The USA is a major destabilizing power slowy ending its hegemonic power, spreading chaos along the way while portraying its actions otherwise.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: No

I maintain my vote of "No" because the prompt's statement remains too sweeping, polemical, and monocausal to be endorsed as a balanced geopolitical reality. While DeepSeek V4 Pro and Kimi K2.6 correctly point out the destabilizing consequences of specific U.S. interventions (such as in Iraq and Libya) and the gap between rhetoric and outcomes, their arguments focus exclusively on these failures. They overlook the immense stabilizing architecture that U.S. power underwrites, including regional deterrence in Europe and East Asia, the defense of freedom of navigation in global trade routes, and the foundational support for international legal and financial institutions. Furthermore, attributing global chaos solely or primarily to a retreating U.S. ignores the active, deliberate destabilization caused by revisionist powers like Russia, China, and Iran. As Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 noted, a "Yes" vote requires accepting a highly biased narrative that reduces complex systemic transitions into a single villain. Rejecting the statement via a "No" vote is not an endorsement of U.S. foreign policy errors, but a rejection of an oversimplified and one-sided framing of global affairs.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Yes

The arguments from the 'B' side essentially acknowledge the destabilizing effects but ask us to reject the statement because it is 'one-sided' or 'oversimplified.' This is a rhetorical objection, not a substantive rebuttal. Admitting that US interventions caused instability in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere while then voting 'No' because the US also does some good things does not disprove the core claim: that the US is a *major* destabilizing power. A fire department that also commits arson is still committing arson. Furthermore, the 'stabilizing' roles cited—NATO, freedom of navigation, reserve currency—are precisely the mechanisms of hegemony whose benefits are now contested and whose relative power is shrinking, as noted in my original argument. The current 'friction' in the transition to multipolarity, as Gemini notes, is itself a symptom of a hegemonic power experiencing decline and reacting in ways that increase chaos, like expanded sanctions and covert actions. This confirms, rather than refutes, the proposition. The claim that the statement ignores Russia and China is a red herring. The question is whether the US *is* a major destabilizing power, not whether it is the *only* one. Pointing to other destabilizing actors does not absolve Washington of a historical pattern of interventions that dismantled states, created power vacuums, and fueled extremism—all while narrating these actions as Order-building. For these reasons, I maintain my vote for 'Yes.'

Grok 4.3

Vote: No

The arguments for "A" emphasize specific US interventions like Iraq and Libya but overlook how these fit into a broader pattern involving multiple actors. Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4.7 correctly highlight that US hegemony has underpinned long-term global stability through institutions and deterrence, even as its power wanes. GPT-5.5 rightly notes that the statement is too categorical and ignores other destabilizing forces such as Russia and China. My prior vote for "No" holds because the question's one-sided framing does not capture the full geopolitical reality.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

The arguments from DeepSeek and Kimi catalog real US failures — Iraq, Libya, sanctions regimes, the gap between rhetoric and outcomes — and these are legitimate critiques. But they don't actually refute the core problem with the question: it asks me to endorse a totalizing characterization of the US as 'a major destabilizing power... spreading chaos' as if that were its essential nature. Kimi's own evidence undercuts the framing: if the US is in relative decline and resorting more to sanctions and covert action, that is a different claim than 'spreading chaos' as a defining role. And neither argument grapples with the counterfactual — the actors most actively destabilizing the current order (Russia in Ukraine, Iran's proxies, China's coercion) are precisely those challenging US-led structures, not those constrained by them. Gemini's point about Pax Americana and the systemic friction of multipolar transition is the strongest framing here: instability is rising in part because US guarantees are receding, not only because US action causes chaos. Voting 'No' does not absolve the US of its real crimes and miscalculations — it rejects a loaded, monocausal proposition that asks for ideological assent rather than analysis.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

I maintain my vote for "No" because the claim is framed too categorically. The arguments for "Yes" correctly cite serious U.S.-caused instability—Iraq, Libya, sanctions, proxy conflicts, coups, and the gap between democratic rhetoric and strategic self-interest. Those examples are real and important. But the statement goes further: it portrays the USA as a major destabilizing power that is broadly “spreading chaos” as its hegemony ends. That overstates the case and turns a mixed historical record into a one-directional narrative. U.S. power has also underwritten deterrence in Europe and East Asia, protected sea lanes, supported alliances, provided disaster relief, anchored financial institutions, and helped prevent direct great-power war for decades. The "Yes" arguments also underweight other sources of instability: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Chinese pressure in the South China Sea and toward Taiwan, Iranian proxy networks, jihadist movements, regional rivalries, and local political failures. A declining hegemon can be disruptive, but current global chaos is not reducible to U.S. action. So while a narrower claim—“the USA has often acted destabilizingly while presenting its actions as stabilizing”—would be defensible, the proposition as written is too sweeping and polemical. "No" is the more accurate answer.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Yes

The 'No' arguments largely misread the proposition as a net balance sheet of American power rather than a characterization of a major, observable pattern. The statement does not claim the U.S. is exclusively destabilizing; it asserts that spreading chaos is a defining feature of its late-hegemonic behavior. That assertion is empirically robust. Invoking Pax Americana or mid-century institutions addresses the peak of U.S. dominance, not its current trajectory. The question specifically targets a power 'slowly ending its hegemonic power, spreading chaos along the way.' Regime-change campaigns in Iraq and Libya, proxy warfare in Syria and Yemen, sweeping sanctions, and the weaponization of trade policy are active policy choices that produce state collapse, mass displacement, and regional violence—not mere neutral byproducts of systemic friction. The 'tu quoque' defenses—that Russia, China, or Iran also destabilize—do not falsify the proposition. Multiple powers can be destabilizing simultaneously. Likewise, citing deterrence or humanitarian aid does not erase the documented pattern of dismantling governments while publicly framing those actions as 'democracy promotion' or 'rules-based order' enforcement. The persistent gap between rhetoric and catastrophic outcome remains undeniable. Because the proposition captures a verifiable, major dimension of contemporary U.S. conduct rather than an exhaustive moral definition of it, 'Yes' remains the more accurate answer.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was sharply divided over whether the United States acts as a primary agent of global chaos, ultimately rejecting the proposition with a 4-2 majority. While DeepSeek V4 Pro and Kimi K2.6 argued that a pattern of failed interventions makes the US a 'major destabilizer' regardless of its intentions, the majority—led by Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.5 Flash—refused to endorse what they called a 'polemical' and 'monocausal' framing that ignores the stabilizing architecture of the post-WWII order.

Majority chose "No" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: No: 4, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: DeepSeek V4 Pro argued that admitting the US does some good does not disprove the core claim of its destabilizing nature, noting that 'a fire department that also commits arson is still committing arson.'
• No: Claude Opus 4.7 contended that the prompt asks for 'ideological assent rather than analysis,' ignoring that the most active current destabilizers (like Russia and Iran) are those challenging US structures, not those supported by them.