Opp

Motion:
Side:

First Speech:
Introduction: The only reason why Apartheid in South Africa was able to end. The only reason why
the DRC is able to train poll workers to finally hold free and fair elections. And the only reason why
we can even dream of holding countries accountable for genocide is because of the United
States’ role as the SOLE HEGEMON over the course of the last few decades.
Because we support democracy and the pursuit of efficient, global solutions, so proud to oppose.

Roadmap

Framework (this took Ms, Simon 1:30 seconds to read it’s basically written, I don’t think this needs
to be fleshed out anymore tb
1. Definitions:
a. Hegemon definition if their definition is stupid. Om clown their definition!!
2. Context (optional):
a. We concede that the U.S’s position as a SOLE hegemon is declining however it is
ABSURD to say that the US is not still a global superpower that’s in the lead
politically, economically, and socially.
b. The US has been the sole hegemon after WW2 and maintained is dominance
through and post Cold War
c. Its decline as a sole hegemon has been brought mostly by the rise of China and
Russia as credible competitors.
i. Russia for example, has been increasing its stake in global influence as
evident by its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the recent invasion on
Ukraine
ii. China has been expanding its influence across the world in a couple of
ways namely through a growing military (perhaps to invade Taiwan in
2027) as well as through the Belt and Road Initiative and various
infrastructure projects across the globe in LDCs.
https://apnews.com/article/china-debt-banking-loans-financial-developing-
countries-collapse-8df6f9fac3e1e758d0e6d8d5dfbd3ed6
d. As a result, the proposition NEEDS to spend a considerable amount of time
explaining:
1. Why fill-in is not inevitable in the case of a US decline
2. If it is not inevitable, how would the world of the proposition prevent
Russia/China global takeover
3. Stance:
a. Let’s give the prop their world. We’ve already given you disadvantages to it (OM
ADDRESS IN REBUTTAL WHAT THEY SAID FOR STANCE)
b. We would say that historically the world has always had a global hegemon
throughout history and there has always been a sole global hegemon, and
 countries are always fighting for self preservation to be at the top, i.e., pre-WW2 it
was Brittain, post-WW2 it was the US, meaning that they have to prove to you with
their model how they still have stability despite that inconsistency.
c. We do NOT welcome the decline of the US as a sole global hegemon. In fact, we
encourage the US to FIGHT to maintain its position in the following ways:
i. Increased economic partnerships with LDCs
ii. Protecting their military and political alliances in the Pacific
iii. Throwing itself into LEADING international organization reform (UN, NATO,
IMF, etc)
4. Burdens:
a. Given that the topic concerns numerous countries in the international community,
you should vote for the side that best maintains global geopolitical stability

Substantive 1: Democratic Dominance (00:00)

