The full argument map for the U.S. leadership debate — every heg-good and heg-bad argument, the six scenarios worth building out on each side, the kritiks, and the grand-strategy choices. Updated for 2026.

Download files

You may also find these files to be helpful

See also — US military force deployments @ DebateUS

What Changed

Hegemony is still the most common advantage you will debate, and you will still hear the same two old scripts. The affirmative says the plan props up American leadership and staves off global war. The negative says American decline is inevitably coming (it’s unsustainable) and the plan only artificially props it up, risking conflict. Throw both scripts out.

The 2026 version of this debate is not decline versus dominance. The United States is still the system’s leading power by almost every material measure that matters, but it now runs that system through coercion and bargaining instead of consent, and the consent half of hegemony is collapsing.

The frame to teach yourself is three words: primacy, order, legitimacy. A state can be first in raw power, lose the ability to organize a stable order, and shed legitimacy all at the same time — and under Trump the United States is doing all three at once.

Primacy is intact, and Trump is wielding it hard — which helps both sides. Raw American power is unmatched, and the networks it sits on top of — the dollar, sanctions, export controls, chips, AI compute, the alliance system — are still the most consequential on earth.

Jamie Dimon (2026) ties military reach, economic weight, and reserve-currency centrality together as a single edifice, and Brooks and Wohlforth (2023) show no rival comes close to that global span.

The declinists are wrong about the material picture, and the affirmative leans hard on it. But “intact” is not automatically an affirmative asset, because the negative contests what the power is for. This administration is not husbanding the advantage; it is spending it, and spending it in two revealing ways. First, it wields force in a manner that makes wars rather than preventing them — regime change in Caracas, a decapitation strike on Tehran, coercion as the default setting.

Second, it wields that same dominance selectively: it has not been spent to push Russia out of Ukraine, where the war has reached year five with U.S. mediation stalled, or to keep global markets open, where the administration runs tariffs and the Mar-a-Lago Accord in place of free trade. So the affirmative gets “the United States still dominates”; the negative gets “it dominates in the service of war and leverage, not the stabilizing goods you are selling.”

To the extent the affirmative protects material power, the world probably gets all the bad and none of the good.

Subscribe now

The capacity to organize order is what’s cracking. Primacy is the ability to coerce; order is the ability to get other states to arrange their own behavior around you without being coerced each time — and that machinery is being dismantled on purpose. In short order Washington withdrew from sixty-six international organizations and treaties, dissolved USAID, and rebranded raw hemispheric assertion as the Donroe Doctrine. You can still bomb a capital; you cannot run a rules-based system you are walking out of. Some affirmative teams still claim to protect the “global liberal order,” but the US is walking away from it; we aren’t going to use our power protect something we don’t support.

Legitimacy is the leg in free fall, and it is self-inflicted. Legitimacy is what made American leadership cheap — allies cooperated because they trusted Washington more than they feared it. Two years of transactionalism have liquidated that trust: Pew’s 2025 surveys put U.S. favorability at its lowest since 2017, with double-digit collapses among allies like Canada and Mexico. So allies hedge — even treaty partners now build out their own deterrents — and rivals adapt, coordinating around a hegemon they no longer expect to lead by consent.

Call it networked hegemony under stress: the hard power and the networks are all still there, but the trust and the order-making capacity that turned them into a stable system are draining out. The affirmative says the dysfunction is a correctable error and the plan is the correction; the negative says coercion without stewardship is the new permanent condition and the plan just empowers a flailing regime. That clash is the whole 2026 debate.

Subscribe now

The Transactional Turn

Another thing you need to understand is the transactional turn in US policy. The administration’s November 2025 National Security Strategy dropped the “leader of the free world” language for burden-shifting, hemispheric assertion, and open transactionalism — a revival of the Monroe Doctrine that Trump rebranded the “Donroe Doctrine” after the January 2026 operation that captured Nicolás Maduro.

In January 2026 the United States withdrew from sixty-six international organizations and treaties, thirty-one of them UN bodies. Stephen Miran’s “Mar-a-Lago Accord” framework — weakening the dollar and pressuring allies to swap Treasuries for century bonds in exchange for security guarantees — has moved from paper to partial policy.

The State Department stood up Pax Silica, a dozen-country coalition locking down chip, mineral, and AI supply chains. And the February 2026 strikes on Iran that killed Ali Khamenei applied the same posture to the Gulf. None of this is decline — it is structural power exercised through leverage instead of consent. That distinction is the seam the whole debate now runs along.

Subscribe now

What Each Side Has to Win

Before you flow a single card, get the shape of the clash. A hegemony advantage is a chain, and the two sides carry very different burdens: the affirmative has to win four links in order, while the negative can win either by snapping any one of them or by carrying its own offense. That asymmetry is the most important strategic fact in this debate — the affirmative has to run the table; the negative picks its path.

The affirmative has to win four things.

1. Hegemony is sustainable. If primacy is finished anyway, the plan is just an expensive delay and you have conceded the negative’s whole frame. Carry it with Beckley, Kagan, and Brooks and Wohlforth — decline is a choice, and by net power the gap is not closing (the Sustainability section is the full version). The 2026 difficulty: you have to argue the dysfunction — treaty withdrawals, gutted aid, alienated allies — is a correctable error, not a terminal condition.

2. There are reasons it’s good. Sustainable-but-pointless loses. You need live impacts, and in 2026 that means leading with the families that survive the transactional turn — great-power-war deterrence, nonproliferation, freedom of the seas, the dollar — and not the ones it gutted (the liberal order, human rights, climate, aid). Run goods the current hegemon is actually still providing.

3. The alternative is worse. Heg-good is a comparative claim; it only matters against what replaces American primacy. You have to win that the realistic alternative — Chinese dominance, Russian expansion, or unmanaged multipolarity — is more dangerous than the status quo. The axis of upheaval makes that concrete and citable; Brands and Beckley give you the authoritarian-order impact and Brooks and Wohlforth the multipolar-instability impact. This is where you beat restraint, offshore balancing, and multipolarity-good.

4. The transition causes wars. Even granting that primacy ends someday, you argue the descent is violent — power vacuums, proliferation cascades, miscalculation, the scramble to fill the gap. Wright’s “folly of retrenchment” is the card: there is no graceful exit. This is your direct answer to the negative’s managed-decline alternative, and it is the link that collides head-on with the negative’s second burden.
   

   Subscribe now

The negative works from a wider menu — one clean break on defense, or its own offense.

1. It’s not sustainable — and the transition is inevitable. Primacy is in structural, hard-to-reverse relative decline: Layne and Kennedy on overstretch, the debt and manufacturing trajectories, and the self-inflicted 2026 evidence that legitimacy is collapsing even among allies. The sharp version — your point of maximum leverage — is that the descent is inevitable: there is no “keep primacy” button to push, only managing the transition or botching it. Win this and the affirmative’s costs are wasted motion, and your offense below stops being optional and becomes the only question left.

2. Artificially propping it up is bad. The turn that makes your position offense, not defense. A hegemon clinging to a slipping position lashes out — preventive war, the wrenching adjustment, the peaking-power “now or never” logic (danger-zone, Min-hyung Kim) — while the benefits drain away. You pay the violence and forfeit the returns. Win that clinging produces more violence than a managed transition would, and defend a deliberate descent rather than the cliff.

3. This hegemon is uniquely dangerous — we will all get killed. Your biggest-magnitude 2026 burden. The claim is not that some hegemon clinging is bad; it is that this one — transactional, unilateral, willing to capture a head of state in Caracas and decapitate Iran’s leadership — is uniquely likely to tip a great-power crisis into catastrophe. The asymmetry (coercion without stewardship), the contradictory Taiwan signaling that invites miscalculation, the shredded norm against conquest, and the security-dilemma spiral all point the same way: the odds of nuclear or great-power war run higher with this hegemon holding on than with a managed handoff. The affirmative’s answer is that you are indicting one administration rather than hegemony itself — so be ready to say it is the posture, not the person, and that lashing-out is the structurally predictable behavior of a declining hegemon, not a quirk of 2026. Do not let them recast the plan as “do hegemony better”; pair this with burden one so there is no corrected version to retreat to.

4. The alternative is better. You have to win that the realistic alternative — managed retrenchment, offshore balancing, a deliberate multipolar transition — beats clinging. Posen and Mearsheimer and Walt are the architecture; the retrenchment debate is where it gets fought live. This is the burden that answers the affirmative’s “alternative is worse” and “transition causes wars” head-on: you concede a transition is coming and argue a deliberate one is far less violent than the forced, lashing-out version the affirmative’s clinging produces.

The crux. Strip everything else away and the round comes down to the affirmative’s fourth burden against the negative’s second and third: does the violence come from letting hegemony go or from holding on past its expiration? The affirmative says the transition is the bloodbath; the negative says the clinging is — and in 2026 the negative adds that this hegemon makes the clinging uniquely likely to get everyone killed. Whoever owns that question — where the bodies come from — usually wins.

Subscribe now

The Heg-Good Argument Map

Twenty-five families, grouped by what they actually do in a round. Each gets a verdict: is it strong in 2026, is it a trap, what beats it. The six worth building into full scenarios get their own section after this; here you get the map.

The Security Core

This is the spine of every heg-good case: great power war prevention, deterrence, regional stability, prevents power vacuums, credibility, and prevents multipolar instability. The through-line is that overwhelming, credible U.S. power keeps revisionists deterred, allies reassured, and vacuums unfilled, and that unipolarity is simply more stable than the multipolar alternative. In 2026 this is your strongest territory because the axis of upheaval gives the deterrence story a live referent and Brooks and Wohlforth’s “Myth of Multipolarity” (2023) gives you the cleanest version of the stability claim — the United States is the only state that can punish revisionists globally, so the system is not actually multipolar.

Run credibility carefully: the interconnection claim (”abandon Ukraine and China moves on Taiwan”) is powerful but the negative will read credibility-is-a-myth defense, so anchor it in Kendall-Taylor and Kofman (2025) rather than asserting it.

Prevents power vacuums is durable and hard to turn — when the United States leaves, someone worse arrives, and the negative has to defend the vacuum.

Prevents multipolar instability is your framing-level argument; pair it with Kagan (2021) that the alternative is “power vacuums, chaos, conflict, and miscalculation.”

Subscribe now

Alliances and Nonproliferation

Alliance reassurance and nonproliferation are a single mechanism: U.S. security guarantees keep allies from going nuclear. This is one of the best heg-good arguments you can run because the link is empirically grounded and the impact is enormous. Brooks and Wohlforth’s survey of the deterrence literature shows alliances with nuclear patrons measurably suppress proliferation, and the cascade list — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany, Poland — writes the impact for you. The verdict: do not let this sit as a one-line claim. Build it into the prolif scenario below. It is cleaner than most heg-good impacts because you only have to win the specific dynamic of allied nuclearization, not that hegemony stops every war.

The Theater Scenarios

Prevents Chinese hegemony, prevents Russian expansion, and protects Taiwan are the three theaters where the security core becomes concrete. All three are strong in 2026 and all three have dedicated deep-dives below. The verdict on running them: pick the one your link actually reaches, because a generic “heg deters China and Russia” card loses to a specific “the plan provokes the encirclement” turn. The China and Taiwan scenarios share evidence (Beckley and Brands’ Danger Zone (2022), Colby’s Strategy of Denial, the January 2026 NDS); the Russia scenario runs on Kendall-Taylor and Kofman (2025) and Snigyr (2025).

Order, Trade, and Money

Liberal international order, free trade and economic stability, freedom of the seas, dollar hegemony, and sanctions power are the economic-institutional pillar. Here is the 2026 problem you cannot dodge: do not run the liberal international order version. Your own government just withdrew from sixty-six institutions, so “the plan defends the rules-based order” gets the treaty withdrawals read back at you. Pivot to the harder-nosed versions. Freedom of the seas is excellent and has its own scenario below. Dollar hegemony and sanctions power are strong and current — Dimon (2026) ties military primacy, economic preeminence, and reserve-currency status together explicitly, and sanctions only bite because the United States controls the financial plumbing. Free trade and economic stability is weaker than it was — the hegemon is now running tariffs and the Mar-a-Lago Accord, so the “U.S. keeps markets open” claim is in tension with the facts; run it as open-sea-lanes economics, not free-trade-ideology economics.

Values: Democracy and Human Rights

Democracy promotion and human rights protection are the values pillar, and you should be honest about their weight class. Brands and Beckley (2023) give you a sharp version — a China-led order means authoritarian technology standards, surveillance exports, and a world less safe for democracy, which turns the case against the kritik crowd. That is the strong form. The weak form is humanitarian-intervention rhetoric: human rights protection invites the negative’s best answers (Iraq, Libya, the interventions that made things worse), so do not lead with Kosovo and Bosnia. Use the democracy argument as an impact module on a China scenario, not as a standalone advantage.

Functional Goods: Terror, Climate, Pandemics, Crisis

Counterterrorism, climate cooperation, pandemic response, and crisis response are the transnational-public-goods family, and in 2026 they are mostly weak for the affirmative — which is awkward, because they used to be reliable. The reason is the transactional turn: the government that dissolved USAID and triggered hundreds of thousands of projected deaths from aid cuts, left the WHO, and pulled out of climate bodies cannot easily be the actor that provides global health and climate leadership. Counterterrorism still works as a hard-power argument (bases, intelligence, partnerships keep ISIS and al-Qaeda from holding territory) and crisis response is durable (logistics and reach the United States uniquely has). But climate cooperation and pandemic response are now easier for the negative to turn — the hegemon is the one defunding the cooperation. Run terror and crisis response; be cautious with climate and pandemics unless your plan specifically rebuilds that capacity.

Subscribe now

The Tech Domains: AI, Space, Cyber

Technology leadership, space leadership, and cyber stability are the newest and fastest-rising heg-good family. The claim is that U.S. dominance keeps AI, chips, quantum, orbit, and cyberspace developing under democratic rather than authoritarian control. Pax Silica makes the tech-leadership version live and citable. The verdict: these are strong on the link (the United States genuinely leads at the frontier) but watch the double-edge — the same dominance the affirmative calls “stability” the negative calls an “arms race” (see the tech-arms-race turn below), so whoever frames the tech competition first usually wins it. Space and cyber are good impact modules (satellite attacks, debris cascades, grid and nuclear-command disruption) but thin as standalone advantages.

Subscribe now

Hegemony Good — Impact Scenarios

The map tells you which arguments are alive. These six are the ones worth building into full chains — setup, internal link, payoff, and how you win the clash.

Taiwan: Denial Fails

The link. China builds the capability and will to take Taiwan; only a credible U.S. denial posture stops it. Beckley and Brands’ Danger Zone (2022) lays out the nightmare — a missile barrage on Taiwan and on Okinawa and Guam, a carrier hit, cyber blackout, amphibious assault, and a president choosing between losing Taiwan and going nuclear. How you win it. Brooks and Wohlforth (2023) is your deterrence-link defense — Taiwan’s GDP is under five percent of China’s, the strait is a hundred miles wide, and a knowledge economy cannot be seized by conquest, so the U.S. military balance really is the thing standing between deterrence and disaster. Be ready for the security-dilemma turn, and for the negative’s 2026 wrinkle that the administration’s own transactional signaling is hollowing out the deterrent it claims to provide; have the modeling debate loaded.

Russia: The Eastern Flank

The link. A reconstituted Russian military tests NATO’s eastern flank once Ukraine freezes. Kendall-Taylor and Kofman (2025) is the anchor — Russian reconstitution is “not an if but a when,” and Moscow moves on a NATO member precisely if it reads American resolve as hollow, most dangerously while the U.S. is pinned in Asia. Snigyr (2025) adds that only forceful deterrence produces peace. How you win it. Loftus (2026) is the fresh uniqueness card — demonstrated U.S. hard power in Iran and Venezuela is already shrinking the coalition that lets Russia withstand pressure, so the deterrent is visibly working now. Expect the encirclement turn in response — Mearsheimer’s “West’s Fault” thesis (2014) that NATO expansion provoked the war — so have your “Russia is greedy, not insecure” answer (Kendall-Taylor and Kofman) loaded.

The Two-Front Squeeze

The link. The axis coordinates, forcing the United States to fight two theaters at once. Ignatieff (2024) is the scenario — a simultaneous offensive against Ukraine and Taiwan the United States could not surge into fast enough. How you win it. This is your answer to “retrench because we’re overstretched” — overstretch is exactly why you cannot signal weakness in either theater. The negative says primacy fused the axis; have the modeling debate ready.

The Proliferation Cascade

The link. U.S. guarantees are what keep allies non-nuclear. Stephens (2022) spells out the dominoes — Japan, then Saudi Arabia and Turkey following Iran — and Brooks and Wohlforth supply the deterrence-suppresses-proliferation link. How you win it. Cleanest scenario on the board because you only have to win allied nuclearization, not universal war prevention. The Khamenei strike makes the Middle East leg live: analysts note the assassination removed the supreme leader who had acted as an internal brake on weaponization, so a humiliated Iran dashes for a weapon and pulls Riyadh and Cairo with it.

The Commons

The link. Freedom of the seas is a public good only the U.S. Navy provides. Bonnar (2020) argues maritime freedom is indivisible — concede the South China Sea and you set the precedent for Hormuz, the Black Sea, and the Arctic. Rapp-Hooper (2020) reframes it as “openness” — preventing any closed sphere that locks the United States out. How you win it. Best scenario for an oceans or trade affirmative because the link is direct and the impact is systemic rather than a single flashpoint.

The Dollar and the Economic Order

The link. Dimon (2026) — military primacy, economic preeminence, and dollar centrality stand or fall together; without American leadership the dollar loses reserve status and the system fragments. How you win it. Use it as a link amplifier paired with a security scenario so the judge sees the pillars reinforcing each other. The negative’s de-dollarization evidence is mostly rhetoric so far; make them show actual displacement.

