This is an 1 and half min speech draft. Our group is doing a debate, and our topic is realism.PROMPT:“Realist approaches explain more about the most important things in world politics than any rival theoretical approach. The assumptions underlying Realism correctly describe the realities of world politics – the anarchical system that creates acute insecurity and causes states to value power and domination, the fact that states are doomed to competition and conflict, and that what little cooperation we see is not significant and merely reflects underlying power. Realism is an enduring paradigm, as the behavior of nations has not changed for centuries, and never will.”I will argue in favor of this prompt.I am a presenter, and my presentation topic is Cooperation is not significantThe first file is our group’s google doc, there are some information you can use as a reference, but my turn is just talk about cooperation is not significant.Please note that you need to follow all the instructions, any late work or wrong work will ask for a refund, thanks. Section 2
Team 1
PROMPT:
“Realist approaches explain more about the most important things in world politics than any rival
theoretical approach. The assumptions underlying Realism correctly describe the realities of
world politics – the anarchical system that creates acute insecurity and causes states to value
power and domination, the fact that states are doomed to competition and conflict, and that
what little cooperation we see is not significant and merely reflects underlying power. Realism is
an enduring paradigm, as the behavior of nations has not changed for centuries, and never will.”
Team 1 will argue in favor of this prompt.
Please use this google doc to write down the main points of your argument, responses to
potential rebuttals, and anything else.
Team 1 – Realism
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Diana Arreola
Aaron Buckles
Samantha Gomez Mendoza
Crystal Michelle Gonzalez
Anna
Zoe Lam
Alexa Lemus-Ramos
Brian Hoang Nguyen
Ryan Khang Nguyen
Irving Parra
Ian Howard Sculteure
Briana Renee Solis
Stephanie Truc Tran
Caleb Yang
Xiang Zhou
Debaters:
Aaron Buckles
Zoe Lam
Brian Hoang Nguyen
Diana Arreola
Irving Parra
Alexa Lemus-Ramos
Caleb Yang
Role
Debater
Debater
Closer
Presenter
Presenter
Debater
Presenter
Debater
Presenter
Debater
Intro
Presenter
Presenter
X
Presenter
Presenters:
Ian Sculteure (intro)
Crystal Michelle Gonzalez
Anna
Briana Renee Solis
Stephanie Truc Tran
Xiang Zhou
Ryan Khang Nguyen
Closer:
Samantha Gomez Mendoza
Introduction
Ian Sculteure
Realism explains the natural way of states. All states in the international society are only
looking out for themselves and are more focused on survival than alliances. Even if alliances do
occur, they are only temporary, again to gain power, or they happen in order to increase a
state’s security. Realism understands that international relations and foreign policy is not done
under the guise of “peaceful diplomatic negotiations”, but rather that every action taken is in the
interests of the states practicing them. This is because realism focuses on security and
protection in order to survive on the world stage. Realism is as important for individuals as it is
for states because it is the theory that is always ready for disaster and how to avoid it. Even the
creation of the Peace of Westphalia was made not as a result of wanting peace but more as a
way to keep independent states from interfering with each other and to have a way of keeping
an equilibrium of powers in check.
Xiang Zhou – Realism explains the most important things in world politics than any rival
theoretical approach because states’ behaviors such as trade agreements, treaties and
conventions, and alliances that shape the international system are motivated by their own
interests for either national and economic security, and global representation. Liberalism fails to
fully explain world politics because it operates within a limited assumption that states are
genuinely open to cooperation. Moreover, even liberalism, which offers a relatively optimistic
view of international relations, agrees that Realism’s assumption of the world being an anarchy
is true. Hence, even realism cannot deny that the international system is anarchical. So if this is
the case, realism will always play a role in explaining global politics. Constructivism also cannot
fully explain world politics. Since constructivism primarily focuses on ideas and norms, it
completely ignores the material aspects of the international system. All important things in world
politics are material, from trade and economy to national security, so constructivism fails to
account for states’ motivations behind these. Moreover, a state’s behavior does not always align
with its identity, which weakens Constructivist assumptions. Overall, Realism explains the most
important things in world politics the best compared to other theories because it is grounded on
material facts that explain state behavior and therefore, interactions among states in the
international system.
