There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

The only debate lingo I'm using that I'm aware of is "TURN", but the meaning for that seems obvious enough. "Since you're doing a policy debate format – I'll do the same." I have never done policy in my life so I will be consulting friends if you use terms I do not understand. The debate I DO participate in is LD. As an overview to ALL of his responses to my arguments, he is never attacking the idea itself in each of my points; only the individual parts. Keep that in mind. C1--- 1) You're cutting that quote off from the rest of my point. It's SUPPOSED to say that since we are the world power right now we ought to step down NOW. 2) TURN - If China and Taiwan show signs of improvement then we're not needed as a hegemonistic power. Even then though, it does not mean the rest of the worlds problems are going like that too. Link this to response #5. 3) I never said that Britain was only a world power for 20 years. What I DID say was that they FELL from power in those 20 years, and that empirical fact is something you have not or cannot disprove. 4a) TURN - If they have their own problems to worry about then they're not hostile then are they? 4b) Commenter Ninjanuke - "I would like to point out that now much of the world is against us because of our invention policy. For example, most of the EU, Latin/South America, and our own long ally Britain has started critizing us on our foreign policy." 5) I do not do Policy Debate. After consulting my friend however, he says that the argument I'm making here can be called "INHERENCY". Alright so you say that multipolarity does not solve for Rwanda and Somalia. His only defense is that "At least the United States is doing SOMETHING". Well, uhh, we're failing. You never refute this part of my point ---It's better to step out now, because today, many other countries are already attempting to balance out the US's power, and THOSE countries can take over in watching the safety of the world.--- so I'll assume that to be true. Impact: The world will be more peaceful because 1) If the world has so many problems as it is, we ought to step down now while the rest of the world is trying to balance out our power and problems aren't so bad yet, 2) Since other countries are trying to balance out our power, there will be a tightly knit world police instead of our faulty one right now (which DOES do a worse job than the EU or others). C2--- 1) The evidence here also does not claim a time length. The only other arguments you have on this point is "more than enough time for us to settle relations with other countries" and "more than enough time for current conflicts to settle down". 1a) No warrant for a settling relations with other countries. They don't like our foreign policy (the hegemony) right now, and I don't think it'll change a hundred years from now. Nations in the Middle East want us out of there, and you have the burden of proof to show that things WILL change. 1b) Apply the same burden of proof here, along with the following: Even if current conflicts are solved, more will arise in the future. You're assuming that since we're the world police right now, the only problems that will ever happen from here on out is what's already started. We're not that good. And you haven't given analytics or evidence of that. 2a) MAD assures a peaceful rise to power and a peaceful fall from power for us, and even if that's not true, I don't see why that means a hot or cold war. To me, it sounds more like they're trying to keep the peace and they'll stop any random troublemaker in their midst as a group. 2b) TURN - The reason that there's increased tension is DUE TO our hegemony and our imperialistic foreign policy. If we keep this going then tension will just keep rising and eventually it will burst. Link this back to my first contention - If we fall from power like England within a very short amount of time, then all the increased tension from that time in which we COULD have stepped down.... well, we're f***ed. Already a reason to vote CON. 3&4) "There must be, not a balance of powers but a community of powers; not an organized rivalry, but a organized peace." - Woodrow Wilson. You seem to think that only a balance of powers will arise from this. Although I have used that phrase in my case, that is not what I meant. I thought that me using Layne would've pointed that out but that was also misinterpreted. Impact: Multipolarity is still good, and creates a more peaceful world compared to America and its hegemony. C3--- 1) Sectarian violence is happening because we're trying to divide up the country for oil. Sectarian violence is happening because we keep installing rulers that favor the West (overthrew Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran - http://www.nytimes.com...). In short, Sectarian violence is only happening BECAUSE we're over there. 2) It didn't seem to be happening before Hussein was taken down, eh? Peaceful does not mean Democratic. 3) Link Mossadeq. He had a peaceful government, but then we just HAD to screw things up. If Iran comes in and fills in the power gap, it'll be our own damned fault. Thankfully that won't happen. Link multipolarity here. He does not respond to the fact that "WE'RE KILLING IRAQI CIVILIANS; SETTING UP BOMBS, AND SNIPING OFF ANYONE THAT COMES NEAR IT AND THEN SAYING THAT THE IRAQI THAT WALKED NEAR THE BOMB WAS SETTING IT INTO PLACE. I WOULD THINK THAT IF WE WITHDREW FROM IRAQ, F***ING IMMORAL SH*T LIKE THIS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING." Impact: The Iraq war is happening due to American hegemony, therefore the world will be a more peaceful place if we stepped down from power. C4--- 1) Not Eurasian power, but Eurasion powerS. And that argument is nonunique, terrorism has plagued mankind since mankind's inception. I also do not agree with your implying that China's democracy groups are terrorists. You do not provide evidence that terrorism will overwhelm the future eurasian power, and we cannot assume so because terrorism has not overwhelmed one yet. 2) We're using hegemony to get involved in Israel. If I learned history right, the reason why Israel is so hated because the land was taken from the Palestinians for the Jews, and the Palestinians were displaced. Who did this action? The West. 3) I don't understand this but since I've covered argument 3 I think I've got this down too. 4) And support of Israel comes from our use of Hegemony. It all links together. But even before that, terrorism is directed towards us because of our hegemony. True, the preceding argument is not warranted well, but the fact of the matter is, if we step down from our dominating position, then we give terrorists no reason to direct their actions toward us. As I said in R1, "There is going to be no "reflection" as Eurasian powers aren't trying to control the Middle East and they AREN'T in Iraq just for oil, and terrorists won't have a reason do direct attacks against THEM either." You can link that to the first refutation on this contention. Impact: Less terrorism for everyone, resulting in more world peace. Again, the PRO's thesis is: "Thus, America must maintain it's hegemony and actively assert it's policies in order to ensure future wars do not happen." We seem to think that everyone in the world needs Democracy. The reason why Iraq is in such deep sh*t today is because we tried to get it up over there. We need to start listening to the wisdom of past presidents - as JFK once said, "There cannot be an American solution for everything". For all that are confused, the basic point in my case is that many wars are happening DUE TO America maintaining its hegemony, and for all other wars, the international community would a better job of solving them than America, because they don't go in and assert their policies like we do.