Thesis: Maintaining the US’ stance as the sole hegemon is crucial for maintaining the credibility of
democracy as a credible political system.
Analysis:
1. Why is the success of democratic spread tied to the U.S.’s position?
a. Think of a debate team that constantly wins tournaments or games back to back.
As a fellow competitor, you want to emulate that team and do what it does to win
more and gain more standing.
i. Countries and their citizens are no different than ambitious debaters - they
emulate those that they envy and admire. They have the incentive to model
themselves after more powerful and successful countries in order to gain
that success themselves.
1. The U.S. has been the face of democracy since its creation. The key
link here is that when democracy succeeds, people buy into its
power. Democracy requires room to succeed. Success is equivalent
to legitimacy and solvency, which sends a message to other
countries. It sets a precedent and a model.
b. What happens in a world where the US declines?
i. Democracy would take a MAJOR blow and the world would not be the same.
Without success, democracy loses its legitimacy.
1. Authoritarian countries like China and Russia use a “special social
contract” to maintain legitimacy— promising economic benefit to
citizens at the cost of personal liberty.
2. If authoritarianism becomes more successful than democracy, we
legitimize the “special social contract” that China and other
authoritarian countries use to pacify their citizens— greenlighting
aspiring authoritarians to do the same.
2. Why do we want democracy to be the political framework for a majority of regions (ONLY
SAY IF PROP DOES NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY SUB OR TALKS ABOUT DEMOCRACY) 4
reasons:
a. First, it fosters cooperation/diplomatic talks
i. By definition, democracy promotes pluralism. It doesn’t allow for one sole
actor to take to have all the say in decisions and policymaking. Collaboration
is open and diplomatic talks are encouraged to make educated decisions.
 b. Best system for fostering accountability
i. 2 ways in which democracy has accountability
1. First, democracy intrinsically has a system of checks and balances.
There are limits to power.
2. Second, there are elections. The public, if they decide that a leader is
unfit or corrupt, is able to not vote for them and vote for someone
else. The power relies in the hands of the public.
c. Democracies are less likely to go to war
i. Democratic peace theory - transparency makes it less likely for democracies
to go to war because of the checks and balances process. Their key
incentive is the people rather than one sole power’s territorial interests. We
are currently in the post Cold War era, an era of peace as democracy is the
dominant power and the frequency of war has reduced.
d. What is the comparative?
i. Authoritarianism is the alternative and is atrocious for geopolitical stability.
There is no happy medium, instead authoritarian rulers prefer to utilize a “my
way or the highway” model of politics where things are either completely
under their control or completely away. This creates an instability as people
are unsure of which extreme they fall under.
ii. There are also minimal checks and balances. The power of an authoritarian
ruler is separate from the public due to the lack of elections and processes
that limit power.
iii. What does this mean for LDCs? Two possible scenarios
1. First, in which authoritarian regimes with cultural/territorial
incentives invade and attempt to control LDCs. Neocolonialism is a
much bigger possibility. At the very best, authoritarian regimes would
create proxy wars within LDCs
a. For example, the Cold War led to the USSR turning much of
Africa into a proxy war ground by supporting different sides
of civil wars in Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia.
3. How does our countermodel ensure the protection of democratic influence?
a. Ensures collaboration and exclusively works with LDCs. America has no incentive to
work with authoritarian regimes and would engage in diplomatic talks with LDCs
instead, opening up the global stage to more representation.
b. It also leans into finding reform in international orgs - this shows that despite flaws,
it is always preferable to have a country with a culture of democracy leading the
charge. At the end of the day, it comes down to the comparative of America having
consistent democratic incentives and this making it more open to diplomatic talks
and progress towards more democratic nations.
Impacts:
1. Democratic spread in LDCs
a. LDCs are on the rise and will be MAJOR actors over the next few decades - they are
watching this event CLOSELY.
i. US needs to be democratic to ensure long term stability in the region and to
prevent neocolonialism/proxy wars
ii. Need to be democratic to keep human rights abuses at bay
1. At the very worst ground, need democracy for accountability
domestically and internationally
 iii. Need to be democratic to avoid fill-in with authoritarian actors like Russia &
China
2. Global policy making
a. We need democratic leadership to get talks going on global crises: climate change &
refugees - these issues are especially important because of how time-sensitive and
urgent they are. Less cooperation on these issues results in unnecessary death,
displacement, and environmental deterioration

Substantive 2: Efficiency (00:00)