Subscribe now

The Heg-Bad Argument Map

Forty families, grouped. The headline news for 2026: the transactional turn has made the offense-heavy families much stronger and the pure-defense families about the same. Build turns, not just defense.

The Asymmetry: Coercion Yes, Stewardship No

Put this on the flow early, because it ties the whole 2026 heg-bad case together: this administration is enthusiastic about the coercive half of hegemony and has walked away from the cooperative half. It will capture a head of state in Caracas, decapitate Iran’s leadership, and authorize the largest arms package in the history of the Taiwan relationship — but it will not do human-rights promotion, foreign aid, alliance reassurance, or the patient credibility work that actually deters a great-power war. Trump likes the war; he is not interested in the stabilizing goods the affirmative is trying to buy. That asymmetry is your answer to almost every heg-good advantage, because it means those goods are not on the menu in the first place.

Walk the receipts, all from 2026. In Venezuela the January strike removed Maduro but left the same authoritarian government in power under Delcy Rodríguez, with the oil economy cratering — regime change without the democracy that was supposed to justify it. In Iran the decapitation killed Khamenei but analysts at the Quincy Institute argue it may have strengthened the regime by creating a martyr and inflaming anti-American sentiment across the Shiite world, while removing the supreme leader who had acted as an internal brake on weaponization — war that makes proliferation more likely, not less. On Taiwan the Center for American Progress observes the administration is arming the island for a war it has signaled it has no interest in fighting, and Colby himself calls Taiwan “important” but not “existential” — transactional signaling that erodes the very deterrence the heg-good case depends on. On foreign aid the picture is starkest: with USAID dissolved, modelers attribute hundreds of thousands of projected deaths to the PEPFAR and humanitarian cuts, and the comfortable assumption that other donors would step into the gap simply has not held. Even the Ukraine “diplomacy” delivered a symbolic three-day Victory Day ceasefire while Secretary Rubio conceded real mediation has stagnated.

The strategic payoff: when the affirmative claims hegemony delivers deterrence, nonproliferation, human rights, global health, or alliance reassurance, you do not have to argue those goods are bad. You argue they are no longer being provided, so the advantage has no uniqueness — the United States is spending the costs of primacy without buying the stabilizing benefits. The coercion is real and turnable (modeling, blowback, the security dilemma); the stewardship is gone. Run both halves at once.

Hegemony Causes War

Hegemony causes war, nuclear escalation, preventive war, endless war, and arms races are the core impact-turn family — the claim that dominance manufactures the conflict it claims to prevent through constant intervention, forward deployment that creates flashpoints, and the incentive of a declining hegemon to lash out. In 2026 this is your best territory, because the Venezuela operation, the Donroe Doctrine, and the Iran strikes are the vivid unilateralism link the turn always wanted. Preventive war has its own deep-dive (Min-hyung Kim 2020 on the declining-hegemon variant). Endless war is durable but watch Carafano (2019), who argues there are no actual endless wars and weakness invites aggression — the aff will read it. Arms races and nuclear escalation are best as internal links into a specific flashpoint, not standalone impacts.

Encirclement and the Security Dilemma

China containment causes war, Russia encirclement causes war, and the security dilemma are the structural-realist family, and they are the strongest causal turns you have. The mechanism is Glaser’s (2024) — when you face an insecure state rather than a greedy one, the moves you call defensive read as offensive, and deterrence policies backfire. The argument writes itself: Taiwan arms, AUKUS, the Quad, the bases, and missile defense look like encirclement to Beijing, and the Quincy Institute (2023) argues the U.S. posture in Asia provokes “otherwise avoidable, hostile counter-balancing and costly arms racing,” raising the chance of great-power war. The nuclear version is the Arms Control Association’s (2024) “security paradox” — a self-perpetuating spiral as each side reads the other’s modernization as a threat. For the Russia leg, Mearsheimer’s “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault” (2014) is the canonical NATO-expansion-provoked-it card. The verdict: this is your cleaner companion to modeling for an Asia round — instead of arguing the United States greenlights others, you argue it provokes the specific war the affirmative fears. The affirmative’s best answer is that China and Russia are greedy, not insecure — Mearsheimer’s own “Inevitable Rivalry” (2021) cuts against you here, arguing the rivalry is structural and deterrence is the only option, and a 2025 Foreign Affairs response sharpens that line. Mind the double-bind with your own defense: you cannot say China is easily deterred and that it is being provoked into breakout. Pick the spiral.|

Subscribe now

Overstretch, Decline, and Balancing

Overextension, hegemony is unsustainable, legitimacy decline, and balancing are the decline family.

Overextension and unsustainability are the classic Kennedy/Rome story — too many commitments, not enough resources, a snap rather than a glide (Layne 2012). Be honest: the material overstretch card is weaker in 2026 than in 2014, so run it as offense (”the plan clings and burns resources,” see the deep-dive) not as a confident prediction of collapse.

Legitimacy decline is your best argument in this family and the heart of the 2026 case, and it now has hard current numbers behind it: Pew’s 2025 Global Attitudes survey found U.S. favorability fell to its lowest level since 2017 while China’s rose, and a companion Pew release recorded double-digit favorability collapses in allies — Canada from 54 to 34 percent, Mexico from 61 to 29 percent. Concede the hard power and attack the consent, because the erosion is political and self-inflicted.

Balancing is real but mostly in its soft form: hedging, BRICS expansion (Indonesia joined as a full member in 2025, with a wave of partner states and new local-currency payment rails built to dodge sanctions), de-dollarization, and China-Russia-Iran cooperation. Read it honestly, though — the same analysis shows the hard version stalling: Trump’s threat of 100 percent tariffs scared BRICS off a common currency, leaving de-dollarization “highly fragile.” Read soft balancing and hedging; the hard-balancing-coalition-against-America version still loses because no one is actually pulling it off.

Empire and Blowback

Imperialism, blowback, the terrorism turn, regime change bad, humanitarian intervention bad, bases bad, drone warfare bad, international law violation, and human rights hypocrisy are the empire family — the largest and most internally consistent block on the heg-bad side. The spine: U.S. power is not neutral leadership but empire, exercised through bases, sanctions, regime change, and force, and it generates resentment, radicalization, and the very terrorism it claims to fight.

In 2026 the international law and regime change versions are unusually live — capturing a head of state in Caracas and decapitating Iran’s leadership are textbook material. The verdict: these are strong as impact turns and as kritik links, but the affirmative has a real answer in Deudney and Ikenberry (2015), who argue the United States is the first anti-imperial great power that drove global decolonization — so do not assume the empire framing is uncontested. Human rights hypocrisy (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, past dictatorships) is best as a soft-power/legitimacy internal link, not a terminal impact.

Subscribe now

The Home Front

Military-industrial complex, domestic tradeoff, and democracy-at-home tradeoff are the inward-facing family. The MIC argument (threats inflated to justify spending) and the tradeoff (dominance dollars could fund healthcare, infrastructure, climate) are evergreen and play well in front of lay judges, but they are weak terminal impacts against a nuclear-war scenario — a competent affirmative outweighs on magnitude. The democracy-at-home version (secrecy, executive war powers, surveillance, fear-based politics) is the most interesting of the three in 2026 because the same administration expanding hemispheric force is testing domestic constraints, so the link is fresh. Run these as case-defense and tradeoff offense, not as your headline impact.

The Kritiks

Racism/colonialism, capitalism/neoliberalism, anti-Blackness/settler colonialism, and the feminist/security kritik are the critical family, and they function differently from the policy turns — the link is the affirmative’s representations and assumptions, the impact is structural violence, and the alternative is a rejection or reorientation rather than a policy. The racism/colonialism link (the war on terror, “failed state” rhetoric, treating the non-Western world as a space to manage and bomb) traces to Hemmer and Katzenstein and is the most portable. The cap kritik (IMF structural adjustment, debt dependency, extraction) and the security kritik (hegemony rests on masculine domination; real security is care and ecological survival) round it out. The verdict for the policy debater: you will mostly be answering these, and the affirmative answers are well developed — Deudney and Ikenberry on anti-imperialism, Karlson (2021) that capitalism is sustainable and the alt touches off transition wars and elite backlash, and the classic alt-fails/no-praxis answers (Condit, McCormack) that abstract rejection produces violence or nothing rather than change. If you are reading the K, your burden is the alternative; if you are answering it, make them defend what the world looks like the day after the rejection.

Economic Coercion

Sanctions bad, dollar hegemony bad, and development bad are the economic-harm family. Sanctions bad (civilian suffering, entrenched regimes — Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, 1990s Iraq) is a strong, concrete turn with a clean impact and is harder for the affirmative to outweigh than the kritiks.

Dollar hegemony bad (financial coercion breeds resentment and drives de-dollarization) pairs with the balancing argument and is rising in relevance as the Mar-a-Lago Accord deliberately weaponizes the dollar; analysts trace the post-2022 de-dollarization push directly to that weaponization, which is your best current link.

