U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Pro CaseC1: "U.S. Primacy maximizes the spread of Democracy."Pro starts off this argument with a descriptive historical account of emergent democracies, however, most of this fails to support the contention by offering any explanation of how U.S. primacy played/plays a role in the spread of democracy.There are two, possibly three, exceptions. The first is the claim that "The common denominator... is U.S. Primacy." Standing alone, this is unwarranted.The second, and most ambiguous, is "Detractors... expansion of authoritarianism." Besides being some type of pre-emptive red herring/strawman, how is this supposed to support the contention at all? The fact that democracy tends to regress back toward autocracy actually opposes the idea that trying to spread it can be effective in the long run, especially by the U.S., which itself mirrors Rome in many ways.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.Impact 1: While much of this is misleading because a war is a war no matter who is fighting in it, and civilian victims are always still victims, it doesn't matter because this isn't relevant. I don't think there's much of a debate over whether democracy is more desirable than autocracy, especially in the context of this debate. The resolution Pro needs to affirm, and this specific contention, regards the means to achieving desirable ends, and not the ends in themselves. Pro is arguing here that democracy is good, without establishing any causal connection between U.S. Primacy and global democracy.Impact 2: Same goes here as in impact 1.C2: "U.S. Primacy maximizes the spread of free trade."Much like he did in C1, Pro seems to be arguing here for what he perceives to be a desirable end (free trade), rather than the means he believes will achieve it (U.S. Primacy.) Again, the argument isn't over whether free trade is good (although that is more controversial than whether democracy is good), it's about whether U.S. Primacy achieves desirable ends. Pro offers little to no support for this proposition in this contention. At best, he has presented one or two appeals to authority without offering his own arguments or explanations with; "Olson tells us... help of U.S." and "Kagan goes further... were sea powers." So, again, Pro has argued for an end that he assumes to be produced by the means, without justifying that assumption in any substantial way.C3: "What's the Alternative?"First and foremost, this is an appeal to an unlikely possibility. The U.S. isn't likely to lose it's primacy to anyone anytime soon, not even China. U.S. military spending far exceeds even that of China's distant second. [4] And the Chinese Defense Minister said last year that there was a 20 year gap in U.S. and Chinese military technology. [5] All that aside, Pro makes more unsubstantiated &/or irrelevant claims here. Firstly, "As implied by... regimes take control." Pro hasn't established the alleged correlation suffiently that he can use it as evidence yet (maybe his authors did, but besides being another straightforward appeal to authority, I can't even access those sources.) Secondly, "This can be seen... late 20th century." This fails to elucidate any explanation for the preceding claim, as both its wording and implicature is ambigous. Moreover, it's inconsistent, as those fascist/communist powers were rising in power at the same time the U.S. itself was industrializing and building its superpower status. Thirdly, "According to Kagan... Laos." While, yet again, Pro hasn't actually provided his own arguments to support this, none of it is sufficient to demonstrate that China is gaining any ground on U.S. primacy or, more importantly to the resolution, why that would be undesirable. Lastly, "If the U.S. loses primacy... in Africa." This is nothing other than a list of unwarranted claims. Where is the argument or evidence to support any of them?Con CaseC1: The World Wants the U.S. to Stop Intervening.World opinion polls show that the world's public (and the American public!) rejects the role of the U.S. as world leader, and especially thinks that the U.S. plays "policeman" more than it should (i.e. that it's primacy is undesirable.)[6][7][8] Hypothetically, even if the world opinion is wrong, and U.S. primacy is the best means to the most desirable ends, forcing it down their throats is inconsistent with democracy itself. So then, even if the resultant end of U.S. primacy was more democracy in the world, then the means used would still be, even within the U.S. itself, categorically undemocratic.C2: The U.S. is a Poor Leader for Human Rights & Democracy.Human Rights Violations: I'm running out of room to put in all of the relevant examples in this round, but some of only the most recent ones include the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo bay, high official-approved drone-killings of civilians, a very large amount of civilians killed &/or displaced in Iraq & Afganistan by U.S. bombs, and inhumane (& unconstitutional) political killings & detainments without trials. If these don't speak for themselves morally, legally it can't be ignored that the U.S. has violated 10 out of the 30 articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[9][10]Democracy Deficit:Again, I can elaborate further as we go, but according to the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the "unseemly and often corrupting role played by money in our electoral processes," the "reliability of counting the votes," and "partisan gerrymandering" are just some of the factors contributing to a deficiency in U.S. democracy that does actually exist, and thus is a low standard to project onto other nations.[11]C3: Blowback. [12]First of all, it should be intuitively obvious to the modern human being that the cliche "violence begets violence" isn't just a cliche, but an existential truth. This can be empirically observed through "everyday" human behavior and world military history. Moreover, U.S. foreign policy, over the past 50 years (at least), has actually caused more problems than it has claimed to fight or solve, and many are the selfsame problems. Including the "threat" of Iran, the Iraq wars, and the events of September 11th, 2001.[1]http://wais.stanford.edu...[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3]http://www.foreignpolicy.com...[4]http://www.globalissues.org...[5]http://www.defensenews.com...[6]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...=[7]http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...=[8]http://www.people-press.org...[9]http://www.nytimes.com...[10]http://www.washingtonpost.com...[11]http://hlpronline.com...[12]http://www.thenation.com...#