The U.S. regime should be disarmed

There’s a TL;DR at the bottom! Sorry for the wall of text. As it would seem that my opponent ignored most of my points in the first round, I will assume they either did not understand them, or more hopefully, that he has conceded his position by not addressing them. If it is the former case of not understanding, I will again attempt to explain my points in the hopes of receiving a relevant response. The US has not been involved in a majority of conflicts in the last century (~8%), contrary to what my opponent erroneously stated in their first round, and unethically continued to repeat in their second round. Of those conflicts it has been involved in, it is likely to assume that it did not start all of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. is responsible for “starting” less than 8% of conflicts in the last century. In contrast, both China and Britain have been involved in more conflicts, and likely have been the aggressors in more conflicts by reason of simple statistics (11% and 12% respectively). As I assume my opponents point is that aggressive nations should be disarmed, I am curious as to why he does not advocate that more aggressive nations be disarmed before less aggressive nations. As this is not his contention, I will assume that he harbors a rather obvious bias towards the US and its international policy – a bias not supported by evidence or history. It remains that Pro’s resolution is not proven or supported by even the smallest amount of factual evidence, beyond that provided by his personal, unsubstantiated political beliefs. I am also hesitant to address this issue as I find it becoming increasingly irrelevant to the resolution; however, as my opponent has felt the need to continue to expound upon it in the second round, I feel it’s necessary to address again. The U.S. does not dominate the world economy. It does lead in certain sectors, and has a strong presence in a majority of economic sectors. To assume complete dominance is a rather gross ego-centric Western Bias. Furthermore, your contention that the sole reason for this economic influence is US military aggression is entirely unsubstantiated by facts that you have offered, and I very much doubt you can address them and still defend your resolution. I would suggest a stop to ranting about US economic interests and “dominance”, and instead would encourage you to defend your own resolution in a more vigorous manner. If you insist that this is a valid point, I will again ask you to clearly demonstrate the US economic presence is, as you state, “dominant” in every aspect; is inherently “negative”; is a result of the US being an “armed” nation; and would be negated by disarming the US. Good luck proving even one of those conjectures. I will also quickly counter several of my opponent’s arguments, however many of them are simple regurgitations from the first round and my counterpoints remain unanswered and unchallenged. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “The corporate media is crying about how Asad allegedly used chemical weapons on "his own people", and therefore he should be overthrown.” This is completely irrelevant to your resolution. Furthermore, using the words corporate media is like saying the Sahara Desert, its redundant and makes you look foolish. “Yet, the U.S. regime has been using chemical weapons for a long time. Members of the U.S. military, (shill or not) [Dennis Kyne] have come forward and talked about the usage of depleted uranium on civilian populations. Now should we really trust a regime that uses depleted uranium indiscriminatntly?” Despite the fact that this is also irrelevant and libelous, your contention that depleted uranium shells are chemical weapons is false. They are not. They are controversial; they are potentially environmentally hazardous; but they are not chemical weapons and are not currently banned by any international weapons treaties that govern weapons of mass destruction and / or chemical weapons. “The Korean , Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libyan, and Syrian wars were all started by the U.S. regime alone, even though other aggressors participated. And speaking of Viet Nam, the U.S. regime used many different kinds of chemical weapons there. How come no one called for a regime change then?” Without intending to sound rude, this statement makes me question the current level of your education. Most high school international relations / world government classes cover these wars in depth, and I would assume that having taken those classes you would know several facts about them. First of all, the Korean War was not started by the U.S. North Korea, supported by the USSR, crossed the 38th parallel on June 25th 1950 and invaded South Korea. This is “starting” the war. The Vietnam War was largely started by French Colonialists and Chinese Nationalists following WWII, although it was escalated by U.S. politicians weary of a communist takeover of Southeast Asia. Afghanistan arguably was started by the Taliban following the attack on the WTC in 2001, although this is a politically charged issue. The First War in Iraq was not started by the US, but rather by Saddam Hussein when he invaded the neighboring state of Kuwait. The Second Iraq War was indeed started by the US. The Libyan conflict is not a war. And there is no direct involvement of US forces in the Syrian conflict, so I have trouble understanding how the US could have possibly “started” that conflict. You are currently batting 1 / 7 in your contentions, and have yet to tie any of this to your assertion that the US should be disarmed. “Doing false flag terror to start a war does not justify it.” Evidence? Or are we not debating? “You can talk about allies if you want, but the fact remains that the U.S. regime is responsible for most of the ongoing wars right now, this includes sponsoring terrorists, and backing sectarian conflicts.” I specifically said in my first post that I am not talking about US allies. I see that my earlier assumption that you didn’t read my argument clearly enough was correct. I suggest you reread my arguments and address their contentions before you lose this debate. “One example I will use is the Sunni vs. Shiite wars. I don't need to remind anyone that more people died under 5 years of U.S. occupation than under 25 years of Sadam.” First of all there is no Sunni / Shiite War. There are sectarian conflicts, and regional power grabs – but there is no wholesale war between Sunni and Shiite’s in the world. Again you assume that all Muslims are centered in the Middle East, that all Middle Eastern conflicts are driven solely by sectarian tensions, and that somehow the US being disarmed would improve this situation. All of that is false, and most of your conjecturing is uninformed. Furthermore, your contention that more people died under US occupation of Iraq in the second Gulf War (2003-2008) than under Saddam rule (1979-2003) is again painfully uninformed. Saddam was responsible for anywhre from 500,000 to over 1 million dead – many of them killed using chemical weapons in what most would consider a genocide. The Iraq War Logs, classified US documents leaked by Wikileaks – a source I’m sure you can appreciate – lists 109,032 deaths. as a result of the current conflict as of 2010 (2). I think most would agree that ~100,000 is less than ~1,000,000, or even 500,000. Before you remind people of your “facts”, it might benefit you to look them up first. "Let's see how long this debate lasts before the U.S. regime censors me." I doubt the “regime” would be concerned enough the bother censoring your rants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TL;DR (Too Long, Didn’t Read): Much of my opponents’ claims are factually inaccurate. Furthermore, few of those claims – as inaccurate as they are – support his resolution. This debate appears to be an exercise in political demagoguery – which is unfortunate as Pro did have an interesting, albeit woefully undefended, premise. (1) http://www.nytimes.com... (2) http://www.theguardian.com...