I'm going to use a quote from a post in a debate from our very own debate forum here at ATS. It was about a debate on whether the US is still or
should still be a world leader.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Rebuttal Section
My opponent states
As I read it, it is a debate on whether or not the United States has failed in it's role as "world leader". If they were to step aside,
obviously a replacement would be necessary. However, our debate is based on whether or not they have failed in this role, not who should replace them.
Whether there is a formidable replacement or not, it carries no weight on how good of a job they've done thus far. With that said, I do see some
countries that are worth consideration and could step into the role.
I’m afraid I entirely disagree. The debate is about whether or not the USA has lost its ability to be the world leader, and whether or not another
country can step up and fill that gap. Without consideration of the second section (understandable, as it destroys my opponent’s entire position),
the entire debate would be moot. If no replacement is possible, then how can the leader be removed?
My opponent states
This is precisely my point. While my opponent stands for a strong leader and supports such fear tactics, the outcome of lives lost will be the
same. During the Holocaust, millions of lives were lost because there was a leader at the helm who people feared and nobody questioned. I would ask
for more from our "world leader". I do not want to see fear. With trust and respect we enforce accountability and operate under a true democracy.
The United States has had their time and they have failed.
I’m afraid you are conflating two separate analytical factors. We can imagine leadership on a X-Y axis graph, where X is strong/ weak and Y is
“morally good”/”morally bad”. Hitler was strong, but he was also evil. As was Stalin.
Churchill was strong and good.
Chamberlain was weak and moderate.
Etc etc.
The world needs a strong leader, who is also good. A strong leader must wield and command both fear and respect. A leader who isn’t feared cannot be
taken seriously. That was my contention re: leadership.
My opponent states
If the United States is not willing to stand up for the rights of its own people, how can we ever expect them to stand up for the rights of
others? The point of what I had to say in my opening post was that same-sex marriage is banned in the United States. Health care is not something that
everyone is offered, as it is a business where money not well-being is the primary goal. So in a country where they look at man or woman and say,
"No, you're different. You're not allowed to get married!".. I oppose this individual as the leader of a diverse planet of ethnicity and cultures.
My opponent fails to take into account that all those things are morally subjective points of view. Those examples he gave- universal healthcare, gay
marriage etc are highly subjective viewpoints reflecting my opponent’s own beliefs and positions.
How can he expect a world leader to thrust those points upon other countries, who may have different morals and belief systems?
A world leader must not export a certain dogmatic brand of liberal ideology. A world leader must simply exist for one reason- to protect basic natural
rights: i.e the right to exist (intervention in genocide, conflict); liberty (intervention against slavery and human trafficking); estate and property
rights (intervention against wholesale state theft).
In all these spheres the USA has been a fantastic world leader for the past 60 years.
Have any world wars occurred since the USA has been world leader?
Hasn’t the USA intervened against natural rights violations in Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Kosovo and Iraq?
Hasn’t the USA been funding anti-slavery drives and initiatives, and sponsoring Interpol?
If you watch an episode of “The Apprentice”, you will realize that the USA is often bashed because it
is the world leader, and bashing the
leader is the simplest solution for the unthinking. If we consider the record of the USA, it has been the president of global prosperity and peace in
historical terms.
On the international stage, gay marriage rights are wholely irrelevant. That is an issue for each country to decide, and the position of the world
leader should not be taken as a model position.
My opponent states
A2: I believe the world leader to be the example of what other countries should strive to become.
This is a great ideological position, and in theory of course I would agree to it. However in the real world, the leader must take pragmatic action.
Like I said, the US providing universal healthcare to its citizens will not solve the problem of genocide in Darfur, nor will legalizing gay marriage
cease Somalian piracy.
My opponent states
1. Which other country is capable of taking over as world leader?
A1: This is hardly a basic answer but I believe there to be only a few logical candidates that would even be capable. But even these candidates have
areas of improvement before being fully considered. The People's Republic of China seems to be what most people look to. While it is not a lone
country, I do believe the European Union could pose to become a formidable leader.
Really? You propose to replace a democratic, constitutionally bound country with a communist dictatorship. A world under China would be a perfect
example of frying pan to fire. I won’t even bother to list the human rights violations that China has participated in- it’s quite evident that
they are in no way morally superior to the USA.
Socratic section
Q1 : Do you believe the United States is setting an example for other countries to follow when it comes out that they are guilty of torturing
prisoners?
A1 : No. Other countries are quite capable in indulging in torture themselves, and have done so far before the US ever did. There is also considerable
doubt over whether the US’ “enhanced interrogation techniques” (such as waterboarding) even constitute torture.
Q2 : Should our "world leader" be more than a strong military presence?
A2 : Yes. The art of foreign policy is rooted upon diplomacy. The first resort is always diplomacy, and the US has always stuck to that position.
Militarism is merely the expansion of diplomacy by other means. The world leader should not however, be a moral police. Each country must decide upon
their own culture, morals and beliefs.
Q3 : How do you define the role of our "world leader"?
A3 : I define the role of “world leader” as the single country that holds the most sway in creating a condition of stability. Prime current
examples where world leadership is required are the situations in Darfur, Zimbabwe and Somalian piracy.
Q4 : Throughout history, we've seen many "world leaders". Do you believe that the United States has been the strong in the role? If so, why?
A4 : Absolutely. Let’s briefly review the prior world leaders before the USA.
The Prussian and Ottoman empires in the 17/18th C. Were they good world leaders? Their campaigns of warfare suggest otherwise.
The British in the 19th/20th C. Were they good leaders? Colonialism says otherwise.
The Americans in the late 20th C. Were they good leaders? Relatively good… defeated the twin menaces of communism and fascism, while creating a
booming world economy and engaging in scientific progress.
The US may have its faults (namely VietNam and Iraq), but these are far outweighed by its positive contribution to the world. People forget the good
acts the USA does (such as charitable contributions, disaster relief etc) because they have become complacent and come to expect it.
Socratic questions
1. How can we reconcile differences in moral opinions between different countries?
2. Do you honestly think China would make a more moral leader than the USA?
3. Do you think the USA has been a good leader, in historical terms?
4. Do you think that the USA was right or wrong to intervene in Iraq to protect the human rights of Iraqis?
5. Who decides the remit of the world leader? Who decides the “job description” of world leader?
Soulslayer’s first : Poleconomy
The USA has presided over the biggest increase in wealth the world has ever seen. Take a look at this graph to see how the past 50 years compare to
the previous 1950 years!
upload.wikimedia.org...
The USA has been the catalyst for this dynamic increase in the world’s GDP. The US has been the engine of growth for the world, via its capitalist
free market policies. The US has been a thought leader in economics, via Krugman, Amartya Sen, Stiglitz et al.
The USA is the biggest economy in the world, and serves as a massive consumer market.
en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)
Who does China rely on selling products to? The USA.
Who does India rely on selling BPO/ KPO services to? The USA.
en.wikipedia.org...
Now let’s take a look at how charitable the USA is. It’s the undisputed world leader in terms of charity.
en.wikipedia.org...
Politically, we know that the USA is the undisputed world leader. The UN security council is largely influenced by the policies of the USA, and the US
continues to wield this power.
Which other country even comes close to being economically or politically as influential as the USA?
China? Nope, just look how people ran away from China and towards the USA once the economic crisis started.
power was given to him and people of
Iran got the shaft again, even much worse then what Shah was doing. So now... 30 years later people are fed up again 
and they want change
(FREEDOM)! 
to the big bad wolf (the few old men in power)! ONE needs to
happen for the rest to happen, this is the GREAT beginning of the past! We are born free and so we can live free! 