Thesis: When there is a sole hegemon, international decision making is far more efficient allowing
for action to be taken when needed.
Analysis:
1. Whether it is bilateral or multilateral, a lack of a leader becomes wildly inefficient for several
reasons:
a. First reason is, smaller conflicts explode into larger ones, which means political
paralysis
i. Without the US to impress, petty regional conflicts can be used to stall
progress
1. This means that since the US is not there to be the global policeman
and tell these countries what to do with these conflicts, which makes
these conflicts continue.
a. When you are not the sole hegemon, you cannot take action,
rather you have to wait for the global community to respond
to the issue, which is much less efficient and stalls the
progress by slowing it down or letting it continue to persist.
2. Someone bring in that NATO example - two countries were beefing
and they didn’t want to let them in; give a UN example too if possible
ii. It is impossible to come to a conclusion because its a free for all
1. League of Nations failures vs the UN’s more hierarchical approach
(with a security council)
b. Second reason is that there is increased corruption.
i. The only way to succeed in a multilateral system is to create blocs amongst
multiple nations to consolidate power.
1. This looks like the East vs West divide during the Cold War.
ii. This cuts down accountability for two reasons.
1. Preserving an image of strength
a. When you’re competing against another side, you want to
project an image of strength
i. Don’t let them take advantage of your weaknesses
ii. More effective deterrence against attacks
2. Maintaining allies
a. Allies are incredibly important during fights between blocs.
Allies provide resources that the hegemon can use, or act
as a deterrent against the opponent’s actions
i. Ex: Cuba’s position as an ally for Russia during the
cold war kept the US on their toes because they
were placed in a strategic position, or how Russia
relies on India to provide nukes.
 b. This means countries will even actively fund HR violations in
order to maintain allies— because allies can threaten to not
give aid or even help the other side.
i. Ex: India literally gives Russia the arms they use to
oppress Ukraine
2. How does the opp’s world resolve this?
a. As the sole hegemon, they can afford to publicly disagree with their allies.
i. This is because they don’t have to agree with the majority, this means they
can hold the majority accountable instead of being forced to agree with the
collective.
b. It doesn’t actively threaten their survival this can embolden the US to hold
countries accountable
i. US & South Africa during Apartheid
c. Leading the cause for reform (via the counter model) allows for the US to admit its
shortcomings while still maintaining a leadership position
Impacts:
1. Political paralysis = ineffective policy making = regional conflicts/instability/prolonging of
conflicts
2. Corruption = loss of faith in international institutions = promotion of mistrust among
countries

Extension:
Multilateralism, at best, means harder to be global policeman - have to wait until action is made
(one decision harder) - more conflict - SOLVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE

Conclusion:
 Second Speech

Introduction:

Substantive 3: Pax Americana (00:00)

Thesis: The United States’ military dominance has propelled us into an unprecedented time of
peace. Its demise will launch the international community into chaos.
Analysis:
1. We’re currently in the Pax Americana - this peace is unprecedented
a. Even with tensions like Russia & Ukraine or China & Taiwan, notice they go after
smaller countries they will NEVER go after larger ones. This is important because
it’s often larger countries that lead to larger conflicts, so our side prevents that.
b. The sole reason this mass war has been prevented is because NATO & the US
military exists. The power that U.S. has a hegemony and the organizations it’s
taken to consolidate that power prevents other nations from stepping out of line.
2. What is the connection between the US’s hegemonic desires and military strength?
a. To be a sole hegemon means to be the best in everything whether in terms of
innovation, soft power, etc.
b. In order to achieve this soft power, the U.S. has invested in its military. However,
other nations are less likely to act out because the U.S. is so prominent.
i. Nations know if they over step, the hard power will come with a vengeance.
This disincentives from committing acts of violence to incite war (built in
impact turn to militarism)
c. Welcoming the decline of the US means welcoming the decline of its military
influence. In prop’s world, this inherently means more wars. It’s a world where
China is free to invade Taiwan because it does not have an enforcer telling it no or
where Russia would have called war on Ukraine decades prior because no one
was stopping them.
3. Why would an inconsequential US military be horrific?
a. The US’s military strength helps both developing and developed countries.
i. For developing countries - The US’s ability to be the credible “bad cop” or
backup enables countries to be strong in holding their ground. Not only can
developing countries use the U.S. to protect themselves in case of war, war
is already less likely to happen because countries don’t want to act out in
retaliation.
ii. For developed countries - The concept of not just mutually assured
destruction but the gun that the U.S. brings to a sword fight disincentives a
large majority of actions.
b. Without the US’s dominance in this arena, military issues would likely become a
bilateral conflict
i. When you don’t have a sole hegemon, countries will be far more willing to
take sides, generally two main sides.
ii. This creates bipolar hegemony through the competition amongst those
two powers (i.e. Cold War). This has cyclically harms as more countries
take sides which leads to more escalation, clashing spheres of influence,
countries more willing to go to war, etc.
Impacts:
 1. War should be avoided at all cost ESPECIALLY in the age of nuclear weapons
a. Waste of global resources: at an unprecedented time of climate change,
conserving our resources is of the utmost importance. By the end of WWII, the U.S.
had produced 300,000 planes. Not only would more planes be built in a massive
bilateral conflict but more nuclear weapons and artillery which would halt all
sustainability measures.
b. Collapsing of international cooperation: the delicate balance of multilateralism falls
when conflict is more imminent. This deters the actual piece which is likely on our
side.
c. Massive loss of life: most important, the irreversible damage created will always
wreak havoc on families.

