Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

==Response to Final Focus==1. He has conceded that empirically it is true democracies promote free trade and free market more. However, he states that its because of national interest and not because of inherent traits within democracies. Again, he ignores the analysis. There are 2 reasons why my analysis is correct. 1) The US is the one helping to foster a democracy and thus would institute its version of economics, i.e. free trade and free market. This can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2) The traits of a democracy include personal liberty. This is thus resembled within the market structure. Now, his China agument does not hold weight because its one example when he has laready conceded the empiric I provided. Moreover, he would need to attach an analysis to prove an example correct - he has not done so.2. He completely mishandles my Iran argument. I am not saying Iran is going to attack Saudi Arabia. My argument is that Iran can influence poliy decisions in the Middle East due to its prowess of conventional military and potetial nuclear capabilities. Then I said this would force Saudi Arabia to couter-balance by proliferating its own nuclear weapons. And this is not unlikel since it follows basic concepts of international relations, i.e. countries act to counter-balance potential leads from other naions especially in ones own region. Thus, I will be winning the argument that US involvement in the Middle East is the only way to keep proliferation low and thus keep instability low.3. He has ignored my argument that he himself conceded defeat by accepting a condition to the resolution. Namely that it is in the US' best interest to intervene. And he ignored my analysis that since this condition is so vauge, it can affirm the majority of the resolution. ****He tries to argue the cost scenario but he has ignored all my responses: 1) he gives no impact besides inflation and global recession (which he gives no link to) and he doesnt say why inflation outweighs and he doesnt give an analysis on it anyway. 2) As long as there are plans in the works to bring down the debt, his argument is non-unique since its being solved either way. This is a damning concession from my opponent.***4. He still says there are good autocracies. However he completely ifnored my indicts of the examples he gave. So as at this point you will prefer democracy to autocracy. He says other alternatives exist - he cites a theocracy. Mmm...idk if he is trying to help or hurt his own case. The only one true theocracy with any true status on the international stage is Iran. Note Iran stones homosexuals to death, and their leader believes Europe intentionally keeps clouds away from Iran to cause a drought. This is a horrible argument. He then says illiberality and economic hardship exist in the Middle East. THATS THE POINT. My plan solves those harms, and thus solves terrorism. He ignored my argument that Afghanistan has seen tremendous economic gains since the intervention of the US. Moreover, the US is trying to reduce corruption. It takes time but thats why the US SHOULD INTERVENE. 5. He keeps saying hegemony = imperialism, and he tries to defend that genocide is thus genocide. This doesnt work because genocide is the ACT of comitting genocide. Hegemony is a STATUS not an action. Imperalism is an action. Moreover, he still ignores my arguments that the US presence and intervention is key to US hegemony, and the Brzinski evidence tells ushat it is that which is needed to promote stability in the area which thus will reduce terrorism, etc.==My Final Focus==1. He has ignored the implicit framework I instituted in the first round: if I prove the US has obligation to promote democracy, you affirm. Extend the ignored arguments that the US has an obligation to all people insofar as borders are arbitray (people dont choose where they live) and that all people are rational beings and thus deserve protection. Extend Sub-B (Rummel evidence) which tells you that it is empirically true that democracies have far less (1) internal violence and (2) state promoted violence than autocracies. Since this is true, the US has an obligtion to intervene (stemming from the framework) to protect those people against high levels of violence. 2. The DPT which he barely tuched on gives clear reason to affirm. Insofar as democracies are empirically proven to go to war far less, the promotion of democracy reduces the level of war as a totality. This is good for 2 reasons: first, it protects against the disruption of trade (thus an economic advantage) and second, it prevents more frequent US intervention in other areas. Thus, I am gaining of the advantage of myopponent through the long run by advancing democracy as a whole in the short term. And the DPT is warranted iudeologically and structurally. 3. Free Trade. Even if you think cost is important (though I responded to it already) the US will gain an economic advantage from promoting democracy and thus the opening of many more markets for imports and exports. And he has not reponded adaquetly to the Olson evidence which tells you that democracies by their nature and empirically promote free market and free trade. And extend the impact evidence that free trade is good - expands capital flow, increases productivity, lowers prices, etc. Thus, on the long run the US will be advancing its economic position. 4. Hegemony solves. Extend my argument that promoting democracy increases the economic standing of that nation and also results in educational reform. Both will result in less terrorism. The argument here is that both solve for the root causes of people joining terrorist organizations - lack of education and a hard life style not worth living. hus, the US is gaining further protection against terrorism in the long run. 5. Intervention solves Iranian and Saudi Arabian counter-balancing. This reduces proliferation. Refer to #2 above.