Crystal Gonzalez – Basic assumptions of realism
Briana Solis – Anarchical system and insecurity Briana
Stephanie Tran – Valuing power and domination & States are doomed to competition and
conflict
Anna – Cooperation is not significant
Ryan Nguyen – Realism being an enduring paradigm
*Address polarity – use as defense
*bring up structure
Closing Argument
* restate main claims being made*
Samantha Gomez Mendoza
Realism takes into account the drive for competition and the continuation of conflict that
exists within international relations. I can acknowledge that maintaining a long term alliance with
another state can result in a peaceful unity, however, one should not fully place all their trust in
their alliance. Remember that human beings carry a desire to gain more power when the
opportunity is present; especially if it will ensure them the ability of strengthening the security of
their own state. Additionally, our inability to fully trust another state, has caused states to spie on
their own alliances to ensure that they aren’t being betrayed. ( I’m still correcting this area… Sammi)
Realism Arguments
Realism explains the natural way of
states. All states in the international
society are only looking out for
themselves and are more focused on
survival than alliances. Even if alliances
do occur, they are only temporary, again
to gain power, or they happen in order to
increase a state’s security. Realism
understands that international relations
and foreign policy is not done under the
guise of “peaceful diplomatic
negotiations”, but rather that every action
taken is in the interests of the states
practicing them. This is because realism
focuses on security and protection in
order to survive on the world stage.
Realism is as important for individuals as
it is for states because it is the theory that
is always ready for disaster and how to
avoid it. Even the creation of the Peace of
Westphalia was made not as a result of
wanting peace but more as a way to keep
independent states from interfering with
each other and to have a way of keeping
an equilibrium of powers in check.
2. (from the prompt) “and that what
little cooperation we see is not
significant and merely reflects
underlying power.”
Cooperation today such as trade
agreements, for example, are often
initiated and agreed upon by powerful
states. Even when they enter into
Possible Rebuttals
While in some cases conflict and tension
between states is apparent, alliances and
cooperation is more typically the norm, especially
now in the modern age (post WW2). The
application of institutions, (primary and
secondary) helps ensure that states can hold
each other accountable and encourage interdependent relationships between states. Think of
the UN, NATO, etc. Nations are stronger when
they work with the others around them. Could
talk about globalization as a good thing too,
shared values and morals prevent conflict from
happening.
Can we also talk about how states are not fully
trusting one another, when we are literally spying
on each other? For example, Edward Snowden
exposed the United States for keeping tabs on
the U.S and other states. – Samantha
People criticize realism by saying states don’t
always have to be selfish, they can be altruistic.
However those situations that are thought to be
about altruism are actually the states looking out
for their own gain. For example, a state can offer
aid to a nation that just underwent a natural
disaster. That state can be doing that in order to
give itself a future advantage with the intention of
wanting to be paid back or have something
reciprocated in the future. Working together is a
guise that boils down to wanting favors for state
preservation and security purposes.
Critics argue that realists are wrong when they
say humans never change/evolve. But generally
speaking, some big powers have failed
numerous times and never adjusted their tactics.
For instance, the U.S. failed miserably in the Bay
of Pigs and Iraq Invasion. They continue to be
arrogant when it comes to entering countries
while having weak plans. History often repeats
itself, showing how maybe individuals can evolve
but people in positions of power generally make
the same moves.
Some people think the realist analogy of the
burning house does not have any backing.
agreements, these benefit powerful states
more than the less powerful. An example
of this is NAFTA, which is set up to
primarily benefit the US while
disadvantaging Mexico… (I’m not sure if
this is a good example, or if we should be
using examples like this at all, or I’m going
to look for another example, I will continue
working on this point – Xiang Zhou)
Also, maybe another argument is that
cooperation seems futile because it only
represents the interests of powerful
nations. The interests of less powerful
countries are not often represented. G8,
for instance, is only for the 8 most
powerful countries in the world. If there is
true cooperation, why is there limitations
to other countries’ involvement, and why
does massive inequality still exist among
states until today?