Development bad (Western institutions force austerity and dependency) is more of a kritik link than a standalone. Run sanctions and dollar-coercion; treat development as support.

Subscribe now

Environment

Environmental destruction and the climate cooperation turn are the ecological family. The direct version (the military is a massive emitter, bases pollute, war wrecks ecosystems) is true but a weak terminal impact. The stronger version is the cooperation turn: hegemony intensifies great-power rivalry, and a United States and China that treat each other as enemies cooperate less on climate, so primacy worsens warming. In 2026 this turn has more bite because the rivalry is sharper and the United States left the climate bodies. Run the cooperation turn, not the emissions accounting.

The Tech Arms Races

AI/military tech arms race and space militarization are the mirror image of the heg-good tech family. The claim: U.S. dominance in military AI, autonomous weapons, cyber, and orbit pushes rivals to race, lowering the threshold for conflict and ceding human control over escalation. Pax Silica and the chip war make the AI version live (see the tech-pre-emption deep-dive). Space militarization (anti-satellite weapons, debris cascades, nuclear-command disruption) is a good internal link into faster, less-controllable crises. Run these as accelerants into an existing conflict scenario, not as terminal impacts on their own.

Alliance Pathologies

Allied free-riding and moral hazard are the alliance-dysfunction family, and they are the most useful heg-bad arguments that are not impact turns. Free-riding (allies underinvest because the U.S. covers them) is now partly endorsed by the U.S. government itself — Colby’s whole denial strategy is built on making allies spend more — so you can read the administration’s own posture as evidence. Moral hazard (guarantees make allies reckless — Taiwan provokes China, NATO states harden against Russia, Gulf states act aggressively expecting backup) is the sharper turn because it gives you a war scenario the affirmative’s own solvency causes. Run moral hazard as offense; use free-riding to support restraint.

Subscribe now

Hegemony Bad — Impact Scenarios

The six turns worth building into full chains.

Modeling: The Greenlight

The link. When the hegemon discards the norm against territorial coercion and regime-change-by-force, it hands revisionists a permission slip. Operation Resolve, the Donroe Doctrine, and the Iran decapitation each erode the exact norm Brooks and Wohlforth (2023) admit makes conquest costly.

The payoff. China reads it toward Taiwan, Russia toward Ukraine, and the hegemon has no standing to condemn either.

How you win it. Your single best 2026 turn — the link is the affirmative’s own government, on the front page. Their answer is “norms favor the U.S.”; yours is that norms only bind when the norm-setter follows them.

Power Transition: Clinging Causes the War

The link. Min-hyung Kim (2020) — power-transition theory cuts both ways, and the initiator can be the declining power that prefers preventive war to accepting decline; pair with Layne (2012).

The impact. U.S.-China hegemonic war driven by Washington.

How you win it. The plan is the clinging. You need offense on relative decline (China’s manufacturing share, debt trajectory) to beat Kagan’s “the U.S. isn’t actually declining” card.

Subscribe now

The Security Dilemma

The link. Beijing reads the ring of bases, alliances, and Taiwan policy as encirclement, so every assertion of primacy feeds the breakout spiral — Glaser (2024) on the insecure-state dynamic, the Quincy Institute (2023) on provoked counter-balancing, and the Arms Control Association (2024) on the nuclear version.

The impact. The posture sold as deterrence produces the war.

How you win it. Cleaner than modeling for an Asia round — you provoke the specific war rather than greenlighting others. Watch the double-bind with your deterrence defense; pick the spiral.

Tech-Race Pre-emption

The link. Pax Silica and the AI-and-chips race split the world into a U.S. bloc and an excluded China, shortening decision timelines toward first-strike logic. The payoff. A lowered conflict threshold in whatever theater the race is hottest. How you win it. Read it as the accelerant into your conflict scenario, not the explosion. Pairs with the security dilemma.

Overstretch: The Wrenching Adjustment

The link. Posen (2013) and the overstretch literature — propping up unsustainable commitments sets up a sudden, disorderly collapse, Britain after 1945, vacuums faster than anyone can fill.

The impact. The chaotic transition the affirmative fears, caused by the affirmative’s own spending.

How you win it. This is the discipline that loses rounds when debaters forget it: you defend restraint, not collapse. Posen and Mearsheimer and Walt both keep a capable military in reserve. Never defend the cliff.

Blowback and Soft Balancing

The link. Primacy exercised through force generates resistance — anti-Americanism, soft balancing, asymmetric and nuclear offsets to U.S. conventional dominance — that erodes the leadership it projects.

The impact. Proliferation and slow strangulation of influence, even without a hot war.

How you win it. Converts the affirmative’s own soft-power internal link against them. Weaker as a terminal impact, so run it as support for modeling, not your headline.

Subscribe now

The Sustainability Debate

This is its own axis, and you should run it as one. Every other section argues whether hegemony is good; this one argues whether it lasts — and what happens if Washington tries to hold a position it can no longer afford. The affirmative says primacy is sustainable and the plan is the course-correction that keeps it that way. The negative says primacy is finished, and propping it up artificially buys a great deal of violence without the benefits. A lot of rounds are decided on which of those two stories the judge believes, so build the block for it.

The affirmative: sustainable, and the plan is the correction. Your anchor is Beckley’s Unrivaled (2018) — measure net power instead of gross GDP and the declinist story falls apart: the United States is the only great power with no regional rival, the best demographics and energy position of any major economy, the deepest capital markets, and universities and alliances no rival can match. Kagan (2021) adds that decline is a choice, not a fate, and Brooks and Wohlforth (2023) that the system is not actually sliding into multipolarity. The move that wins the round is framing judo: concede the dysfunction the negative points at — overstretch, free-riding allies, a hollowed industrial base, eroded trust — and argue the plan is precisely the correction that makes primacy durable, not the doomed clinging the negative describes. Daalder and Lindsay (2022) and Zelikow (2022) are your proof of concept — the order looked finished before Ukraine and the West rallied. Declinism has been wrong for fifty years; bet against it again.

The negative: not sustainable, and the propping-up is the violence. Your anchor is Layne (2012) on the end of Pax Americana, backed by Kennedy’s overstretch classic — relative decline is structural: China’s manufacturing and shipbuilding base, the U.S. debt trajectory, domestic polarization, the diffusion of technology. But the decline claim alone does not win the debate; the turn does. Power-transition theory cuts toward the declining power, not just the rising one — Min-hyung Kim (2020) shows a hegemon facing decline has the incentive to launch a preventive war while it still can, and the peaking-power logic the danger-zone literature applies to China — act now or miss the chance forever — cuts against a clinging America just as hard. So the chain is: the plan props up a position the United States cannot hold, which buys lashing-out now and a wrenching adjustment later — and it buys all of that without the benefits, because the legitimacy and consent that made primacy cheap are already draining away. You pay empire’s violence and forfeit its returns. The alternative is managed decline — adjust deliberately now rather than snap later.

How the clash resolves. Both sides concede something is broken; they split on whether the plan fixes it or just postpones a bloodier reckoning. Frame it as correction versus clinging and make the other side own the hard half. The 2026 evidence is the negative’s exhibit A — the asymmetry above, coercion without stewardship, is exactly what violent propping-up looks like in real time: a hegemon spending force to hold its position while the stabilizing goods evaporate. Two traps to avoid. Affirmative: do not run “we are unrivaled and sustainable” next to “without the plan, collapse” — pick a lane, because the panic undercuts the confidence. Negative: do not let the affirmative turn you into the collapse scenario; you defend a managed descent (Posen, Mearsheimer and Walt), never the cliff.

Subscribe now

The Grand-Strategy Menu

These are the “middle” arguments — the named strategies and the framing claims both sides reach for. Know the vocabulary cold, because judges do.

Deep engagement is the academic name for the pro-hegemony grand strategy: forward presence, standing alliances, active leadership. That is what the affirmative defends. Restraint and offshore balancing are the two alternatives. Restraint (Posen) cuts commitments, avoids regime change, and shifts burden to allies. Offshore balancing (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016) passes the buck to local powers and intervenes only when a regional hegemon is about to emerge. Selective engagement is the moderate middle — stay active in Europe, East Asia, and the Gulf, but not everywhere. Multipolarity good (Acharya‘s territory) argues distributed power means more diplomacy, more Global South autonomy, and checks on U.S. overreach. The verdict for the negative: pick restraint or offshore balancing as your alternative and defend the transition, never the collapse — and know the heg-good side now has a direct rebuttal in Foreign Affairs’ “Should America Retrench?” (2025), which argues offshore balancers wave away proliferation and misread the Cold War record.

