The United States has a moral obligation to mediate and alleviate international conflicts.

My opponent had a long argument to deal with, and I did set a standard. My opponent also made no CON argument or opening argument to why we do have a moral obligation to mediate and alleviate international conflicts. He merely said a point and went straight to a small rebuttal. I will now go into my rebuttal. "to protect its allies as it is a big United States interest" Our allies are of no interest to us. They help us in conflict. And they trade some things with us. To only reason why we trade is to bring in more money for ourselves and our government. And a lot of our money is going to foreign affairs. If we were to eliminate the need for foreign affairs, thus saving money because we have no need to trade if we spent our money on our own land, then we would not have any problem. If we stopped going into useless battles, then we wouldn't need allies. We are the strongest country in the world. We are weakening because useless deaths happen in the military and the money going to foreign occupation could be spent on other things such as lowering poverty and creating more jobs. If our allies are in an international conflict, they can defend themselves. I am sure China with 1.6 billion people, and India, with 1.2 billion, and the other strong countries such as Russia, England, France, Germany, Japan, and others; they would be able to take down the threat themselves. If an attack was focused on us, since all our people are here and the military is here and our focus is on here and not in foreign affairs, then it will be a lot easier to stop an attack on us. "because they cannot make up which one it is I'd like to stick to one value" You misinterpret two things. One, I set the standard for a debate and the argument; the two values combined form a perfect value. Just because you can't rebuttal properly against one doesn't mean you call "foul!" Two, a form of Isolationism was practiced in America in the early 20th century. It was where the United States would not involve themselves politically in the world. They eventually did because of WW2, which is part of isolationism. Pearl Harbor was attacked, and back then we were not the greatest country in the world. Now that we are we should be able to hold isolationism correctly. We were drawn into the War because of an attack on our isolationism. It worked. It worked very well actually; but in the end we had to step out of the border because of a personal attack. "I'd like to see how isolation will protect national security." It's not how isolation will protect National Security, it is how National Security will protect isolationism (and National Security combined with self-preservation). The basic Human instinct is to survive. So far, since we last practiced Isolationism (where we had one personal attack then), we have been in South Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Vietnam, China, Japan, Germany, France (WW2), England seas (WW2), and other smaller places for the sake of War. Millions have been killed because of it. What happened if those millions of soldiers were actually stationed in America on the borders or in the states and police forces? They would be able to aid the states and counties with local authority and terrorist risk protection. Maybe even National Government too. It is our Human instinct to survive. We survive by protecting ourselves (by security). Thus NATIONAL Security and the instinct to survive can protect us. It will not completely stop everything every time, but it is better than going and dying in useless Wars caused by illiterate Presidents.