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

Responses to His Questions1. The point about equality is referring to the fundamentals of human nature, like rationality. Sure people become inequal while people go through life but the fundamental notions remain the same. Ergo we need to treat people as a whole equally.2. Human rights arent gained through contract and exhange. They are rights gained through common bondship of humans. However, I would content since the US did ratify and agree to the UN Declaration of Human Rights we also have a contractual obligation to protect human rights. 3. Thats not the context of arbitrary I am referring to. My argument is that people dont choose which borders they live within. Thus, saying peoploe deserve specific rights simply based by location, then you are, by extension, saying moral obligations in terms of rights allocations are arbitrary.4. Human rights refer to the 3 negative rights and certan functional rights, like right to free religion. And its not slaughter for "sport," its slaughter to maintain power at all costs. Democracies do not go through this since democracies ensure safe transition of power. You might say some democracies have had this problem bu refer to my liberal vs. illiberal analysis. 5. First, your analysis about different ideologies is true and false. My argument say that democracies have a decreased chance of war because of ideological ties. Thus my world will always have a decreased chance ompared to your world. So youwould be extending overall less offense. Second, my structural point would also be true in your examples, say in Vietnam because due to immense public pressure we did pull out eventually. However, I would also say the US is an exception because it is the hegemon in a unilateral system. The other countries we are promoting democracy would obviously not be in this position. 6. The argument you make is mixing apples and oranges so to speak. My argument was concluded from a multiple regression analysis. Sure the US has had some internal problems however that does not negate the stat that autocracies do have far more internal and state violence than democracies. Just look today, autocracies in the Middle East and China have far more State violence than any democracy in the world, e.g. US and Europe.7. Again, your argument is mizing two different things. Your one example, China does not negate the analytic I provided. The Olson evidence tells us that due to the nature of democracies, free is widely more recieved and utilized. This is also empirically true. Isreael, Turkey, US, and the EU are much more recpective and promotive of free trade whereas most autocracies are not.8. First, yes, when the US promotes democracy it is more of a liberal democracy than an illberal democrcy. For example, Iraq was given rights to freedom of religion and protectionfor minority groups. On the otherhand, as I have mentioned, Egypt is going dowhill because they are mixing illiberal policies within a democractic structure. So yes the French Revolution failed for the same reason - they wanted to promote democracy but impose an illiberal worldview. Second, the Weimar Republic went through economic collapse. Their form of currency was almost worht zero. However in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has modermized it by far in comparison to what it was. TURN: Your argument about Egypt and Tunisia flow my wat proves that revolutions without the aid of the US take a far turn for the worse. Questions for Opponent1. What benefit are you gaining from your case? What is the advantage and impact? How does it outweigh?2. How would you envision the world with a US retreat from the global scene? That is what would the world be like as apolar?3. Would the Middle East be preferable without the US there? 4. How do you intend on solving the Iranian nuclear crisis? 5. How do you intend on solving terrorism? 6. Is there any time the US, in your opimion, is justified in intervening in another nation's struggle for democracy?7. Is democracy preferable to autocracy, or do you see them as equally valuable?