The United States was primarily responsible for instigating the Cold War

In my closing round, I will be rebutting my opponent's final round, as well as comparing his case with mine. In my opponent's conclusion, he divides my arguments into three points: Soviet expansionism, Berlin Blockade, and continued aggression. I will respond to each in order. With the overwhelming evidence I presented of a long-standing trend of Soviet aggression, my opponent has essentially reversed his prior stance ("the United States initiated the Truman Doctrine with virtually no prior Soviet aggression") and agreed with me that the Soviets were responsible for the unjust annexation or proxy control of a large number of Eastern and Central European countries, as well as other communist states like China, Cuba, North Vietnam and North Korea. Faced with these indefensible facts, my opponent doesn't actually defend them - rather, he argues two points: that such expansion posed no threat to free Europe, and that many of those countries had colonies at one point, so they had no right to condemn the Soviets. The problem with this is twofold - ruthless Soviet expansionism is a prime facie claim. A hostile country taking over other countries near your own country is an obvious threat to Western security, and even if it wasn't I already established that the USSR was actively funding and supporting communist parties and insurgencies in Western and/or free countries. My opponent has shown absolutely nothing to refute my claims of Soviet aggression, both through invasion and insurgency. In contrast, he's trying to shift the burden on to me to prove an obvious wrong. To his second claim, he argues that "The USSR was a new country and was carving out its niche on the European international scene, like any rising political power". This is an absurd statement. For one, the USSR was not a new country - it was simply Russia with a different name. For another, it was already one of the most powerful countries in Europe, even before the Soviets took power. This claim should be treated as it is: false. My opponent also made a few other claims on expansionism, like that he "did not deny that the Soviets were expanding" (which is false, given that he said "the United States initiated the Truman Doctrine with virtually no prior Soviet aggression"), and that the Soviet aggressive trend would inevitably reach Western Europe (which it inevitably did) are just as false. Oddly, my opponent asserts "that there was no *aggression* against the West" - an absurd claim on the face of it given their alliance with the anti-Western Nazis, their invasion of free European countries, the Soviet proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the Soviet funding of communist insurgents in Greece. He also argues that "As for Con's claims that NATO was a defensive alliance, rather than an offensive one. .. they are irrelevant; the primary reason the formation of NATO is considered a display of hostility is that it purposefully alienated the USSR, almost making that one of its primary goals". This is another baseless claim, and actually contradicts his argument with regards to Russian expansionism. For whatever reason, he finds it perfectly fine and completely non-hostile and non-aggressive for the Soviets to take over at least 10 countries, but a defensive alliance between the remaining free nations of Europe is an unprecedented act of hostility and aggression. In no universe does that make any sense whatsoever. My opponent's remaining two cases are much shorter. In regards to the Berlin Blockade, he does barely any refuting - his argument instead seems to be that the USSR was the rightful controlling power of West Berlin (which is completely false) and that the Soviets didn't technically do anything illegal. However, my case was not based around legality - it was based around aggression. Cutting off access to an enclave is undoubtedly an act of aggression towards the lest, and it's a big one given that the Berlin Blockade is widely regarded as the first aggressive act of the Cold War. in regards to continued aggression, my opponent continues to argue that has nothing to do with this debate. Unfortunately, he is wrong. My argument here relates to a historical trend of Soviet aggression - one that began in the 1930s and extended well into the Cold War. While hardly critical to my case, I believe that does indeed fall into the confines of this debate. I extend these issues to the final round. In his conclusion, my opponent has essentially taken a 180 from his previous round. In his opening, my opponent essentially casts the Soviets as a friendly, peaceful and non-expansionist Western-aligned country, brought into conflict with the US only through the actions of the US and the West. In his conclusion, he only argues the Soviets posed 'no direct danger' to the West, while trying to keep the rest of his argument intact. Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work. My opponent's concession that the Soviets were indeed expansionist essentially undermines his attempt to case the US as a purely aggressive force, and the US as a purely destructive one. I think it is clear to see here that my opponent's case simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In contrast to my opponent's case, my case is extremely compelling and supported by historical evidence. The Soviets were anti-Western as early as the 1930s, through their alliance with the Nazis and takeover of numerous surrounding countries, their takeover of numerous countries after the war, their rejection of Marshall Fund money, their support of communist parties and insurgents, and their sparking of wars like the Korean and Vietnam wars. I've also established they were responsible for the first major crisis of the Cold War (the Berlin Blockade) and this aggression extended well into the Cold War itself. Thus I have not only utterly refuted my opponent's case, but I have also affirmatively established my own case (namely, that responsibility for the instigation of the Cold War lies primarily with the USSR and it's leader, Josef Stalin). I rest my case, and I look forward to seeing what the voters decide.