3. Realism explains international relations
because if we review and evaluate the
conflicts, one of the factors that contribute
to them is power imbalance/struggle (I
guess). For example, conflict in South
Korea-North Korea is a result of power
struggle, class between communism and
democracy. Or Israel vs. Palestine (?) I
think? – Xiang Zhou
4. Realism does not deny international
collaboration, but when faced with an
opportunity to collaborate for mutual
benefit, they will not ask “will we all
benefit?” but “who would benefit more?
The explanation for this is due to
recognition of the vulnerability of
interdependence. That is, one nation is
concerned that the growth of trade and
the exchange of goods and services
would make it dependent on other
countries. Countries that are heavily
dependent on or closely dependent on
other countries should be cautious about
sustaining such dependency. (I think I will
find a strong example to support this will
be better) – Hsueh Huei Jiun
However it is proven true time and time again.
The U.S. did not enter WW2 until the attack on
Pearl Harbor. This clearly exemplifies how a
situation forces behavior.
People argue that realism is flawed because
there would be more wars if it was fundamentally
sound. However, the costs of wars are
increasingly rising. Wars no longer give benefits
such as minerals and food like they once did.
Realists understand that the quest for stability
sometimes means you do not exhaust yourself in
a power grab that can lose you security in the
end. Nowadays there is more pressure to gain
knowledge and technology, and those things
cannot necessarily be won through war. Hacking
and tech jobs may replace war for the means to
achieve more power and influence.
5. (from the prompt) “Realism is an
enduring paradigm, as the behavior of
nations has not changed for centuries,
and never will”
I read something in the news today that
may be used to support this point from the
prompt, but I’m not entirely sure so I’ll just
write it here and you can edit or change.
So it’s about Iran and how some countries
are warning Iran about its uranium
production. Countries’ responses
(Germany, France, UK) to Iran’s uranium
production shows an example of realism,
such that the states feel insecure over
Iran’s program. Moreover, historically,
Iran’s nuclear program has started since
the 1950s and it has been an ongoing
issue between Iran and other countries.
So maybe this is an example to prove that
“Realism is an enduring paradigm, as the
behavior of nations has not changed”
Current conflicts result from various factors – not
only insecurity/power struggles – it is more
complex than this, and therefore, realism does
not fully explain conflict. (Again, I’m guessing
here, I’m not sure if this is a good rebuttal – Xiang
Zhou)
Anti-Realism Arguments
1. (from the prompt) “and that what
little cooperation we see is not
significant”
Cooperation is significant. If not for
cooperation among states, the world
would not be where it is now,
interconnected through globalization. We
have avoided succeeding World Wars
after World War II because of cooperation
(Would this be a possible anti-realism
argument from the opponent? I’m not
sure. Any comments? – Xiang Zhou) (I
think it could be an anti-realism argument
since liberalism focuses heavily on
cooperation and interconnectedness Diana)
Possible Rebuttals
Cooperation is only temporary. Because states
are only looking out for themselves it is very
possible that conflict is brewing under the surface
of cooperation. Thinking of the US as an
example, the founding fathers themselves argued
against creating formal alliances in order to
ensure the safety of the nation because they
knew that if the US was dragged into choosing
sides that it could affect the US position as
number one. Think of world war 1 and 2 as
another example. The US didn’t join sides early
into the conflict because they knew that
cooperation was tenuous. The only reason
nations cooperate is to gain power and to
increase safety. Again think of the US-Canada
relationship. (might not be a strong counter
argument- Diana)
If cooperation is seen to be a good thing, we
have to take into account that it doesn’t always
benefit smaller states. Cooperation can just be
seen as a flexing of power by powerful states.
Because of this, large states may not be inclined
to help small states because they may lose
power (resources, alliances (the enemy of my
enemy is my friend kind of relationship), etc)
2. (from the prompt) “Realist
approaches explain more about the
most important things in world politics
than any rival theoretical approach.”
The most important things in world politics
are trade and the global economy,
diplomacy, (and others), because these
get nations together to share or exchange
resources, address needs of their people,
etc. These “important things” do not relate
to realism but rather liberalism, so the
statement is wrong. Realism does not
explain the most important things in
politics. It is quite insignificant compared
to other theories that explain the
processes that allow states to work
together. – (I’m quoting the prompt
because I think our arguments must
defend it. Not sure if this is what we
should do though, and if we can argue
beyond the prompt or something – Xiang
Zhou)
3. (from the prompt) “The assumptions
underlying Realism correctly describe
the realities of world politics – the
anarchical system that creates acute
insecurity and causes states to value
power and domination”
Realism does not describe the realities of
world politics because if this is true, then
the world would be in a state of chaos, like
for example the relationship between the
US and Russia during the Cold War. If it is
true that Realism correctly describes the
realities of world politics, then all countries
should be isolating and not opening their
doors to the global stage because realism
notes that states are self-interested. But in
reality, this is not true. Conflicts may occur
but majority of states still want to
cooperate. In reality, we have the EU, for
example, and other agreements, and
states wanting to be part of global trade.
This reality does not reflect realism. (I
think I need to add better examples to this
– Xiang Zhou)
4. (from the prompt) “Realism is an
enduring paradigm, as the behavior of
nations has not changed for centuries,
and never will”
Realism is not an enduring paradigm
because our history shows that the
behaviors of nations can and continue to
change. For example, China and Japan
Realism does explain the realities of world
politics because realism relies on states only
looking out for themselves and that is exactly
what states do. Even if alliances, agreements,
treaties, etc are made, the underlying fact is that
those actions are only done to benefit the states
joining them. If we think of trade agreements,
they’re only made to increase the economic yield
of the states in it. (China-US relations). If we
think of the EU and Brexit, it is a good example of
realism because the whole point of the EU was to
benefit the nations in it by sharing a common
currency, economic gains, etc. However, the UK
choosing to leave the EU only goes to show that
alliances can only go so far, and if a state is no
longer benefiting they may be inclined to draw
into themselves and try to increase their own
power (rather than sharing it or helping others).
(not sure if this example is strong, I don’t know
enough about Brexit to be 100% sure- Diana)
Even if alliances are created and states choose
to open up and interact with their neighbors and
the rest of the world, conflict can still occur. Every
period in history has had some form of major
conflict whether it be internal war or external. The
only reason we say that realism cannot be
applied now is because we haven’t yet
experienced a true war in the 21st century. So
we cannot say if it is enduring or not. But looking
again at history would suggest that yes it is. From
the 30 Years War, wars of religion,
US/French/Haitian/Russian revolutions, WW1
(would need data or information to support
this too, I’ll look for relevant sources IF we
need them? – Xiang Zhou) used to adopt
closed-door policy before, but then they
opened their economy and participated in
global trade. Behaviors of nations do
change, and this creates new dynamics
that are better explained by other theories
than realism.
and 2, Korean/Vietnam War, Iraq War, the
apartheid regime in South Africa, dictators in
Latin America. Conflict is always occurring even
though we say that the world has more alliances
and good relations that at any other point in time.
People are unique and distinct and everyone has
different thoughts and opinions so thinking that
cooperation and shared norms are the end all be
all isn’t a completely correct assessment of how
the human mind works. Conflict brings change,
and it is that change that may or may not lead to
those alliances/shared norms. (I have no idea if
any of this makes sense since arguing that
realism is enduring and that it won’t change
might be difficult to argue for- Diana)
Same, we seem to be the only ones actually
writing stuff. It doesn’t help
We need to get more people writing cuz
otherwise our arguments may not be as strong,
esp since we got a difficult theory
I went through my notes and added a few debates. Feel free to add to it or make corrections
I’ll also add stuff I know from previous classes, I chose to put quotes on both sides that I think
are important in proving our point. Kissinger’s World Order is pretty helpful in pushing the realist
side- Diana
Realist
•
•
•
•
States must be “selfish” and protect
their own interests in order to insure
security and survival because the
international system is anarchy
This concept is known as self-help
“A nation’s survival is its first and
ultimate responsibility; it cannot be
compromised or put to risk” – Henry
Kissinger (1977)
“In the American view of world order,
peace and balance would occur
naturally, and ancient enmities would
be set aside—once other nations
were given the same principled say in
their own governance that Americans
had in theirs. The task of foreign
policy was thus not so much the
Anti-Realist
•
•
•
Liberal: Still accepts that the
international system is anarchy, but
states can still pursue common
interests
o Basically, anarchy isn’t as
“dangerous” or “strong” as the
Realists claim
o There has been much more
peace since WW2
Constructivist: International relations
are all due to historical and socially
constructed experiences, and not
outcomes caused by human nature or
other characteristics of global politics.
Constructivist: the only reason
alliances and peace have mostly been
the norm for much of the 20th and 21st
•
•
pursuit of a specifically American
interest as the cultivation of shared
principles” (Kissinger, World Order)
Kissinger connects US foreign policy
to that of Manifest Destiny, the idea of
Western expansion both literally and
of its ideals/beliefs: this is still going
on today as the world becomes more
modern. Western ideas are seen as
the “norm”. Us foreign policy and
international relations are not about
diplomacy and connection
“Westphalian principles are being
challenged on all sides, sometimes in
the name of world order itself. Europe
has set out to depart from the state
system it designed and to transcend it
through a concept of pooled
sovereignty… Having downgraded its
military capacities, Europe has little
scope to respond when universal
norms are flouted. In the Middle East,
jihadists on both sides of the SunniShia divide tear at societies and
dismantle states in quest of visions of
global revolution based on the
fundamentalist version of their
religion… Asia, in some ways the
most strikingly successful of the
regions to adopt concepts of
sovereign statehood, still recalls
alternative concepts of order with
nostalgia and churns with rivalries
and historical claims of the kind that
dashed Europe’s order a century ago”
(Kissinger, World Order).
•
century is because states look at
history and shared norms of peace in
order to avoid conflict. They don’t want
a repeat of the past
“If the major powers come to practice
foreign policies of manipulating a
multiplicity of sub-sovereign units
observing ambiguous and often violent
rules of conduct, many based on
extreme articulations of divergent
cultural experiences, anarchy is
certain” (Kissinger, World Order, 276).
Failure to resolve conflict and establish
a working form of world order will only
result in upheaval.
•
•
•
Power, especially military power, is
the most important factor when it
comes to international politics
Power is the “currency of international
politics”
•
•
Liberal: Economic power is also very
important because it gives nations the
ability to build up militaries
Constructivist: Power cannot explain
everything that occurs in international
politics
o For example, the United States
gave aid to Nepal after an
earthquake. Power doesn’t
seem to play a role in this
situation, especially given that
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Humans are inherently evil, frail,
weak, motivated by “passions”, and
thus do not always act “rationally”
This also applies to leaders of states
Because states have an obligation to
protect their citizens, they are very
concerned about security
These “irrational leaders” can be a
threat to others’ security
“Had Wilson been more of a political
realist, he might nonetheless have
salvaged a compromise with the
treaty’s more moderate opponents
and thereby preserved a strong, if
modified, American leadership role in
the order he sought to create”
(Brands and Edel, The Lessons of
Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order)
•
States are the most important “units”
when it comes to international politics
Sure, international organizations
exist, but they are often just a
reflection of the most power countries
o For example, the UN Security
Council only has 5 permanent
members: China, France,
Russia, the UK, and the US
“the European project could be seen
as a pillar of the Western alliance, as
a breeding ground for neutralism or
non-alignment, or as a source of
intense economic competition” (Cox
and Stokes, US Foreign Policy, 201)
•
•
•
•
•
•
66 other countries also gave
aid
Morals and ethics can play a
large role
Liberal (and also Constructivists):
Humans are not inherently evil
There is the possibility that humans
can progress, learn, and recognize
mutual gain
Liberal: Still sees humans as selfinterested, but that multiple groups can
have common interests and cooperate
“Whenever America has been tested
by crisis or conflict —in World War II,
the Cold War, and our own era’s
upheavals in the Islamic world— it has
returned in one way or another to
Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a world
order that secures peace through
democracy, open diplomacy, and the
cultivation of shared rules and
standards (Kissinger, World Order,
202).
Liberal: There are many non-state
actors that have a huge influence in
international politics, like transnational
corporations, terrorist groups, and
International Intergovernmental
Organizations (IGOs or IOs)
Constructivist: The EU is not a state,
but still holds a strong influence in
international politics. Realist wouldn’t
be able to account for states banding
together under a common identity
“What would postwar Europe have
looked like without the Marshall Plan
and NATO? Would Germany and
Japan have become rich, peaceful
democracies had America pursued a
vengeful rather than restorative
peace? Would South Korea be a
prosperous liberal society today had
Washington not come to its rescue in
1950? What might have happened had
America not so energetically balanced
and contained Soviet power?… Would
democracy and respect for human
rights have spread so widely had the
United States taken less of an interest
in the issue?” (Brands and Edel, The
Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and
World Order, 88-9).
•
•
Raw military power is one of the most
important factors in determining
power
•
Constructivist: Iran has 1 nuclear
weapon, North Korea could have up to
60, China and the UK both have 300,
the US has around 6,550, and Russia
has around 6,800
o Who is the most dangerous?
o Realist would have to say
Russia because of its raw
capabilities
o However, it depends on other
factors such as location and the
leader of the nation
o For example, many in the US
would say North Korea is more
dangerous than Russia
because of how unstable Kim
Jong-un is as a person
o However, people in Japan may
say the US because the US
was the only country to drop
nuclear weapons on another
(Japan)
•
We wish the world wasn’t this way
(anarchical, insecure, etc.), but that is
just the reality
Just look at the amount of loss of
human life through countless wars
throughout human history
The only way a state can insure that
their citizens don’t suffer this way is to
take matters into their own hands
(build up their militaries)
•
Liberal: The world is much different
nowadays, we live in a world of
interdependence
o Conflict would disrupt the
benefit of trade
o Although conflict becomes less
likely, it is still possible
o Even so called adversaries like
the US and China still heavily
trade with each other which
would make a war much less
likely to occur
Constructivist: There are many norms
that make the world less insecure.
They add rules (even if not enforced by
law), that add structure to the way the
world works. This means that anarchy
and insecurity are much less of a
problem than the Realists claim
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Constructivists talk a lot about
norms, but really norms are only
created or only “cascade” because
the most powerful states allow them
to
Rebuttal to land mines: Powerful
states could see landmines as
something that isn’t really important
to gaining power, if anything it could
hurt them when trying to invade
another country. If they are more
powerful, then they have a strong
military with fleets of planes that
never have to deal with landmines
•
The behaviour of states has not
changed for centuries, and never will
The US has been in Iraq for over 20
years
The genocide happening in Yemen
by Saudi Arabia
North Korea nuclear threats
Can go on and on…
Humans just have a blood lust
•
•
•
•
•
Constructivist: Even Though the US
never signed the treaty to outlaw land
mines, it still mostly abides by it
(except at the Korean DMZ)
o This is because of the norm
has been internalized so much
that it sort of becomes
“obvious”
o Morals play a large part in
outlawing them
Constructivist/Anti-realist: “With nearly
every president insisting that America
had universal principles while other
countries merely had national
interests, the United States has risked
extremes of overextension and
disillusioned withdrawal” (Kissinger,
World Order, 210)
Casualties have gone way down ever
since WW2
Haven’t had a major, global conflict
since WW2
Liberal: We are more interdependent
than ever, which will lead to less war
(increases the cost of war)
Constructivist: Morals play a large role
in international politics. People are
capable of progressing and that clearly
shows with much less conflict and
overall stability in the world
Team 2’s counterarguments (Feb 16), Our counters to these
Long-term alliances/cooperation work – international trade agreements, institution-based
Some issues that are not about power
Constructivist views vs. human nature
We can get the attention of people in power (ex. Black Lives Movement)
Issue with domestic policy, not foreign policy
Domestic policy shapes foreign policy
Doesn’t necessarily influence how the US will associate with outside parties
Democracy leads to peace
Identities influence state actions
Appropriateness of states’ behaviors
Pessimistic view limits trade, access to resources
Cooperation is one of the strongest anti-realist argument
Kantian triangle
Norms (people create movements, and movements influence policy)
Who decides the norms? People/states in power.
Interaction creates ways for the international community to consolidate norms (ex. UN Vote,
Geneva Convention)
Team 2 agrees that it is an anarchy but there are ways to counter that (e.g. cooperation)
Do realists even care about morals or ethics??
Well… Protecting their own citizens by caring about security is actually very ethical (put this in
better words)
•
•
Realism more encompassing… liberalism focuses on select few states
o Human nature involves everyone
Realism acknowledges that cooperation exists… unequal benefitting → due to power
imbalance
o More powerful will always end up on top : realist
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.