The United States Is a Faltering Nation.

1. On this point you basically argued we had global competitors in four groups: China, Russia, India, and Terrorists. Well, as for the first three, I agree they COULD fill the role we need, but the problem isn't that we lack candidates; the problem is that we lack a centric enemy. All of them could oppose us, and be a uniting enemy. The problem is, they aren't. None of them have done anything that has aggressive connotations towards us, and none of them are likely to. As for terrorists, I don't believe that terrorism has the desired effects. Sure, they oppose us, but the distinction that must be made, is that they oppose us indirectly. The type of enemy America, and superpowers in general, are good at fighting, are ones that oppose the power directly. Enemies that use indirect methods of conflict; such as suicide bombing, being transboundary and not associated with just one country, or overall being hard to strike down with force, are not the countries we need conflict with to jump-start us. Let's look at some examples. The time when America arguably became a world power was right around WWI. It was at this time, that we could face a single enemy (Central Powers) and grow into a stronger nation. I believe this point is relatively evident, and is empirically proven. The next example I'd like to look at would be Rome. Now obviously, Rome didn't face terrorists. The closest parallel (in tactics and name) would be the barbarian tribes that plagued them, and eventually played a key role in Rome's downfall. However, when Rome faced a single nation to unite against (Carthage), Rome succeeded and grew. Thus, I think my point is historically clear, and empirically proven. 2. Well, this point, in theory sounds good. However, there are two problems. First, I'd like to see some evidence that says that your claim is true, and that if we get a good leader, everyone will love us. I don't think that is the case at all. I think that many countries just don't like our culture or the way we do things. Secondly, assuming the point is true, in order for it to matter we need to assume we will get a good president. Well, I guess that isn't strictly true. For your point to be valid, we need a president that can appeal to countries that don't like us now. Obviously, neither of us can predict the future, but I don't believe any candidates that are likely to be elected will fill this role anyway. I don't think you can give any guarantee we will get a president that fills the shoes of, Abraham Lincoln or Dr. King. Such leaders are one in a million, a needle in a haystack. I'd argue that the current nominees won't face up to well with the countries that don't like us. First off, I'd like to make a disclaimer. The points I bring up aren't personal problems I see with the candidates, rather logical issues I can foresee. First off, Clinton is a woman. This in no way is a statement on her leadership ability. Rather, I'd like to bring into focus that it's pretty well proven that the Middle East isn't too fond of women in politics (see Bhutto assassination). Clinton would have the same issues. A fundamental lack of respect would ensue, and not help us in the least. I see the same potential problems with Obama, although to a lesser extent and only being a possibility. This probably wouldn't happen in the Middle East, but the point stands. Again... no guarantee of a good leader coming from either of the Democratic leaders. As for the Republicans, most of them are strikingly similar to George Bush, except maybe Giuliani (who doesn't have much of a chance any more). Regardless, I think a Democratic presidency is rather imminent. 3. The point is that they have some threat. Whether or not they are acting on it, terrorists are surprisingly good at holding a chunk of our attention. Just another enemy that, should they have the chance, is likely to act against us. This helps lead me to the conclusion that on the current road, America is slipping off its throne. 4. The real point on this wasn't whether or not we are prioritizing weaning ourselves off foreign oil, but rather if we can stop our dependency at all. Just because candidates advocate getting off foreign oil, doesn't mean it can happen. Get some evidence that says we can, and we can talk from there. I for one, just simply don't think we can do so in a timely manner. By the time we do get off it, it may be too late. 5. http://www.americandaily.com... http://www.cambridge.org... - You'll just have to read the quotes on this one, as they talk about American Economic Decline as a foregone conclusion, rather than a theory. Michigan is in a declared recession, debt per capita is harking back to the 1940s (the days of war), and unemployment is at its highest in awhile. Doesn't sound so peachy keen to me. 6. Bring up some evidence that says our police policy is a success, as that's the only real point to negate the point. As for my burden of proof, I'll just cite the example of Iraq. Regardless of how it is going now, overall it hasn't been a success. We went in for Nukes, and 4 years later we're still there, even though we know there aren't nukes. North Korea wasn't exactly a success, and any wins weren't resulting from us. All in all, our policing policy isn't a success, and is arguably failing. You say it wouldn't be an indicator of the U.S. failing, but I disagree. I think that us trying to police the world just contributes to our lack of Soft Power and takes more of our power away from us. http://www.globalcomplexity.org... 7. The point here was that China and Russia are growing as powers. I'll take the fault here for not clarifying enough, but what I meant was that China and Russia aren't opposing us. All they are doing is just growing rapidly. Even if you think that we are growing (I'd argue we aren't), you can't possibly say we are growing at a rate in which we keep above China and Russia. The point is, Russia and China are growing faster than us, and we don't oppose them and they aren't our enemies. We aren't doing anything to stop this. Thus, our seat upon the current throne will eventually be lost, and we would be on the decline. In conclusion, I believe I have won this debate. I have refute my opponents arguments, and made the better points. I do wish I hadn't dropped the round, or that this debate was longer, however we'll go with what we have. To win this, I really just have to argue that the U.S. is on the decline in a worldview. My opponent has (sort of) conceded that Russia and China are growing. So the question is: Are they growing faster than the U.S.? I believe they are, mainly because of points 1-6. Just as some last minute linkage to go over and help cement my position: http://www.secure-x-001.net... http://www.secure-x-001.net... Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading.