There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

Hey Korezaan, thanks for accepting my challenge, your arguments are well argued…and you seem to use a lot of debate lingo, but w/e, to topic. Since I have exams next week, I really don't have the time to do all the research needed to substantiate my points; however, I will do so once my exams are over. Since you're doing a policy debate format – I'll do the same. Argument 1) Let others take over. This won't work for several reasons. 1)You said it yourself – "SINCE America is basically the last barrier for so many wars happening, we ought to withdraw now and not later." – this proves my point – we have to stay the world power and not let these wars happen 2)The Taiwan and China conflict shows signs of improvement, i.e this recent article is just one example – "In a surprise move, Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian May 2 proposed setting up "a military and security consultation mechanism as soon as possible" with China, to improve communications between military and security forces and cut the risk of misunderstandings and unintentional conflicts." (http://www.pww.org...) 3)As for your historical example…Britain dominated for longer than the 20 years you have placed in that time period. I would argue that Britain had dominated from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the Start of World War I, or at least the Boer War. 4)Those countries that you mention are more hostile to the United States than not. They have their own problems to worry about. I.e Look at China's struggle with democracy and Russia's slow descent into Dictatorship. 5)Since we're going by a debate format – you never specified how other powers taking over will solve regional wars and civil wars – I mean a group of powers taking over will only exacerbate the problems in these regions, at least the US is doing something. Multipolarity fails in resolving civil wars empirically – look at Rwanda and Somalia. Argument 2) – Multipolarity good 1)Your Layne evidence is mistaken in it's empirical examples. France under Louis XIV arguabley was the sole world power from 1661-1815. And England was the world power from the end of the Napolenoic Wars to the Start of WWI. Thus, these powers lasted a hundred or more years. This time is more than enough for the current conflicts to settle down and for US to establish better relations with other countries. 2)Your point that they're not going to be violent is contradicted by your supporting evidence: "The major powers in Eurasia have a much more immediate interest in stopping a rising hegemon in their midst than does the United Sates, and it's money in the bank that some of them will step up to the plate and balance against a powerful, expansionist state in their own neighborhood."" – The bolded lines sound a lot like military hot or cold war brewing in their midst. The increased military spending of Russia and China show that these Eurasian powers will not be peaceful in their Rise to power. Moreover, recent tension between Russia and China against the West shows that peace is not a likely outcome of them taking over. 3)"I think in terms of who, either the PRO or CON, is getting more benefits in "keeping other countries in check politically and militarily", the CON already wins based on the intuitive notion that more people attempting to solve a problem is better than one person trying to do it alone." – But different people will bicker and disagree. When two people disagree, their arguments could turn violent – on the world stage this means a hot war. Moreover, you're discounting the chance of a Cold or Hot war happening between the new leaders of the world (*points to cold war*) 4)"As the PRO says, "world police". I believe a team of police can take care of more problems, more efficiently, and better than just a single policeman." – same argument as 3 Argument 3) – Iraq War is solved if we withdraw. You fail to discount the present tension in the region. 1)Shiite vs. Sunni – Sectarian killings account for most of the civilian casualties in the War. The United States is the only effective thing keeping the violence in check 2)The Iraq gov. is unstable – The government can barely decide what to do with oil revenues, they're unlikely to deal with a religious civil war 3)Iran will fill in the power void and thus create more unstability between the Sunni and Shiite powers in the Middle East Argument 4? – Terroists 1)Terroists will plague whatever new Eurasian power that comes into power – look at Chechen muslim terrorists attacking Russia, and the various democracy groups in China aching for power. The possible Eurasian power has neither the stability nor the infrastructure to carry the role of the world leader. 2)Terrorists will always attack the United States for its support of Israel, no matter what. 3)Should America withdraw America – worse things will happen – look at argument 3 4)Hegemony is not the reason terrorism happens – it's mainly because of America's support of Israel, which I would not classify as terrorism. The Con repeatedly discounts the impacts of other powers taking over, he only counts the positive possibilities and he discounts the possibility that these powers may prove hostile to one another. He's assuming that America will not survive another decade as world leader; however, based on his examples, we still have 100 more years to go. Thus, during this time, the current conflicts plaguing the world can be resolved and the other possible powers could be kept in checking for a peaceful transition of power should America fall.