Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in interveening in the intern

Lannans argumentsContention of isLet me explain to you why this is an abuse of conduct: Lannan unfairly stated a win premise that I hadn't agreed on. While I plan on refuting every one of his points, no where in our private message, did I agree to him winning if just one instance wasn't justified. However, my opponent in definition is wrong. "Is" doesn't mean just one. It is open to interpretation, but it could also mean that on balance (which is a how a debate should be decided) that U.S. has done more harm than good in their process of intervention.Chile First off I never said we helped set up a dictatorship, so I am confused as to what my opponent is talking about?Also, my opponent's own source works against him.Let me post some experts from it.CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. In fact, many CIA officers shared broader US reservations about Pinochet’s single-minded pursuit of power.Evidences that the government had not supported Pinochet's Rise of Power, and actually discouraged it IE reservations.In the 1960s and the early 1970s, as part of the US Government policy to try to influence events in Chile, the CIA undertook specific covert action projects in Chile. Those hereby acknowledged are described below. The overwhelming objective—firmly rooted in the policy of the period—was to discredit Marxist-leaning political leaders, especially Dr. Salvador Allende, and to strengthen and encourage their civilian and military opponents to prevent them from assuming power.These actions, as stated by Lannans source, were to prevent a dictatorship from growing.KyrgyzstanThe things that my opponent lists as "bad" intervention, are false. "rationing water" for example. We were giving water to a country that was already lacking it. They wouldn't have had the water had we not been there to give it to them. We ration it so we can distribute it equally among them. Also my opponents claim of us "ousting" a leader because he is Muslim, is false, and not backed up by any source, meaning we must drop this point.Middle EastWe didn't "help cause 9/11" by funding them. You realize that 9/11 was caused by two terrorists driving a plane right? This required no more resources than two human beings with access to an airplane to be able to take over these flights.Any of our support towards Al-Queda, had nothing to do with 9/11. Terrorists made a choice, and by that choice, Americans suffered. We didn't cause this by trying to help out other countries.Rockets Arguments Argument 1: Dropped.Argument 2: U.S's protecting the value of it's citizens, why not others?How do we hurt their citizens? My opponent fails to explain this. Human Rights meets the definition that Lannan provided in R1.The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.(3)This means, by my opponents own argument, that all humans are defined by the same rights. By protecting these rights, they aren't different from our own rights at all.Argument 3: Dropped.Sources:My opponent says wikipedia isn't a "credible source". He fails to explain why however. That information in the source, is readily available on other websites, meaning the information still holds true. What my opponent should have done if he wanted to attack my sources, would be to point out something within them that is wrong or flawed. He didn't do this, so we must assume the information within them still holds true. Also one of your sources comes from a blog, made up of someone's own take on U.S. intervention, lacking a source of it's own. How is that any better than wikipedia?ConclusionI feel I have won this debate for the following reasons:1. My opponent's own sources basically refute his arguments.2. My opponent has dropped two of my arguments.3. My opponent has breached conduct multiple times; setting up the debate on unfair principles without my agreeing to it, and Forfeiting a round, and posting his real sources only in the final round giving me only one round to debate his actual arguments...4. Giving false information in his arguments and presenting them as fact.Please vote Pro.3. http://www.ahdictionary.com...