America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.

Let me finish my posts by first clarifying a few things, and then pointing out how Pro's arguments are irrelevant. CLARIFICATIONS The rule broken I mentioned was actually that arguments were to wait until Round 2, however this is hardly worth breaking a sweat over. The ad hominem consists of the first paragraph of closing. Finally, my opponent denies that he ever admitted America is imperialist. Let us revisit the definitions. Imperialism: "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" Con (/// for emphasis): "I believe that ///America has adopted a foreign national policy stance that can be summarized as "interventionist. "/// I believe that ///America does attempt to coerce other nations/// in some regards, and that in many instances it could reasonably be construed as detrimental. " Interventionism: "///a policy of non-defensive (proactive) activity undertaken by a nation-state///, or other geo-political jurisdiction of a lesser or greater nature, ///to manipulate an economy or society///" (via Wikipedia) If America is interventionist, as Pro says it is, it is by its very definition also imperialist. To take action to manipulate another society is the same as indirectly or directly controlling another area's politics and economy. PRO'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS . .. are irrelevant. Let me list them, and why they are useless: 1. ‘If the (dictionary) definition of imperialism is upheld, nearly every nation is imperialist. ' Yes, and? As I said, every human is mortal, but that hardly makes "mortal" a meaningless word that cannot be applied to humans. The debate is not whether America is more or less imperialistic, only whether it is at all. 2. ‘Purchased territory should not count'. I see no reason why direct territory acquisitions are only those which have been gotten through military might or trickery. No distinction is made, nor is any distinction correct to make. Pro contrasts this to military acquisitions, pretending that America has never done such. 3. ‘Warfare is not imperialism'. Warfare alone is a direct way of extending or exerting power, even when it is justified or in defense. When done by a nation to those outside of it it is indeed imperialistic. Pro of course ignores my pointing out the reasons for the warfare in many of these cases: territory and/or control. 4. ‘Americans are generous'. And? Besides, in many cases, government aid (as opposed to civilian aid) is a method of control. Consider a situation in which your ally and your enemy are fighting. Getting directly involved is a bad idea, but sending in aid to certain groups and areas can be a method of control. This is the tactic the American government uses, as I sourced. 5. " Given the amount of wars and conflicts in American history, no land was ever stolen, no country ever lost their heritage, no country was displaced, America never acquired the land and called it "America," etc. " This statement not only blatantly ignores several of my examples (westward expansion, land taken from Mexico, land taken during the Spanish-American War, etc) but the examples of wars Pro gives in which America has not taken land misses the point. In many of these (Korean War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, etc) the entire point of the military conflict was to exert control. That the sort of control was supporting pro-America forces instead of directly taking over a country changes nothing. And, while not part of my opponent's real argument, I take issue with this false statement: "The heart of America, since its inception, was to escape from imperialistic dictatorships and to be the bastion of hope for those seeking to escape hegemony. " There were two main groups that settled America and later became it. One group was the Puritans, seeking the freedom to perform their religion after they had tried to take others' religious freedom away. The other was tobacco farmers and other poor from England in search of land. My opponent has provided no evidence for this statement, indeed it is in direct contradiction to my evidence and at best would be hypocrisy. America's policy has been and continues to be imperialist. Resolution affirmed: I have provided much evidence that America is imperialist, my opponent has admitted it is interventionist (and by definition imperialist), and has provided no evidence or reasoning to the contrary.