The framing claims cut across both sides. Hegemony is inevitable and hegemony is resilient are affirmative tools — the United States has geography, allies, capital markets, universities, energy, demographics, and military reach no rival matches, and Daalder and Lindsay (2022) and Zelikow (2022) argue the post-Ukraine moment proved the order’s resilience. Hegemony is already declining is the negative’s mirror — China’s rise, debt, polarization, failed wars, and alternative institutions; the full version of that clash has its own section just above. The most useful distinction in 2026 is primacy versus leadership: coercive military primacy is not the same as cooperative leadership, and the negative’s sharpest framing is that the United States now has the first without the second. That is the whole debate in four words.

Subscribe now

Will the U.S. Even Do It

The oldest negative solvency argument — the United States has the capability but will not use it the way the affirmative needs — cuts in a strange new direction in 2026. On the use-of-force side it is dead: this administration will use military power unilaterally, so do not argue it will sit on its hands — and that actually helps your hegemony-bad turns, because it proves the aggression is real. On the public-goods side it is stronger than ever: the United States has shown it will not reliably provide aid, institutional stewardship, or multilateral leadership, which is gold for your soft-power and legitimacy answers. Split it. Concede American willingness to coerce, deny American willingness to lead, and feed the two halves into different parts of your strategy.

Mind the interaction. If you go for the impact turns (hegemony causes war) you cannot also win that the United States will never act aggressively — the solvency take-out kills the turn. If you go for the solvency take-out (the United States won’t project power) you give up the turns. Pick a lane in the block, and make a nuanced affirmative choose between a big impact you can turn and a small impact you can take out.

Subscribe now

Where to Cut Cards

The think tanks: Brookings, Carnegie, CSIS, CFR, CNAS for the axis-of-upheaval material, and the Atlantic Council and Eurasia Group for Pax Silica and Donroe. The journals: Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, International Security, The National Interest, The Washington Quarterly.

For the affirmative, anchor on Brands, Colby, and Kendall-Taylor and Fontaine for threat framing, then Kagan, Brooks and Wohlforth, and Dimon for the “primacy prevents collapse” impacts; for the K answers, Deudney and Ikenberry, Karlson, and Wright. For the negative, build off Posen, Mearsheimer and Walt, and Layne for the alternative, Min-hyung Kim for power transition, and the modeling and security-dilemma turns for offense. Track the events, because uniqueness moves week to week: the November 2025 National Security Strategy, the January 2026 NDS, the sixty-six-organization withdrawal, the Venezuela operation, and the Iran strikes. As of spring 2026 the aftershocks are the live cards: Venezuela’s Rodríguez government has survived with the oil economy in free fall, Iran has moved through an opaque succession to Mojtaba Khamenei, the foreign-aid death toll keeps climbing even after Congress restored a partial $50 billion, the contradiction between Taiwan arms sales and transactional signaling is sharpening ahead of a Trump-Xi summit, Ukraine has reached year five with mediation stalled, and whatever Pax Silica and the Mar-a-Lago Accord become. The team that cuts the newest card on whether American primacy is producing order or producing chaos usually wins the hegemony debate, and in 2026 that card is being written in real time.

Subscribe now

Vocabulary

The terms you need to use correctly to sound like you know the literature. Grouped so you can find them fast.

Grand strategy — what to do with the power

• Hegemony — one state’s preponderance of power in the system; here, U.S. global leadership. Not the same as empire (direct rule over others); the affirmative leans on that distinction.

• Primacy — being the single most powerful state. It is the material fact, separate from how the power gets used — which is why “primacy is intact” does not by itself win the round for either side.

• Deep engagement — the pro-hegemony grand strategy: forward military presence, standing alliances, active leadership. What the affirmative defends.

• Restraint — cutting commitments, avoiding regime change, shifting burden to allies, relying on diplomacy (Posen).

• Offshore balancing — pass the buck to local powers and intervene only if a regional hegemon threatens to emerge (Mearsheimer and Walt).

• Selective engagement — stay active in the regions that matter (Europe, East Asia, the Gulf), not everywhere.

• Retrenchment — deliberately reducing global commitments; “managed decline” is the careful version the negative defends, as opposed to collapse.

• Burden-sharing / burden-shifting — pressing allies to pay or do more; the premise of the 2026 National Defense Strategy.

• Multilateralism — acting through institutions, alliances, and coalitions, with others’ buy-in. This is the consent half of hegemony — the order-making machinery the sixty-six-organization withdrawal walked away from.

• Unilateralism — acting alone, on your own authority, without allied or institutional sign-off. The 2026 default: Venezuela and Iran were run this way, and the negative reads it as proof the order leg is gone — primacy exercised without legitimacy.

Power and polarity

• Unipolarity / bipolarity / multipolarity — one dominant power (the post-1991 “unipolar moment”), two (the Cold War), or three-plus great powers. The affirmative calls multipolarity unstable; the negative calls it freer.

• Balance of power — states aligning to stop any one state from dominating; the engine behind “balancing.”

• Hard power / soft power — coercion (military, economic) versus attraction (legitimacy, values, the appeal of your model). The 2026 story is hard power up, soft power down.

• Net vs. gross power — Beckley’s distinction: subtract the costs of running a huge population and economy, and China looks far weaker than GDP suggests.

• Relative vs. absolute decline — losing ground compared to rivals versus getting weaker outright. The United States is, at most, in relative decline — a key affirmative point.

Core theory and mechanisms

• Security dilemma — defensive moves look offensive to a rival, who arms in response, and the spiral runs (Glaser).

• Spiral model vs. deterrence model — is the rival insecure (so de-escalate) or greedy (so deter)? The entire China and Russia debate turns on which one you pick.

• Power transition theory — war risk peaks as a rising power nears the dominant one; crucially, it cuts toward the declining power too, which may launch a preventive war (Min-hyung Kim).

• Thucydides Trap — Graham Allison’s label for the war risk when a rising power threatens a ruling one.

• Peaking power / danger zone — Brands and Beckley’s thesis that a power which has peaked and is sliding is more dangerous than a rising one, because it acts on “now or never.” The negative borrows the logic and points it at a clinging America.

• Offensive vs. defensive realism — do great powers maximize power (Mearsheimer) or seek just enough security to survive (Waltz)? Decides whether China’s rise is inherently threatening.

• Imperial overstretch — commitments outrunning the resources to sustain them; the classic decline mechanism (Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers).

• Blowback — the unintended hostile reaction to intervention: resentment, radicalization, anti-Americanism.

• Soft balancing / hard balancing / hedging — resisting the hegemon without arms (diplomacy, institutions, de-dollarization) versus military build-up and counter-alliances versus simply keeping your options open. In 2026 the real-world version is mostly soft balancing and hedging.

• Modeling / norm erosion — when the hegemon breaks a norm (say, against conquest), rivals read it as permission to do the same.

Deterrence and alliances

• Deterrence by denial — make the adversary’s objective physically unachievable; Colby’s Taiwan strategy.

• Deterrence by punishment — threaten costs so high the adversary won’t try, even if it could win.

• Extended deterrence — stretching your protection over an ally (the “nuclear umbrella”); the mechanism that keeps allies non-nuclear.

• Credibility — the belief that you will actually honor commitments; underwrites the interconnection claim (”abandon Ukraine and China doubts us on Taiwan”).

• Moral hazard — guarantees make protected allies reckless because they expect backup.

• Free-riding — allies underinvest in their own defense because the United States covers them.

• Nonproliferation cascade — allies (Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, others) going nuclear if they stop trusting the umbrella.

The 2026 proper nouns

• Transactional turn — running hegemony through coercion and bargaining instead of consent; the through-line of the current administration’s posture.

• Networked hegemony — power exercised through the networks the United States sits on top of: the dollar, sanctions, export controls, chips, AI compute, the alliance system.

• Donroe Doctrine — Trump’s hemispheric-assertion revival of the Monroe Doctrine, named after the Venezuela operation (Eurasia Group).

• Pax Silica — the U.S.-led coalition locking down chip, mineral, and AI supply chains (State Department).

• Mar-a-Lago Accord — Stephen Miran’s framework: weaken the dollar and press allies to swap Treasuries for long-dated bonds in exchange for security guarantees (CFR).

• Axis of upheaval (a.k.a. CRINK) — the loose China-Russia-Iran-North Korea alignment (Kendall-Taylor and Fontaine, CNAS).

• Strategy of Denial — Elbridge Colby’s 2021 book and the intellectual core of the 2026 NDS: deny China a quick, decisive win over Taiwan.

• National Security Strategy (NSS) / National Defense Strategy (NDS) — the November 2025 and January 2026 documents that codified the transactional, denial-focused, burden-shifting posture.
  

  Subscribe now

If you are a competitive debater right now, you are arguing through the most important transition in human history, and you may not know it.

Last week at Google I/O, Sundar Pichai said he is “less able to predict with certainty whether it’s (AGI) in the three-to-five-year time frame or the five- to 10-year time frame” — but “the rate of progress over the last one to two years has made me feel it’s on the closer side.”

His co-presenter, Demis Hassabis, told the room something even more striking: we are “standing in the foothills of the singularity.” Hassabis, who runs Google DeepMind and won a Nobel Prize for using AI to solve protein folding, is not the type to throw around the s-word for fun. In Korea, he said, we are 3-4 years away from AGI.

