The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

(1) Mitigation means intervention succeeded. The definition of mitigate is to "make less severe, harsh or hostile" To mitigate, by definition, means to make the conflict less severe. So the intervention must succeed in order to fall under the definition of mitigate. Mitigate is the word in the resolution, and so the fact that my opponent is claiming this "unfair" is unreasonable. My opponent accepted the debate, and has accepted to debate the resolution, which has certain words in it. If my opponent did not realize that mitigation means successful intervention than she should not have accepted the debate. For all three of my opponents points, I will have to say, mitigation is to make less severe, so by definition, successful intervention. If my opponent had a problem with debating this fact, than she shouldn't have accepted the resolution. I am rejecting bad intervention examples, because this is not mitigation, and thus does not fall under the resolution. With the Iraq conflict, if it is less severe, than it is absolutely mitigation. However, in my first speech, I presented a standard and a value of national security, which means national security is the HIGHEST value in today's round. Because you did not argue this value ever, it still stands. Thus national security should take a higher place than cost. Conclusion: If our national security could be breached by a conflict, than we should mitigate. We are the United States, with a very large military and the capability to mitigate in most circumstances. (2) The Resolution is not absolute. Why is my opponent claiming what the topic drafters were intending to do? It is my doubt that my opponent was one of these topic drafters, and seeing how she was NOT, how will she know what they meant? I am following the rules of grammar. The term children is plural, meaning two or more, so why is my opponent claiming that "children" means all the children in the world? Its the same with the resolution. International conflicts is a plural term. So why is my opponent claiming that it means all international conflicts out there. My opponent is also breaking the rules of Lincoln-Douglas Value debate by denying my standard without arguing it. The affirmative has the power to provide a standard for the resolution. If the negative doesn't like it, they address it in their next speech. Since no argument against my standard of national security in her constructive speech, she has agreed to the standard. That standard then stands for the next of the round. So even if the resolution is absolute, my standard is still applied to it. This argument that obligations are meaningless once they are satisfied is an absurd argument. Lets take my opponent's example: I have a moral obligation to help children from drowning. So does that mean once I have already stopped one child from drowning that obligation does not exist? Morals don't work that way. Just because you have done that moral thing once does not mean you still don't have to do it in the future. God tells us to not steal, so the minute we don't steal, that obligation no longer exists? this is absurd. Conclusion: the existence of the obligation comes from Social contract theory, and because my standard is undressed, I have to prove we should mitigate wherever there is an international conflict that harms our national security. Factual support? I'm assuming my opponent is educated enough to look at the conflict and see for herself. I did not think I had to explain every little detail to her. However, because I do, I will now explain this conflict. N. Korea was planning on attacking the United States. The US and China sent diplomats over to N. Korea, and these peace talks took a couple weeks. At the end of those weeks, N. Korea agreed to not attack us. Extension Where did the the argument, "to save the lives of others if you can do so without dying yourself." come from? WHAT IF SOLDIERS HAD THAT PHILOSOPHY? What if the police had that philosophy? What if fire fighters had that philosophy? Thousands of citizens would be dead. No army would exist if people weren't willing to die for their country and its citizens. I find my opponent's argument extremely evil. That philosophy is ABSURD if you have any sense that national security is important. I never claimed "we are morally obligated to intervene in other countries, unless the cost to us is prohibitive." I find it absurd that my opponent is claiming money is more important than human lives. This is evil. What if everyone had that philosophy? The government would not have gotten involved in WWII just because it "cost too much." However, more than 3000 people would have died in the future terrorist attacks that Japan had planned. National security is paramount, according to Section 4 Article 4 of the US constitution and also Social Contract theory, both of which my opponent have not argued. There are still 38,000 troops in Afghanistan according to CBS news and 2000 troops in Iraq according to ABC news as of January 2014. Why is my opponent claiming our army can't be in two places at once? This is absurd. Let me introduce a concept: splitting up. OH THAT EXPLAINS IT! Troops can be two places at once. Going on and addressing the other 2 points, my opponent has no proof for point number (2) and any research will prove this is false. The amount of countries that are willing to attack us are very few, and those few countries (which are strong and big) aren't often harmed by a conflict. As for the battle fatigue, all conflicts that will potentially harm our national security our important. Some may be BIGGER potential breaches, but they are ALL important. If we don't mitigate these conflicts that could harm our national security, than it could RESULT in a world war. For instance, with the Gulf War, according to CNN news, it would have resulted in WWIII if we would not have mitigated. According to Speaker of the House John Boehner, the N.K. tension would have resulted in WWIII, we would not have mitigated. We are not simply "wasting our energy" with these smaller conflicts. We are protecting our national security while reducing the odds of WWIII breaking out. Afghanistan is one example in which, we simple needed to focus on one conflict. That does not mean we are incapable of doing it. In WWII, the US would be fighting in Japan, and would also be fighting in Germany at the same time. In future debates, please do not be unethical by saying your opponent is on drugs. This is unethical. Hussein did not invade Kuwait to START a caliphate. he invaded for oil reasons. We got Hussein in this conflict so that a caliphate COULDN'T be formed. If my opponent is confused, she should look back at my original speech, where it is stated clearly. with 9/11, the reason they targeted us was because our religious freedom. I provided the quote, and I need not explain more. Conclusion: my opponent is assuming that every time we enter a conflict, 1. we will get worn out, 2. the locals will hate us, 3.Its impossible to have two armies in two different places. This is false. While some of these could happen in some circumstances separately, it is absurd to claim these will happen all together every time we enter a conflict. The value does not do what you said, thats the standard. Check the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate and you will be proved wrong. I am a debater specialized in LD. Do not claim I do not know how Lincoln Douglas works. The resolution does mandate a moral obligation. My opponent has not argued Social Contract Theory, therefore can not claim that I still have to prove the obligation is moral or that the obligation exists. SCT proves exactly that, and because she has dropped it, it flows to pro. So all that i have to prove is that MITIGATION protects our national security. Seeing how my opponent has not responded to the 8 applications I brought up in my last speech, this is already done. Dropped applications means dropped proof. My opponent has not responded to the most thorough proof there is: history. So because my opponent has not addressed this proof, this point still stands. Imagine a child crying on the street. His father is trying to comfort him, but is doing little good due to the fact that the grown man is crying himself. The child yells out words that mean "My Sister! My Sister!" This is a true account from a young 6 year old boy who lost his two sisters in a bomb attack yesterday. His house was in ruins, just a pile of cement on the dirt ground. But the story doesn't stop here. This conflict grows and grows, until we have a war that is between two countries and kills 400000 people a year. This is the case in Iraq. This conflict could very well proof to be a potential breach of neighbor's national security. As the conflict grows, the area of vulnerable countries will grow with it. Soon, the United States, is facing potential terrorist attacks. We mitigate, saving thousands of children from the fate that that one boy faced. Because we truly did make it less severe, it is no longer as large, decreasing the range of vulnerable countries. This story fits perfectly into the resolution. So let me ask all my readers, do you want a government that is obligated to keep you safe? Do you value your freedom, your national security, and your human rights? I would think the answer would be yes, and its for the preservation of your and mine security that I stand resolved, the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict.