswered criticisms of Pro's arguments combined with my own case, which Pro has vaguely criticized and done little to refute or even counter, should suffice to show that U.S. primacy is actually, as opposed to rhetorically, disconnected from the impacts claimed in Pro's case. And even if they are partially correlated, the negative impacts I have demonstrated directly weigh against them, and in some cases outweigh them. Pro's final argument for the undemocratic promotion of democracy is another logical paradox. The human right's violations that pro concedes directly weigh against the alleged decrease in democide (2nd impact), because after all they fit the definition of democide. Pro's final infiltration argument is new, and unsubstantiated. I have checked my source (#9) and it's still a valid link, so Pro must have mistakenly clicked #8. I ask the voters to check for themselves and let me know. Pro misunderstands the concept of blowback and never contested the fact that it was a large causal factor in creating the Iran threat, most of the Iraq conflicts, and the September 11th attacks. It doesn't matter when or where the terrorism starts, the point is, as the evidence demonstrates, that U.S. interference in the Middle East increases "terrorism" and therefore increases asymmetric warfare, weighing against, along with the constant historical warfare the U.S. involved itself in, the claims of the Democratic Peace Theory. Finally, ask whether competing with China for world domination is worth the risk of another World War.