He’s one of the most credible voices on the subject.

Three to five years. From the CEOs racing to build it.

Subscribe now

Now read what Beth Barnes — founder of METR, the independent evaluation lab that Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI granted access to their internal models — said the same week, in a public statement about her organization’s first joint report on whether the frontier labs can keep control of their own agents:

“We are likely on track to develop AI systems capable of causing human extinction/permanent disempowerment, quite possibly within the next few years.”

Not a college freshman with a Substack. The person the four largest AI companies in the world picked to test whether their own models could escape their control. She also said this:

“Sometimes people outside the field say things like ‘The AI situation can’t be that bad, there must be experts who are on top of it.’ As ‘an expert,’ I would like to be clear that we are not on top of it.”

Existence. And, yes — the question Barnes is raising. Could we lose control? Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares — who run the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and who have spent two decades thinking about this problem — published a book this past fall whose thesis is right there in the title: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. The core claim, in their own words:

“If any company or group, anywhere on the planet, builds an artificial superintelligence using anything remotely like current techniques, based on anything remotely like the present understanding of AI, then everyone, everywhere on Earth, will die. We do not mean that as hyperbole. We are not exaggerating for effect.”

DebateUS Files

You do not have to believe Yudkowsky and Soares are right. Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton — two of the three “godfathers of deep learning,” both Turing Award winners — signed the open letter calling AI extinction risk a global priority on par with pandemics and nuclear war. They aren’t as certain as Yudkowsky. But they are certain enough to sign their names to it. You do not have to share their conclusion to engage seriously with the argument. You do have to know it exists and know what answers to it look like.

That is the actual situation as the people closest to it describe it. Powerful systems arriving fast. Safety work woefully under-resourced. Labs that “regularly violate user intent” and “train on things they meant to avoid.” No serious plan for how to stay in control once the systems become smarter than the people building them.

This intersects all of your topics. And debate has not caught up.

Subscribe now

Why every debater needs to understand this

I have been coaching debate for 35 years. I have watched topics come and go. I have watched arguments that seemed peripheral become central and central arguments quietly die. I am telling you, plainly, that AI is now the connective tissue of nearly every policy debate worth having.

Consider what AGI in 3–5 years actually means as a debate variable.

Warfare. Whatever you are reading about war powers, alliance commitments, deterrence, escalation, autonomous weapons — all of it gets rewritten when one side has access to recursively self-improving systems and the other doesn’t. The METR report focuses narrowly on whether current agents could escape human control. It explicitly excludes misuse risks — like AI helping a state actor or a terrorist plan a bioweapons attack. Those risks are not smaller than the loss-of-control risks. They are different.

Inequality. The economists you cite — Acemoglu, Autor, Brynjolfsson — are not arguing about whether AI displaces workers. They are arguing about how much, how fast, and whether the gains concentrate at the top. Kevin Frazier at the University of Texas, writing in Reason, calls this “the coming techlash” — and notes that only 17 percent of Americans believe AI will have a net positive impact on society over the next two decades. The technology that the labs are racing to build is the technology a supermajority of the country does not want. That is a debate. That is a lot of debates.

Work. Jensen Huang of Nvidia gave a long interview earlier this month making the case that AI will create more jobs than it eliminates — that radiologists are now busier, not gone; that small businesses will get a CFO they could never afford. Maybe. But that is a contested empirical claim, not a settled one. Activision laid off thousands of game developers last year as AI absorbed parts of their pipeline. Customer service, paralegal work, entry-level coding, marketing copy — those displacements are already happening. The question is whether the new work scales fast enough to absorb the displaced, and whether the workers being displaced have the runway to retrain. Those are debate questions.

The unemployed and the poor will need health care, though it could be provided very cheaply by AI.

Democratic governance. Pope Leo XIV, in his first encyclical, framed the problem this way: technological power is now “predominantly private” in a way it has never been before. The main drivers of AI development are transnational companies with resources that surpass most governments. Regulation matters — but regulation alone, the Pope warns, is not enough when the power being regulated outruns the regulators. That is a frame worth carrying into every governance debate this year.

AI overwhelms any other link to democracy.

Subscribe now

What slows it down and speeds it up — and why every one of these is a link

Here is the part most debaters miss. AI is not a force of nature. It runs on chips, energy, capital, peace, and political license — and every one of those is contestable. Which means every one of those is a link.

Let me be explicit about what I mean by “link,” because this is exactly where most AI debate goes wrong.

If you are running an AI advantage — your aff makes AI better, faster, safer, more available — you need a story for what your plan does to one of those five inputs. You don’t just claim “AI good.” You claim, “the plan prevents X, X is what would have slowed AI down, therefore the plan speeds AI up.” That’s the link.

And here is the part that catches debaters off guard: avoiding bad things is also a link to AI bad. If your aff prevents an economic crash, you are protecting the capital that funds AI capex. If your aff prevents a war over Taiwan, you are protecting the fabs that produce two-thirds of the world’s GPUs. If your aff prevents a nuclear exchange, you are — per Yudkowsky and Soares’ own argument — preserving the substrate on which AI development continues. Negative-impact-avoidance arguments are AI-link arguments, whether or not the aff names them as such.

Here are the actual lever arguments and the evidence behind them.

Energy. A 2024 Goldman Sachs analysis projects U.S. data center power demand will grow at a 15% CAGR through 2030, with data centers’ share of total U.S. power demand rising from ~3% to ~8%. Brian Janous, former VP of Energy at Microsoft, says U.S. utilities — which haven’t seen consumption growth in two decades — “aren’t prepared.” Any aff that expands generation capacity (nuclear, natural gas, renewables, transmission) is an AI link. Any aff that constrains it (carbon tax, data center moratorium, renewables-only mandate) is also an AI link, in the opposite direction. Microsoft’s deal to restart Three Mile Island is the canonical example of how tightly energy and AI are now coupled.

Chips. Goldman’s semiconductor team expects HBM undersupply through 2026 and CoWoS packaging tightness for at least as long. Two-thirds of all GPUs in the world still flow through Taiwan. Dave Blundin put it bluntly this month: if anything happens to Taiwan, “everything we’re talking about just grinds to a halt.” TSMC has reportedly committed to destroying its fabs rather than let them fall to China. This is the cleanest AI link in the entire topic literature. Any aff that reduces the probability of a Taiwan contingency speeds AI up. Any neg argument that the plan increases Taiwan tensions slows it down. The CHIPS Act, export controls, alliance commitments — all of it routes through this link.

War. The Iran-Israel conflict is already complicating the $300+ billion that Gulf states had committed to AI infrastructure, according to The Information. Wars in the wrong places at the wrong times slow the buildout, fragment supply chains, redirect capital. Wars in the right places — from a “slow AI” perspective — could stop it entirely. Yudkowsky and Soares argue that the only realistic intervention left at this point may be coordinated international action that looks more like nuclear arms control than like tech regulation. Any aff that strengthens or weakens that international order is an AI link.

Regulation. The EU’s GDPR cut investment in European startups by 36% in the short run, according to NBER research, and the EU’s new AI Act layers on top of that. The U.S. has been more permissive. The argument that regulation “kills innovation” is real. The argument that no regulation lets a handful of private actors reshape society without democratic input is also real. Debaters should be fluent in both. Any aff that expands federal regulatory authority is potentially an AI link — slowing it. Any aff that preempts state regulation or limits agency authority is potentially an AI link the other way — speeding it up.

Economy. This is the one debaters miss most often. A real recession — not a soft landing, an actual downturn — would cut AI capex hard. So would a bursting of what some analysts believe is an AI investment bubble. So would a sustained techlash that makes the public refuse to adopt the products and makes Congress willing to regulate them. Kevin Frazier’s Reason piece this summer argued that “the coming techlash could kill AI innovation before it helps anyone” — and he notes that only 17 percent of Americans believe AI will have a net positive impact on society over the next two decades. Any aff that prevents economic collapse is an AI-acceleration link. Any aff that addresses the inequalities driving the techlash may reduce the techlash and therefore speed AI up. These are non-obvious links, but they are real.

Open source. The Bengio-led 2025 International AI Safety Report notes that state-of-the-art open-weight models like Llama-3.1-405B can fit on a USB stick. Once released, they cannot be recalled. That changes the regulatory math entirely. It also changes the misuse math. Any aff or neg argument about open-weight policy, export controls on model weights, or compute thresholds is an AI link.

Every single one of these is on the topic — whatever your topic is. They are the levers. If you don’t know them, you are arguing about AI without knowing how AI actually gets built. And the most important thing to internalize is this: debaters habitually under-link AI advantages and disadvantages because they think of AI as a separate scenario rather than as a downstream consequence of almost every other scenario. AI is not a separate impact. AI is the impact that almost every other impact eventually feeds into.

All of these links are in our evidence files.

Subscribe now

What this asks of you

I am not asking you to become an AI doomer. I am not asking you to become an AI accelerationist. I am asking you to take the question seriously, the way the people building this technology and the people testing it take it seriously.

