Jump to content

About This File

Hey everyone, as a policy-oriented debater, I've noticed a huge problem with heg debaters in the community. They. Are. Lazy. Most take the traditional stance of a single, monolithic concept of "hegemony" and assert that claim as if it solves everything when they read those recent cards. These are (usually) the same debaters who read offensive realism as a reason war is inevitable and argue that perception of US power solves. What? Perception solves structural incentives for aggression? Trouble is, nobody rises to beat down bad heg debaters anymore so they get away with a lot of crazy arguments. The solution? A whole new hegemony file that's ready for these silly "heg solves because Kagan/Brooks/Thayer/etc says so" debaters


Here's a comprehensive hegemony backfile featuring some of the most recent cards on the subject. Most of these cards are from 2011-2013 and are simply fantastic. The file includes both defensive and offensive arguments and is ideal for any level debater. This update/backfile also includes answers to the Brooks article and indicts for many common authors, such as Nye, Wohlforth, Brzezinski, etc. There are lots of cool tricks and mini-disads to read/extend in the block, so it's a must have even as a supplement for people who have better things to do than cut heg updates.


Yeah, I know, everyone has heg impact turns, what makes this one so special? Heg bad, multilateralism good, right? Not really, The main reason this file is different is that it includes a lot of differential analysis with regards to US dominance, primarily focused around offshore balancing, which is (in my opinion) one of the best transitions to read because it gets you out of a large part of heg good offense as well as disads to multilateralism, especially considering the fact that there aren't very good disadvantages to offshore balancing. Offshore balancing still allows for US dominance, but in a prescriptive context: instead of amassing the largest power differential imaginable, the US should focus on intelligence-gathering, naval power projection, and leaving countries to sort out some of their own problems with intervention only happening in the worst-case scenarios.


The heg resilient also takes a neat spin on the traditional argument. It's not the same "we have the biggest army, suck it" argument of the past. Rather, it's centered around the concept of relative decline, where the US loses military capability but retains influence. After all, what is hegemony? It's more than just having the bigger guns, it's about global perception and influence. This argument is great because it puts you in a position where you can read a lot of aff cards (Nye, etc) back at the affirmative.


Either way, as a supplement or if you want a new spin on an old argument, this file is a great buy. It's almost completely highlighted, and fully blocked out for the 2NC/1NR.




Hegemony. 2

Top Shelf 2

Notes. 3


Heg Resilient 3

1NC Hegemony. 4

2NC Overview.. 5

2NC Extra. 8

AT: Competitiveness. 12

AT: Econ Kills Interdependence. 13

AT: Retrenchment Kills Heg. 14

AT: China. 16

AT: Kagan. 19


Heg Bad. 20

1NC Hegemony. 21

2NC Overview.. 24

2NC UQ.. 27

2NC Adventurism DA.. 30

2NC Militarism... 31

AT: Causes Heg Collapse. 33

AT: OSB Bad. 34

AT: Transition. 35

AT: Nye [China]. 38

AT: China. 39

AT: Kagan. 41


Liberal Order. 42

1NC Internationalism... 43

2NC Internationalism... 44

2NC Extra Cards. 46

AT: Western Leadership. 48

AT: Deudney & Ikenberry. 49


Naval Power. 49

1NC Navy Bad. 50

1NC Navy Defense. 51

2NC Navy Defense. 53

2NC Navy Bad. 56


Collective Blocks. 56

AT: Bandwagoning. 57

AT: Kagan/Lieber. 59

AT: Transition War [Herd]. 61

AT: Thayer. 62

AT: Mead. 64

AT: Khalilzad. 66

AT: Ferguson. 67

AT: BIW... 68

AT: Wohlforth. 70

AT: Brzezinski 72

What's New in Version 2.0   See changelog


  • Naval Power Added
  • Liberal Order Added

User Feedback

Recommended Comments


Added 2 new scenarios:


Naval power - the defense is just generic defense, but the offense contains multiple warrants as to why naval power is just as bad as a "full-commitment" intervention. The cards are very good and indict the conception of naval balancing as independent of boots-on-the-ground style heg.

Liberal Order - started to surface a bit now, but authors like Ikenberry, Deudney, etc write about "the liberal order," which is this large coalition of US-influenced (not led) democracies that cooperate and stuff. Sound impossible? It is. The cards are fantastic and indicate that not only does a liberal order fail, but we haven't even gotten to that stage in global politics yet. There's other warrants in the evidence too which can be used to great effectiveness.

Share this comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...