Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations

Because the only just form of government is Democracy and promoting Democracy is a moral obligation, I affirm. To clarify I would like to define the key terms of this resolution and of m case: Promote: Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage. Obligation: An act or course of action to which a person is morally bound Just: Consistent with what is morally right Democracy (Lincoln): democracy is government of the people by the people and for the people A just government is a democracy where every person regardless of arbitrary criteria other than age has equal vote in Since the resolution expresses a present obligation, we shall look to what a just government is considered by current standards. A cat is considered fat if it is at a certain level of fatness, however if a humans amount of fat is the same of that of a cat considered fat, the human is not considered fat. Therefore since governments are not the only thing that can be described as just, a just government will be the most just form of government presently existing. If all people do not have equal vote ot power is controlled by few individuals. 1) Democracy, in my case. Will solely refer to the democracy as I defined it. Any other form of government that calls itself democracy but does not go under the definition are irrelevant to the point being made. 2) The United States must promote just government for the sake of the survival of the United States and the human species.

Contention 1: Democracies historically do not fight wars with one another.

Democracies not only have not made war on each other; they also have, by far, the
least foreign violence, domestic collective violence, and democide writes Rudolph J. Rummel {Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii.} This fact is barely contended as it can be backed up by history, the strongest warrant. This theory, or rather fact, was developed initially by Emmanuel Kant with his 1795 Perpetual Peace essay, in which he essentially gives Three Definitive Articles which would provide not merely a cessation of hostilities, but a foundation on which to build a peace. 1. "The civil constitution of every state should be republican" 2. "The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" 3. "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Although this somewhat differs from the modern theory, this essay was considered a milestone of political science. History up to now has proven that democracies do not fight each other, unless acted upon by a non democracy. Modern Peace Theory is well summed up by historian and physicist Spencer R. Weart in his 1998 book Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another. In this book Weart analyzes every war fought successfully proves that no democracies of over 3 years of age have ever fought each other in a war (unless affected by non democratic alliances). Contention 2: The impact of democratic peace is enough to obligate the promotion of democracies. By stepping toward the achievement of perpetual peace, we are saving the world from future wars. The achievement of a world of democracies, subsequently a world of peace, is not quick, but must be achieved for the lives of exponential humans in the future, and thus is necessary. Approximately 1 billion people have died because of wars in recorded history alone (What Every Person Should Know About War by Chris Hedges). Also, at the current stage in history, people have built weapons capable of causing extinction and as technology advances

in the future so will weapons. The potential damage caused by a weapon has gone up exponentially in the past thousand years and will continue. These weapons are for war purposes and a deployment of these weapons could result in extinction. Thus by promoting democracies in countries you are greatly lowering the chances of human extinction and definitely saving the lives of exponentially high number of people. Taking the inverse, if you advocate not promoting democracies, you are augmenting the probability of extinction of humans and advocating the death of uncountable individuals. Thus to sum up my argument, the United States is morally obliged to promote just governance aka democracy in developing nations (or any nations for that matter) in order to decrease probability of extinction, bring future peace to the world, and saving the lives of an exponentially huge number of people, including US citizens.