History is condemned to repeat itself

Well, were on the last round. I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate. In my opponents last argument. he attacked my claim that history will repeat itself. In your example of the car crash, you claim that if there were to be 10 car crashes in a row on your road, that I claim there would be one on the 11th day. However, in the situation of large-small empire trends I have more evidence. Just look at the U.S. It consists of 50 states. At one point, half the states broke off and fought the civil war that the North one, but it's an example that even a country can divide over an ideology such as slavery. What's stopping the south breaking off from the north again? California has the 7th largest economy in the world so surely it could exist independintly? In the car crash scenario, in a spontaneus moment in a year of 365 days, in 10 of those days occured the crashes. Under my logic, I'm not saying that there will or won't be crashes in the following days. But theres evidence there to support that there would be 10 carcrashes in the next 365 days of the next year. My opponent stated the Ottoman empire existed when I claimed there were no empires, in the time of the 1200's. However, he has not even researched his own evidence. The Empire started in the 1300's, not 1200's. Also, look at the map closely http://en.wikipedia.org.... You see that it's land that is shaded yelow, red and pink was the so called 'empire' until the 1450's. The expanded in to europe before the 1500's began, but by the time colonial powers began building up colonial empires, only then did they have their large expansions. But the part you overlooked is that after WW1, they broke down into smaller states, with Greece claiming independence even earlier than that. Yes, there are resons for the way things happen. The huge colonial expansion was the discovery of the new world. But let's not leave out large space empires as I mentioned. You'll probably come back and say the U.N. will intervene and draw up sizeable land borders, but this happened in colonial era's aswell. There was the Treat of Tordesilla's, which divided south america in half. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Aswell as that, like the way only countries with a strong navy in colonial era's could gain colonies, only countries equipped with the ability to go into space can get colonies. These are Russia, U.S., China and possibly the EU. There are internationally recognized border's, in the rich world. China has numerous border conflicts with countries such as India and Pakistan, aswell as claiming sovergnity over Taiwan. There are times where national bodies will fiddle their thumbs. In the congo crisis, the EU stood by whilse the rebels fought against the government and some UN troops. But in Korea, it was not only proved that the U.N. can raise up an army to deal with an attacker, but that China can challenge the U.N. in a war, not even when it was as strong as it was today. Let's not forget the Russian onvasion of Georgia, where evn NATO stood by in fear of an all out war. You say that Russia has a disastrious economy and that it can't build an army to take over the world. But, I have 2 points on this - 1. As oil and gas becomes scarcer, russia has plenty of this and could get HUGE profits off this, upgrading a whole army if wanted. 2. Didn't germany have an extremely poor economy before the Nazi's seized control and gave it the ability to conquer all of Europe and the world if they wanted. To conclude my arguments, you must look at it logically. Whereas a single country may not arise and take over the world, remember that within the next 300 or so years, huge colonial space empires have the power to be established. My opponent's arguments that this is coincidental may be valid, but there is a whole angle of this that is space and not just our own planet. If we colonized our solar sytem, we would start colonising other solar systems, until we've colonised most of our galaxy. This will happen in the thousands of years later as long as we aren't faced with exticncion. My opponent's argument does not count out my argument, and hasn't presented solid proof that this trend cannot occur, and is basing his argument on complete chance.