Why the United States Needs To Be Invaded, Lose A War -

I as Con will argue the United States does not need to be invaded nor lose the war involved in this fictional invasion.#1. The United States is not tyrannical.My opponent started off by claiming the United States is "tyrannical." The United States is a liberal democracy. Therefore, by the definitions alone, the United States is not tyrannical. The United States holds free elections. Also the United States does not behave with a "tyrannical" "rule over most of the rest of the world" as my opponent claims.Liberal Democracy:"A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy with free and fair form of elections procedure and competitive political process[1]."Tyrannical: "being or characteristic of a tyrant or tyranny"Tyranny: "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler[3]"[1]http://definitions.uslegal.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...#2. The United States is not dictating over the rest of the world.Dictate:"to speak or act domineeringly[4]"[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...The United States does not dominate over other countries. The United States and the Obama administration told Vladmir Putin and the Russians not to continue fighting the Ukraine[5]. Did Vladmir Putin stop? Absolutely not, Putin went even further by holding elections in a sovereign country that he ordered to be invaded[6]. If the United States dominated the world as my opponent claims, why did these elections take place? Another example, if the United States dominated the world why would countries develop nuclear weapons in secret like North Korea, Iran, Israel, and others? Didn't the United States reach an agreement with other countries with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty[7]? If the United States dominated the world, why are countries still developing nuclear weapons?[5]http://www.usatoday.com...[6]http://www.cnn.com...[7]http://www.un.org...#3. The resolution is visceral.If we examine the resolution and opening statements made by my opponent, they are based on his own speculation of the United States being "tyrannical" and "dictating" of other countries. These are adjectives which must lead us to believe my opponent dislikes the United States or is affirming a position of contempt for the United States. The resolution must be observed as anti-American as a result of the opening arguments of my opponent. To be pro-American or anti-American and only offer arguments based on such sentiments will only result in "appeal to emotion" fallacies and conjecture. The resolution must be seen as being visceral.#4. The United States is not imposing its' ideology across the world.Some may point out that to Operation Iraqi Freedom which resulted in the United States setting up a liberal democracy in Iraq this is not true. Iraq developed an illiberal democracy which the United States is against. However, the democracy that was set up, agreed upon, and acknowledged by the United States and many others in the international community was built on the consensus of the Iraqi people. The United States could not have imposed democracy on an unwilling population. In fact, there were more eligible voters who voted in Iraq during the first election compared to their American counterparts. I will explain this further in the next few rounds thoroughly.#5. The United States does not need to be invaded.#6. The United States does not need to lose a war.#7. War is costly.I have a limited amount of characters so I will await for my opponent to reply.