U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Pro CaseC1: For reasons that will become apparent, I'm going to address this backwards. First, I do not believe I dropped the impacts whatsoever, as I specifically labeled them and addressed their relevance, and in the case of the first its misleadingness, in C1 of Pro Case in R2. Secondly, in the case of the "empirics," I specifically addressed them with criticisms that have yet to be answered for in C1 of Pro Case, paragraph four. What I did concede, I admit, is the "analytic:" "History shows that the distribution of world power at the top affects the course of smaller and weaker nations across the globe."That being said, I would point out that what this "theory" establishes is nothing new in the least. In other words, it might be written as "World powers are powerful." The definition of power entails influence and effect, so claiming that they can produce either or both is redundant. 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."Pro continues this trend in R3, when he makes more such claims as "The United States, being the hegemon... even toppled militarily," and "In total as explained by Kagan... losing favor of the hegemon." In the first example from R3, the ambiguity fallacies (e.g. "alter global events" and "retroacted unbalanced standstill" and "push the scale... democracy") combined with the lack of (verifiable) evidence of causality leaves this contention, as of yet, unsubstantiated. The second example from R3 is equally ambiguous, and also begs the question (i.e. claims U.S. intervention promotes democracy because U.S. intervention promotes democracy), so it too does little, either rationally or empirically, to support the contention. The one exception is the unambiguous statement that the U.S. "reversed" its support for dictators, which Pro has claimed ad hoc in R3 that he actually stated that the U.S. "on balance" reversed this policy. That, combined with the "statistics" Pro supported and my own evidence, raises more questions than it answers. Such as: why did the U.S. ever support such figures? and, more importantly, why do they continue to do so at all? and finally, how is supporting some dictators while removing others in the name of "democracy" logically consistent?The truth is that it isn't consistent, which leads to my alternate interpretation. In the first place, the success of efforts to intentionally spread "democracy" in the long-term is, if not impossible due to regression back to autocracy (which Pro himself admitted it does) and instability caused by conflict, very improbable.[1] Particularly in the Middle Eastern region, where the goal has clearly never actually been to promote democracy or liberate the Arab people, or any other people for that matter, but only to protect U.S.-linked corporate/industrial interests (e.g. oil), and to maintain "stability" (i.e. control) in the region.[2][3] This can easily be seen from U.S. support of ruthless dictators in post-soviet states such as Uzbekistan where prisoners have been boiled to death and protesters shot in the street, the oppressive monarchy of Saudi Arabia that is particularly harsh on women and non-Muslims (naturally they have 1/5 of the world's oil reserves), and other autocracies in the region as well as in Africa.[4] This combined with recent U.S. involvement in an attempted coup of the democratically-elected Hugo Chávez of Venezuela (which itself has a large reserve of oil that, unfortunately for U.S. corporate interests, is nationalized), which was quelled by a popular uprising against the anti-Chávez forces, demonstrates that the U.S. policy of "promoting democracy" isn't just ineffective and unsustainable, but nothing more than a catchphrase used as a pretext for indiscriminately promoting U.S. corporate, industrial, & military interests.[5][6]Impact 1: The DPT is a set of statistical data that has several interpretations based on vague definitions of concepts such as "democracy" and war. However, the most important point here is that Pro made a subtle shift from R2-R3 when he changed "democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with each other" (which is debatable), to "no democracy has gone to war in the last 100 years." Which is historically false. The U.S. itself has been in several major wars and at least a dozen minor conflicts in that timeframe.Impact 2: I concede that democracies tend to commit less democide.C2: Here, asides from the fact that an appeal to authority's "so believe it" element doesn't actually have to be stated, it can be implied, I will concede for the sake of argument the contention that U.S. supremacy promotes "free trade" and even the specific warrants mentioned by Pro. However, I will point out that, in impact, the desirability of global free trade is a subject of much controversy, and may actually promote economic disparity between nations, and classes within nations, which may result in much suffering for most of the population, along with threats to the environment and national sovereignty, weighing directly against Olson's abstract warrants.[7]C3: I concede the belligerence and autocracy, but they weigh directly against similar U.S. actions. As for the protectionism, it only goes against Western economic powers, as China has signed a free trade agreement with asian states that covers nearly 30% of the world population. Also, increased aggression against China, which Pro's position would eventually result in, would undoubtedly lead to either a Cold War or World War type conflict.[8]Con CaseC1: First, the very foundation of democracy is that there is a link to what is desirable and what the people want. Secondly, my point was hypothetical, I argue that it is a logical self-contradiction to promote "democracy" while ignoring majority opinion. It robs the word democracy of its original meaning, and leaves it as an empty catchphrase that can be used to promote whatever interests its alleged proponents want.C2: Pro deftly avoids, and thus concedes, that the U.S. itself is both democratically deficient, and a moral and legal human rights violator.C3: The weight lies in lives lost in past and potential instances of consequent reactions(R2). Bin Laden also dared the U.S. to come to him.[9] He knew increased U.S. presence=increased recruiting base for extremists.[10] Rubin tries to account for reality with pure rhetoric.[1]http://www.foreignpolicy.com...[2]http://www.brookings.edu...[3]http://www.britannica.com...[4]http://www.foreignpolicy.com...[5]http://www.guardian.co.uk...[6]http://www.nytimes.com...[7]http://www.google.com...[8]http://www.economist.com...[9]http://www.fas.org...[10]http://www.thedailybeast.com...