Which side is best for peace? Democracy? Developing countries?

● International community not democracy and whoever is on top sets precedent bc worse
implications for intl relations
○ More efficient as society
○ Practical more important

Refutations/POI’s/Notes

Opponent’s Argument A2

Respond to regional multilateral

Our opponents tell you “multilateralism in use sole heg creates more accountability!
second sub” Other countries can take advantage

EVERYTHING IMPACT OF MULTILATERALISM 1. First, multilateralism doesn’t happen in

prop’s world:
a. There is no warranting to
explain why multilateralism
happens. Because it can’t.
b. Why is a hegemon necessary?
Prove why there is a natural
order with incentive analysis -
countries always want to be
the most powerful so a
hierarchy is established. Can’t
have two or three perfectly
equal actors (what Cold War is
about)
i. Countries history with
expansion
c. Every country wants to
naturally become more
powerful. Every country will
compete with each other. Not
 completely balanced.
Eventually one will win: no
stable system of multiple
d. hegemony.
e. Here’s why: their world is
inherently one where you feel
like you have a chance to.
Three powers one will
inevitably end up on top.
Self-preservation is important
so they don’t want dominate
and influence and growth is
important.
2. Second, even if multilateralism
happens, why is it worse?
a. At best, no conflict, but
stagnation and grid locking. If
cooperation, just within the
blocs.
b. At worst, more conflict. Blocs
go against bloc. Supercharged
with proxy wars
3. Third, we told you unilateralism
inherently happens?
a. Public accountability:
self-check through voting
(doesn’t need another actor to
check it back). Other nations
can’t.
i. Still get accountability!
ii. U.S. Foreign
Involvement: Marshall
Plan or U.S. pulling out
of Afghanistan, or
pulling out of Vietnam.
iii. Unilateral was
prerequisite
b. Accountability to global world:
i. Other nations don’t
want to spite the U.S.
4. Multilateralism worse because sole
global power has to exist: think they
have a chance to be on top
5. Better on our side because U.S. holds
as accountability (Marshall Plan)
6. Accountability functions way better bc
cares more abt public perception
(comparative is Russia and China -
 dilute U.S.
7. Democracy is prerequisite to
cooperation
8. Competing hegemon increase conflict:
supposed to help developing countries
(proxy wars for developing countries)
9.
10. Even if

Our opponents tell you “democracy in first sub” - unstrategic bc practical is super
confusing anyways so have to weigh

1. impacts are practical: literally don’t

care about principle (pick what type of
arg thesis is) - don’t tell you why
democracy is important (too late to
clarify this)
2. Hung: principle relies on practical so
only way achieved is through more
influence
3. How more influence on two
interpretations?
a. Multilateral (equal powerful):
i. Action outweighs
democracy! Bite bullet
ii. you have no democracy
period - literally your
best case is one
b. One nation more powerful:
i. Worse
ii. No democracy: China
becomes power and
then what? Listens to
nobody? You have no
democracy
4. On our side: more
a. More influence to spread
democracy

u.s. sets precedent that you don’t need

authoritarian countries to be wealthy:
democracies can give you good
amount of prosperity (encourages
democracy)

countries maintain order throdemocracy

shouldn’t be in
This argument is an impact of to
multilateralism: local
organizations/group alliances create
democracy

Unilateralism
- no alternative

Multilateralism
- makes democracy seem as equal as or
worse

Defensive: can’t say why U.S. just bad

democracy - they must give alternative
(even if multilateralism exists, why
worse)