History is condemned to repeat itself

My opponent is correct that a country can divide itself up into smaller countries. This, however, does not support his small-large-small-large empire trend argument. There's nothing to stop the south of the USA from the north. Except for a Constitution, of course. However, I concede that a legal document would of course not stop military action. I would like to point out that the fact that there might one day be a civil war in the USA followed by a secession of a number of states does not in any way support a contention that a trend exists or that a trend will continue to exist such as that described by my opponent's Resolution and R1. The car scenario is perfect. You see, car crashes have their causes. On Day 1 it might be drink-driving. On Day 2 a heart attack behind the wheel. On Day 3 mechanical failure and so forth. Each independent car crash has its own independent cause. Coincidentally they happen in 10 consecutive days. However, they do not present a trend that can be relied on to continue into the future. Similarly, there have been empires, small and large. Each arose as a result of a course of events. Each of these courses of events had its own circumstances. No doubt they were to an extent interrelated. However, to say that there is some magical force out there that will cause our world to oscillate between eras of small empires and eras of large empires, is fallacious. There is no evidence for it and my opponent has not even attempted to point to any. All he seeks to rely on is the fact that it has happened twice. My opponent is correct that the Ottoman Empire had borders that changed over time. He attempts to claim, however, that the yellow version on the map does not represent a large empire. Let's see. .. .Athens (today's Greece) on the West, Sophia (today's Bulgaria) in the middle, the Hungarian borders to the North, Syria to the East. While not nearly as large as it was in its heyday (the 1500's), this still makes for a large empire by any standards! My opponent's science fiction fantasy of space colonisation is interesting and certainly appeals to the imagination. But it's just that; a science fiction fantasy. Any space colonisation effort is likely to be a joint international venture and not some type of imperialistic conquest. In fact, I would challenge my opponent's suggestion that Russia or China are economically strong enough to colonise space. The US may be. The EU definitely is. However, the EU is an organisation of many nations and such colonisation could not be called an empire. International effort, yes. Empire, no. Border skirmishes are nothing new to us. They have always occurred and probably always will. Does that in any way corroborate the idea that history will repeat itself and we will have times of large empires followed by times of small empires followed by times of large empires? Of course not. Yes, economies can change, countries can build armies. Does this prove that history is condemned to repeat itself? Does it prove that there is some magic trend of times of small-large-small-large empires? It does not. I now move to the most important part of the debate. My opponent says this: "My opponent's argument does not count out my argument, and hasn't presented solid proof that this trend cannot occur, and is basing his argument on complete chance. " With all due respect, it appears that my opponent is reading this debate back to front. It is HE who is basing an argument on complete chance. He says that his resolution is proven because I have failed to prove that what he suggests is impossible. I have never even set out to prove that it is impossible. Of course it is possible. Just like the 11th crash at 35 YourStreet. But does that possibility have the effect that History is CONDEMNED to repeat? Does it support the argument that there is no other way but for humanity to experience alternating times of large empires and small empires? I think not. You see, it was my opponent who made a definitive claim. He said history is CONDEMNED to repeat. This is where all of his arguments about mere possibilities of one country or another dividing up or conquering a country next door are of no assistance to him whatsoever. CONDEMNED is more than a possibility. CONDEMNED is a necessity. My opponent has said nothing, NOT A SINGLE THING, to substantiate a claim that history MUST repeat itself by way of alternating eras of small and large empires. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult debate on one view. That is because we are speculating about what can/cannot/must/may not happen in the future. I contend that for my opponent's resolution and argument to stand up, he would need to produce solid evidence that some mechanism exists that would cause humanity to be on a course of alternating eras of small and large empires. He has done no such thing. Things may happen. But they may not.