Description

This con case argues that forced regime change should be judged by results, not promises. Built around Ben Denison’s pragmatic policy framework, the case shows that U.S. regime-change operations usually fail to achieve their goals and often create civil war, lower democracy, increased repression, power vacuums, and costly nation-building missions. It directly answers pro claims about democracy promotion by proving that “democracy at gunpoint” often reduces democracy instead of strengthening it. This is a strong, practical con case for teams that want clear impact weighing, strong empirical evidence, and a judge-friendly argument that bad leaders do not automatically make military regime change a good policy.