That means three things, practically.

First, read past the headlines. The METR report I quoted is online. Read Barnes’s thread. Read the report itself. Read Pope Leo’s encyclical. Watch the Pichai and Hassabis keynotes. Read the Bengio report. All of them are written for you.

You can find a lot of evidence here.

Second, learn the internal links. You cannot run a credible AI advantage if you don’t know what would slow AI down. You cannot run a credible AI disadvantage if you don’t know what would speed it up. The energy story, the chips story, the Taiwan story, the regulation story, the techlash story — these are the bones of the topic.

Third, ask the hard question. Beth Barnes asked it. Pope Leo asked it. Hassabis hinted at it. Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community? That is the deepest version of every debate question. If your case doesn’t have an answer to it, it isn’t finished.

Debate the question itself: Join the GlobalAI Debates

The CX, LD, and PF topics will only get you part of the way there. The question of where AI is going — and what we as a species should do about it — is too big to fit inside any single resolution.

That is why I co-founded the GlobalAI Debates with the Modus Ponens Institute. Last spring, students from Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the US, and South Africa debated resolutions like “We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in.” That is not a resolution you will see at NSDA Nationals. It is a resolution the AI safety field is actually debating right now, and high school students debated it at a high level.

The Fall 2026 GlobalAI Debates are open for registration. Thanks to support from the Future of Life Institute, this round has a $3,500 prize pool, with more financial support available for participants who need it. Judges have included researchers from MIT, Harvard, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The format is flexible: schools can submit written essays, video speeches, or compete in 2-vs-2 online debates. You can do it from anywhere. You can do it alongside your regular tournament season.

If the argument of this post is right — that AGI is three to five years out and that we are not ready — then the debaters who become fluent in this conversation now are going to be the most important people in the room in the rooms that matter most over the next decade. The GlobalAI Debates are the cleanest on-ramp to that fluency I know how to build. Register your team. Bring your students. Let them argue about the thing the world is actually about to argue about.

Resources

If you want to start digging, DebateUS has hundreds of free cards.

Subscribers get the full extension files, including the AGI-timeline evidence, the METR and Bengio report excerpts, and the war-good and war-bad blocks with full warrants.

But honestly? Start with the primary sources. Read the people building this thing. Read the people testing it. Decide for yourself.

The CEOs say three to five years. The safety researchers say we are not on top of it. The Pope says we cannot rely on regulation alone. The economists say the displacement is already happening.

You are competitive debaters. You are trained to weigh evidence under pressure, to argue both sides, to make judgments when the stakes are real. The world is about to need people who can do that more than it has needed almost anything else.

Subscribe now

Introduction: The Structure of Hegemony Arguments

For decades, policy and now other debate formats have featured a familiar argumentative structure around American hegemony. Teams arguing the affirmative side of virtually any topic can access what is colloquially called a “hegemony advantage” by demonstrating that their plan strengthens U.S. global leadership. The argument follows a predictable but powerful logic: X policy is critical for maintaining American hegemony, and hegemony produces a cascade of beneficial outcomes—preserving the liberal international order, promoting democracy worldwide, maintaining international law and institutions, and deterring aggression from revisionist powers like China and Russia.

This argumentative framework has been remarkably durable because it rested on bipartisan consensus about America’s global role. From the Truman Doctrine through the Obama and Biden administrations, U.S. foreign policy operated under the assumption that American leadership was essential to global stability. Debate evidence reflecting this worldview was abundant—scholars and policymakers from across the political spectrum agreed on the fundamental premise even when they disagreed on specific applications.

The 2025 release of President Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has shattered this consensus in ways that fundamentally undermine traditional hegemony arguments in debate. This essay examines how the NSS invalidates most of the impact-level claims that hegemony arguments depend upon, creating what amounts to a devastating “turn” on the entire framework.

Subscribe now

Part I: The Traditional Hegemony Argument Structure

The Internal Link: Policy X Strengthens Hegemony

The first component of any hegemony advantage is demonstrating that the affirmative plan strengthens American primacy. This could take many forms: military modernization that preserves overmatch, economic policies that maintain technological leadership, diplomatic initiatives that reinforce alliances, or any action that increases U.S. relative power and influence. The specifics vary by topic, but the structure remains constant.

The Impact Level: Why Hegemony Matters

The second—and more important—component is explaining why American hegemony produces positive outcomes. Traditional debate evidence clusters around several key claims:

Liberal International Order: American hegemony underpins a rules-based international system featuring free trade, multilateral institutions, and peaceful conflict resolution. Without U.S. leadership, this order collapses into great power competition and beggar-thy-neighbor economics.

Democracy Promotion: U.S. hegemony spreads democratic governance by supporting democratic movements, conditioning aid on political reforms, and modeling democratic values. American decline means authoritarian advance.

Alliance Credibility: Extended deterrence through U.S. security guarantees prevents nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts. Allies like Japan, South Korea, and NATO members depend on American commitments; weakened hegemony undermines these guarantees.

Deterrence of Aggression: American military superiority deters Chinese aggression against Taiwan, Russian expansion in Europe, and Iranian regional ambitions. Declining hegemony emboldens revisionist powers.

These impact claims all share a crucial assumption: that the United States, if given sufficient resources and capabilities, will use its power to pursue these objectives. The hegemony argument depends not just on American strength but on American willingness to exercise that strength in particular ways.

Part II: The NSS Negates the Impact Level

The 2025 National Security Strategy doesn’t just modify American grand strategy—it explicitly repudiates the premises underlying traditional hegemony impacts. As Greg Lawson noted in The National Interest, this represents “the most significant intellectual advance in American grand strategy since the Nixon administration.” That assessment may be debatable, but the magnitude of the shift is not.

The Liberal Order: Explicitly Rejected

The NSS doesn’t just deprioritize the liberal international order—it attacks the concept itself. The document declares that “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” It criticizes past administrations for pursuing “permanent American domination of the entire world” and ties U.S. interests to “so-called ‘free trade,’ globalism, and transnationalism” that allegedly harmed American workers.

As Michael Kimmage writes in Foreign Affairs, the strategy describes “an aspirational world order” that “would not be American-led. It would not be the function of great-power competition or of civilizational clashes, and it would not be rules-based. It would issue instead from a dense network of personal relationships that supersede any alliances.” This vision is fundamentally incompatible with liberal order impacts—even if hegemony is strengthened, the administration has no intention of using it to maintain rules-based institutions.

Subscribe now

Democracy Promotion: Explicitly Abandoned

The NSS couldn’t be clearer about ending democracy promotion. Emily Harding of CSIS observes that “the democracy agenda is clearly over. Foreign policy choices will be made based on what makes the United States more powerful and prosperous.” The strategy explicitly promises to drop “America’s misguided experiment with hectoring these nations—especially the Gulf monarchies—into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government.”

More remarkably, the strategy doesn’t just abandon democracy promotion abroad—it actively endorses illiberal movements in allied nations. The NSS commits to “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations,” praising “patriotic European parties” (far-right movements like Germany’s Alternative for Germany and France’s National Rally) as “cause for great optimism.” As Eric Edelman writes in The Bulwark, “In the place of democracy promotion and human rights we now have autocracy promotion.”

Alliances: Systematically Undermined

Traditional hegemony arguments depend on alliance credibility—the idea that American power reassures allies and deters adversaries through security commitments. The NSS undermines these commitments systematically.

For Europe, the strategy depicts the United States “not as the guarantor and backstop of European security but rather as a mediator between Europe and Russia.” The Pentagon has reportedly given European allies a 2027 deadline to assume primary responsibility for their own defense. The NSS attacks European allies for “civilizational erasure,” criticizes their migration policies, and questions whether they are reliable partners.

The strategy’s approach toward Russia is particularly striking. Liana Fix of the Council on Foreign Relations notes that “Russia is spared any criticism in the NSS and, strikingly, the country is not defined as an adversary of the United States.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to the NSS by saying “the adjustments we’re seeing, I’d say, are largely consistent with our vision.” When your National Security Strategy earns endorsement from the Kremlin, traditional hegemony impacts become difficult to defend.

Edelman warns of “two baleful consequences”: adversaries will read weakened American commitment to allies as an invitation for aggression, while “the weakening of U.S. security guarantees worldwide will quicken the danger of nuclear proliferation.” These are the exact outcomes hegemony impacts are supposed to prevent—yet they flow from the strategy’s own design.

China Deterrence: Softened and Deprioritized

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech at the Reagan Defense Forum outlined an administration “moving toward a policy that recognizes zones of influence led by great powers—China in the Pacific, the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere.” He stated that the administration seeks “a stable peace, fair trade and respectful relations with China” and will follow a policy of “respecting the historic military buildup [China is] undertaking.”

While the NSS maintains rhetorical commitment to Taiwan, the broader strategic reorientation toward the Western Hemisphere and away from global commitments undermines the deterrence posture. Richard Landgraff’s analysis in War on the Rocks notes that “if border security is top priority, then missions in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East become subordinated to hemispheric enforcement.”

