U.S. Primacy is globally desirable.

Pro Case C1: U.S. and Democracies My opponent admits that he concedes the analytic of effect and influence that the U.S. has over weaker and smaller nations. He argues however that he does not concede the empirics that I provided in the first round. Essentially his argument is that he did respond to the empirics, that they are ambiguous and that they are unverifiable: First, on the claim that he responded to the empirics. I have looked back to the first round and still do not see any direct refutations of any of the empirics provided. I ask if I missed this that Mark copy and paste into the last round what direct responses he made to: “…the U.S. compelled the international order to protect human rights in the Eastern bloc and other Soviet satellite states; Carter promoted democracy in the Dominican Republic and Reagan in Granada; the U.S. prevented military coups in Honduras, Bolivia, El Salvador, Peru and South Korea; the U.S. influence on governments such as Poland, Chile, Portugal and Taiwan gave the edge necessary for democratic victory.” The only close response, but doesn’t respond to the substance of the empirics is the ambiguity claim. If Mark wanted to directly refute the empirics provided, which he has not, all he needed to do what say for example “Carter’s intervention in the Dominican Republic was bad” or “70% of the time the democracy was unstable.” However he neither made a substance claim nor a counter-empirical claim. The ambiguity argument does not cut it as an argument since it doesn’t respond to the substance. I could easily have said all of Mark’s contentions were ambiguous because all of them were essentially just rambled off premises. For example: “Again, I can elaborate further as we go, but according to the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the "unseemly and often corrupting role played by money in our electoral processes," the "reliability of counting the votes," and "partisan gerrymandering" are just some of the factors contributing to a deficiency in U.S. democracy.” I guess my opponent is being too ambiguous for a debate by not clearly explaining all of the examples of background corruption and how the corruption that existed in our electoral process took place. The source argument also doesn’t cut it because as accepted on DDO essays, peer-reviewed journals and books are seen as legitimate sources. If my opponent wants me to email him a scanned copy of The World America Made I would be glad to share the wealth. Note: Mark drops this analysis in his last round: “Kagan did an analysis and explains that after 1970, with the deteriorating power of the U.S.S.R., the United States gave support 2:1 in support of democracies in the early 70s, then to 4:1, then to 5:1. As time moves away from the 1970s starting point, the ratio increases in favor of democracies.” He concedes it but asks irrelevant questions such as why do we support autocracies and is it logically consistent? 1) It doesn’t matter and 2) it doesn’t matter. Why? Because as long as the U.S. promotes more democracy then the U.S. is linking into the benefits in the impacts. But if you want a short answer: The U.S. must balance long term and short term advantages. Autocracies were beneficial against the U.S.S.R., and now they are not. My opponent finally offers an alternate interpretation, though not really complete: His first claim is that democracies regress to autocracy. This is true though it has not happened in the 3rd Wave compared to the 1st and 2nd. On balance the 3rd Wave is continuing towards democratic movements even in the Middle East, like the Arab Spring. The problem with my opponent’s source is that it is a 2004 source which was the height of the IR popculture notion that the Middle East won’t accept democracy – well before the beginning of the Arab Spring and the rapid decrease of sectarian violence in Iraq. At this point his argument is outdated. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and now Syria are all undergoing democratic transformations. His second claim is about industrial interests. Even if this were true, the consequence of our interests is to promote democracy. But its not true because 1) we haven’t made any oil money from Iraq and 2) there would be no point in using our resources to nation build when we could easily just siphon and control key resources areas of the Middle East. His third claim about Hugo Chaevz is just completely wrong. Chavez is essentially a dictator-for-life who controls the media and the elections boards. Even though I cannot use new evidence I think this point is relatively well-known. Fourth, his counter-interpretation isn’t a counter-interpretation: it does not give an alternative account of the 3rd Wave of Democracy excluding U.S. influence, intervention and aid. Impact 1: DPT He hasn’t substantively contested DPT, it can go extended. . Impact 2: Democide He concedes it but says "tends" - either way he doesnt refute the Rummel evidence. C2: Free Trade He concedes free trade in his last round, but says it’s a controversial debate and offers evidence to the contrary of Olson. Unfortunately it’s too late for that since he substantively dropped Olson from the very beginning. However the evidence is misleading because it attributes the problems of 3rd world countries to free trade without mentioning that the internal economic degradation in these countries started before the advancement of free trade and when African and Middle Eastern nations followed the protectionist-safety policies rather than the route of the Asian Tigers with free trade. C3: Alternative: China Mark’s only argument against Chinese autocratic expansion in Africa, the Middle East and Asia is that it will eventually conflict with U.S. interests and potentially a war. Nowhere in his source does it reveal this, but from an analytic standpoint refer to his previous argument that China isn’t even close to the U.S.. Remember the argument is that a voluntary withdrawal from the world stage makes a power vacuum which China would fill. If the U.S. doesn’t withdraw (i.e. voting Pro) then China could not compete with us on the international level, which means no conflict. Con Case C1/C2/C3: First, prefer the actual to the rhetorical. Just because the U.S. sometimes acts undemocratic does not mean it hasn’t promoted democracy. You must demonstrate an impact. Second, sometimes the U.S. must do undemocratic means to attain a democratic end. For example, Guantanamo and strong anti-terror efforts actual benefits genuine democratic movements in the Middle East by preventing infiltration by jihadists. Third, the source for Osama bin Laden was a redirect to the protectionist evidence. Since I cant respond you must ignore this argument. Fourth, the last source provided only talks about the risk of home-grown terrorism not that it was a plan by jihadists in the Middle East from the beginning. Thus extend the Rubin analysis that terrorism would exist regardless of U.S. action which means it isn’t blowback due to U.S. primacy. Voters 1) Even assuming I dont win the link to democratic advantage, I automatically win the link to preventing more autocracy. He essentially concedes the China argument (excluding the link to protectionism) which means U.S. primacy is critical to hinder Chinese expansionism and influence. This argument makes a link to DPT and democide because the more autocracies there are the higher chance for war and democide. 2) More democracy. The analytic of world power and the essentially conceded empirics is enough to link back to the impacts of DPT and democide. Aside from my opponent's rough attempt to refute it we know that: 1) the U.S. has intervened more to promote democracy and prevent autocracy (5:1). 2) The U.S. has succeeded (refer to list of nations).