DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable.

Thanks to Royal for the debate. I will defend my case and explain why an Aff ballot is in order.My opponent for whatever reason wanted much of he debate to center around the word "desirable" and burdens. Royal writes: "Desirability is about what is ideal, not what is the “best” of all bad alternatives...I also think that it’s unfair for me to have to defend an alternative because there is literally no way to measure the impacts of another country taking power or of a multipolar state." First of all, like the very first round explained desirability is decided by real world application. Desirable is whichever option brings us closer to the ideals we would like to achieve since true perfection is impossible. My opponent and I (thankfully) avoided the values debate, but it should be pretty clear that policies saving lives and promoting economic strength are desirable. Judge the debate on the effects of hegemony. Secondly, her argument regarding her burden is silly. There are lots of arguments in favor of multipolarity, it isnt my fault she chose not to run those arguments. Sure we can never know for certain what the effects of a new hegemon/apolarity would be, but we can speculate with a high degree of certainty. Recall that few if any of her arguments apply specifically to the US and none advocate a competing worldview--they just pick apart perceived weaknesses in US policy with no broad anaysis. I apologize to the readers and voters for having too much of the debate about what desirable means. Multipolarity Royal makes the silly argument that I havent proven that no country could replace the US claiming it was just asserted. Nevermind the fact that she hasnt shown my argument to be false (because it isnt--she cant just say "well Thett MIGHT be wrong" she must prove so), military experts know that the US could annihiliate virtually any other country in a war, including its nearest rival China[1] who's military is 20 years behind the US[2]. She tries to turn this argument, but she again shows no economic impact of military spending and doesnt weigh this against the alternative, and doesnt prove that the US could not have hegemony with lower spending--military spending has declined 5% so far in 2013[3] with no adverse hegemonic effects. Refer also to the empirical fact that military spending has *declined* since the US has solidified its hegemony over the soviets. Her argument about socialism is silly given that US tax rates are the lower now than they have been in nearly 30 years[4] and even the "socialist" policies of Obama, namely healthcare, force citizens to purchase insurance from *private* companies and doesnt seem to understand that the widespread export of US media, companies, and values (like democracy) represent cultural hegemony. She tries to argue that multipolarity is good. First, extend the Arbotav evidence which explains that without a hegemon to put its foot down and each nation having a viable chance of regional hegemony, conflcits including nuclear ones will increase. In fact, Royal makes virtually no response to any of my analysis on this point so you can literally extend it all. Her concession here leads to an Aff ballot--a vast increase in the probability of nuclear war follows multipolarity. Her only argument is that a hegemons allies will use their power to be abusive to other countries: A. This is not a US specific impact, B. This still occurs in a multipolar system, as the great powers will abuse weaker nations more in order to gain hegemony, a typical example would be the scramble for Africa in the late 1800s. The US does exploit nations in rare circumstances, but these are isolated incidents that happen in much lower frequency than they did in multipolar systems. C. She doesnt weigh this at all. Nuclear war and perpetual conflict is a far greater impact.She then argues that multipolarity is inevitable. First, this has no relation to its current desirability. Her only argument is that the US should give up hegemony so that it can "ease the transition" with no plan or explanation as to how to do so, and no impact. Second, actually read her evidence please. It specifically refers to an economic trend of growing GDP in other nations that they forsee CONTINUING to at least 2025. The word hegemony is not even used, all this shows is that other nations have economic power too. Recall that hegemony is over all power, and she agreed that we're talking about the status quo where the US has hegemony. She gains literally no ground here.Her arguments about other countries stopping conflicts shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Other nations definitionally have a lesser ability to solve conflicts because they dont have hegemony--their soft and hard power is weaker. The UN only intervenes successfully with American backing and just because the US doesnt solve every conflict doesnt mean it doesnt solve many more than other cocuntries would be able to. Recall also the (dropped) analysis that the power vacuum would cause an increase in conflicts. Her only actual argument is that the US is stopping Palestine from being recognized as a state--as if statehood would end the millenium old conflict between Jews and Muslims; plus this isnt impacted.DemocracyRoyal totally drops the unique character of the US and the historical comittment to democracy over autocracy. Her only argument is the historical wrongs the US committed--as if these things still apply to a nation with a black president thats rapidly approaching minority-majority status. When I say egalitarianism I was referring to the equal status of all under the law, a cause the US has done much to further with its cultural hegemony and democracy promotion. Royal gives literally a single legitimate example, but I can concede that that was a dumb decision without undemrining the fact that the general trend of US intervention is strongly democratic. Royal also simply asserts that US hegemony makes western ideology look bad, apparently unaware of the vast liberalization of the eastern bloc and Asia that occurred after the US gained hegemony and doesnt quantify this at all. Moreover she argues that I havent proven that other hegemons will commit genocide, except that I never claimed to prove that they WOULD. My argument was that the countries most likely to take over after the US have committed genocide in recent history and have less accepting cultures than the US so the *probability* of a genocide/exploitation increases. There is simply absolutely no substance behind her arguments here. Prefer the analysis of actual historical facts I offer to her unsourced conjecture. TradeMy opponent again misunderstands the nature of the argument because she doesnt understand WHY nations engage in protectionist policies. They do so to protect their industries against foreign competitors and to secure economic advantage over other nations. This would obvously increase with no hegemon. The huge positive effects of free trade come in the long term, and thus are better realized when you have a hegemon encouraging free trade like the US. Compare this to other potential hegemons like China who have huge protectionist policies[5]. Royal also drops the peace impact from this point, so extend that. Her worldbank evidence is irrelevant because A. She doesnt explain it, its completely non-responsive to the argument and B. It isnt referring to multipolarity in the sense of international relations, and it only mentions developing countries, not everyone else.You have a clear path to affirmation. My arguments can all be cleanly extended and are of far greater impact than my opponents are. I have come full circle with my argument,I have demonstrated the necessity in the status quo for a hegemon and why the US is the best and only nation to fill that. Thus you affirm.Thanks again to Royal for the debate Sources: http://www.debate.org...;