Part III: The Argumentative Implications

The Disconnect Problem

Traditional hegemony advantages now face a fundamental disconnect: their internal links and impacts operate in different universes. An affirmative might demonstrate that their plan increases U.S. military capabilities, economic strength, or diplomatic influence. But this tells us nothing about outcomes if the administration has no intention of using that power to maintain liberal order, promote democracy, or honor alliance commitments.

Put differently: the impacts of hegemony arguments were never really about American power per se. They were about American power exercised in particular ways for particular purposes. The NSS reveals that those purposes have been abandoned. Strengthening hegemony under these conditions might simply produce “illiberal international order”—Thomas Wright’s term for what the administration seeks—rather than any of the benefits traditionally claimed.

The Turn Structure

Negative teams now have access to a powerful turning argument: increased American power and influence under this administration produces worse outcomes than the status quo. Wright’s analysis in The Atlantic describes the NSS as “a blueprint for building an illiberal international order, in which the U.S. can assert dominance unilaterally, strike deals with revisionist powers such as China and Russia, and work patiently to support right-wing populist parties in Europe in overthrowing centrist establishments. One might call it dystopian idealism.”

Under this framework, affirmative plans that strengthen American capabilities don’t just fail to produce traditional hegemony benefits—they enable outcomes antithetical to those benefits. More resources for an administration committed to “cultivating resistance” to democratic allies, accommodating Russia, and building an “alliance of illiberals” makes the world worse, not better.

Potential Affirmative Responses

Affirmative teams might attempt several responses, each with significant weaknesses:

“The NSS is irrelevant”: Rebecca Lissner argues that “no written document can truly guide, capture, or discipline Trump’s often impulsive, erratic, and opportunistic foreign policy.” But this cuts both ways—if we can’t predict what the administration will do with increased power, we can’t assume positive outcomes either. Unpredictability negates rather than supports hegemony impacts.

“Taiwan deterrence continues”: The NSS does maintain rhetorical support for Taiwan deterrence. David Sacks notes “far more emphasis on Taiwan in this NSS than in previous documents.” But this cherry-picks one element while ignoring the broader strategic reorientation that undermines the alliance structures and regional commitments Taiwan deterrence depends upon.

“Future administrations will differ”: This essentially concedes the argument—acknowledging that hegemony impacts depend on who wields power, not power itself. It transforms hegemony from a structural argument into a speculative one about future electoral outcomes.

Part IV: Salvageable Affirmative Ground

While democracy promotion, human rights, and liberal international order arguments are effectively foreclosed by the NSS, affirmative teams are not without options. The strategy’s explicit priorities create genuine—if narrower—terrain for hegemony-style arguments focused on specific deterrence missions the administration has embraced.

Taiwan Deterrence: The Strongest Remaining Ground

The NSS’s treatment of Taiwan stands in marked contrast to its approach elsewhere. David Sacks of the Council on Foreign Relations observes that “there is far more emphasis on Taiwan in this NSS than in previous documents, with a particular focus on deterring Chinese aggression against the island and a welcome emphasis on maintaining the ability to defeat aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain.” The strategy explicitly states that “deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.”

This creates viable argumentative space. Affirmative plans that strengthen U.S. military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, enhance Taiwan’s defensive capacity, or improve the defense industrial base for relevant weapons systems can credibly claim alignment with stated administration priorities. The internal link between the plan and deterrence outcomes becomes more plausible when the administration has signaled genuine commitment to this specific mission.

Importantly, the strategy maintains traditional declaratory policy: “the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.” This continuity suggests that Taiwan-focused hegemony arguments may be more resistant to the NSS critique than other variants, though teams should still address how the broader strategic reorientation and alliance skepticism might indirectly undermine Taiwan deterrence.

Western Hemisphere: The “Trump Corollary”

The NSS’s centerpiece is what it calls a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, placing the Western Hemisphere at the top of American strategic priorities. The strategy commits to keeping the hemisphere “free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” while ensuring stability sufficient to protect critical supply chains and strategic locations.

This creates argumentative opportunities for plans addressing Chinese economic and military influence in Latin America, securing critical mineral supply chains in the region, or countering adversary presence in the Caribbean and Central America. Defense Secretary Hegseth emphasized that “over the last few years, we haven’t had a lot of American combat power in our own neighborhood... I suspect that’s probably going to change.”

Affirmative teams can argue that strengthening U.S. capabilities and presence in the Western Hemisphere aligns with—rather than contradicts—administration priorities. The impacts would need reframing away from liberal order maintenance toward more nationalist conceptions of hemispheric security, but the basic structure of “plan strengthens position, stronger position deters adversaries” remains available.

Arctic Competition: An Implicit Priority

Although the NSS notably omits a dedicated Arctic section (unlike the 2022 Biden strategy), analysts argue this reflects incorporation into the hemispheric framework rather than neglect. Rebecca Pincus of the Foreign Policy Research Institute notes that “the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere underscores what has long been true about the Arctic: there are major differences between the North American Arctic (in the Western Hemisphere), and the Russian Arctic, and the Northern European/Nordic Arctic.”

Elizabeth Buchanan of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute argues that “the NSS25 is actually a clear signal that the Arctic is an established theater within the Trump Administration’s notion of returning to a hemispheric defense strategy.” She predicts Washington will “up its presence and throw its weight around in the Arctic frontier... systematically removing Chinese footprints.”

Plans addressing Arctic capabilities—icebreaker construction, Alaskan military infrastructure, or countering Chinese and Russian presence in the North American Arctic—can thus claim alignment with administration strategic logic. The renewed icebreaker build-up and ICE Pact suggest genuine commitment to this theater, providing a foundation for hegemony-style arguments focused on Arctic competition.

The Limits of Salvageable Ground

These opportunities come with important caveats. First, the scope of viable hegemony arguments has dramatically narrowed. Where previously teams could access hegemony impacts from virtually any plan that strengthened American capabilities, they must now demonstrate specific alignment with the administration’s limited priorities.

Second, even these arguments face the broader critique that alliance skepticism and strategic unpredictability undermine deterrence credibility. Taiwan deterrence depends partly on regional allies; Arctic security involves cooperation with Nordic partners the administration has criticized. The NSS’s hostility toward traditional alliance structures creates second-order problems even for arguments nominally aligned with its priorities.

Third, the argumentative terrain has shifted from universal claims about American leadership to more particularized assertions about specific adversaries and regions. This may reduce the persuasive power of hegemony arguments—”deterring China from invading Taiwan” is a narrower and less sweeping claim than “maintaining global liberal order.”

Nevertheless, affirmative teams should recognize that the NSS does not eliminate all hegemony ground—it restructures it. Arguments focused on Taiwan, the Western Hemisphere, and the Arctic can credibly claim that strengthening American power serves administration-endorsed objectives. The key is matching plan mechanisms to the specific priorities the strategy identifies rather than relying on generic claims about American leadership that the administration has explicitly repudiated.

Conclusion: A New Argumentative Landscape

The 2025 National Security Strategy has fundamentally restructured the terrain for hegemony arguments in debate. The traditional framework—where any plan strengthening American power could access impacts like liberal order, democracy promotion, and alliance credibility—has been invalidated by an administration that explicitly rejects these objectives.

This doesn’t mean hegemony arguments are dead, but it does mean they must be dramatically reconceived. Arguments relying on democracy, human rights, liberal international order, and traditional alliance benefits are effectively foreclosed. The administration has made clear it will not use American power for these purposes—indeed, it views some of them as mistakes to be corrected.

However, affirmative teams retain viable ground in areas the NSS prioritizes: Taiwan deterrence, Western Hemisphere security, and Arctic competition. Plans that strengthen American capabilities in these specific theaters can credibly claim alignment with administration objectives. The key is precision—matching plan mechanisms to the narrow set of priorities the strategy endorses rather than relying on generic claims about American leadership.

For negative teams, the NSS provides powerful ammunition. Traditional hegemony impacts can be turned by demonstrating that the administration will use strengthened capabilities for purposes antithetical to liberal order—supporting illiberal movements in allied nations, accommodating Russian interests, and building what Thomas Wright calls “dystopian idealism.” Even arguments focused on deterrence face the critique that alliance skepticism undermines the broader credibility on which deterrence depends.

More broadly, the NSS illustrates why debate evidence must be evaluated in context. A 2018 card explaining why hegemony produces beneficial outcomes may have been analytically sound when written—but it described a world that no longer exists. The bipartisan consensus about American purposes that undergirded decades of hegemony scholarship has fractured. Good debating now requires attention not just to what evidence says, but to whether its underlying assumptions about how American power will be exercised remain valid.

The hegemony paradigm has been transformed, not eliminated. Arguments about American power must now specify how that power will actually be used—and the 2025 National Security Strategy has made clear that the answer depends entirely on which objectives debaters can credibly tie to administration priorities. The era of generic hegemony advantages is over; the era of targeted deterrence arguments has begun.

Subscribe now