The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

Thanks, AOG.I will be rebutting the aff case and defending the neg case this round.Apologies if it seems a bit rushed.== NEG CASE ==Firstly, I would like to note that in Round 1, Pro specifically noted that he is referring to the "United States Federal Government". To now claim that he was actually referring to American society as a whole is unfair. We should continue with the assumption that we are talking about the United States government having an obligation to mitigate international conflicts. A1) Governments and Moral ObligationsPro basically concedes the debate with this rebuttal. If we accept his definition of "government" as an impersonal tool which cannot have moral obligations, then the resolution is automatically negated. I do not have to prove that the government has an active moral obligation to NOT mitigate conflicts; I merely have to show the affirmative claim Pro is making to be false, and Pro is doing that for me by refuting the existence of governmental moral obligations. I will gladly drop my constructive case in order to accept Pro's concession. Unless Pro retracts this line of argumentation, the resolution is negated.A2) Society or GovernmentPro misunderstands the purpose of the first paragraph of my constructive case. It was not meant to serve as an independent opening argument on my part; it was just a clarification of the resolution. Besides the fact that Pro specified in Round 1 that he was referring to the USFG, I was simply providing a few additional reasons based in real-world applicability to believe that the resolution is referring to the government, rather than the entire country's populace. Thus, this entire rebuttal falls flat. As for Pro's claims that I ignored his value criterion, that is only because last round was solely for presenting constructive cases... I will, of course, be addressing his value criterion within my rebuttals this round. A3) Mitigation aids WelfareThis is the only rebuttal that really addresses my argument-- he claims that mitigation of international conflicts results in increased benefit to the American public, and thus the government has an obligation to mitigate even under my framework. However, he provides only one example-- the Russo-Japanese war, in which the United States was able to protect its economic interests by intervening. Firstly, Pro never shows that the United States' intervention was *necessary* for the protection of those economic interests. Secondly, it is a fallacy of induction because naming one instance in which mitigation may have helped civilian welfare does not demonstrate that the majority of international conflicts have significant American interests at stake. Under my framework, a governmental obligation to mitigate international conflicts simply does not exist.== AFF CASE ==R1) Value of Innocent LifePro's case, here, ultimately amounts to a bare assertion. Why is it "good" to lead an innocent life? Simply avoiding doing anything bad is not morally praise-worthy; to abstain from being actively involved in the conflict at hand is, at best, morally neutral. There is no reason to accept the base premise of Pro's framework. Furthermore, something being inherently "good", that does not mandate unconditional protection of it. It is not the responsibility of external entities with no involvement in the conflict to protect those innocent lives; it is the responsibility of the entities which are causing harm to cease their unethical actions. R2) Mitigation is counter-productiveI will show that mitigation generally results in additional harm to innocent lives. An obligation which requires action that results in outcomes contrary to the goal of the obligation is nonsensical and cannot feasibly exist. "In the case of Kenya, the first and only country to which R2P was applied...So R2P was not a preventive measure, but it did succeed in halting the violence and preventing further displacement...Reports show a lack of security for ethnic groups in areas of return, an absence of planning for those who do not wish to return, inadequate compensation for destroyed homes and property. Moreover, thousands still live in camps and temporary settlements. Yet we don't hear...about the promotion of compliance with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement with regard to rebuilding. Welcomed by the World Summit in 2005...the national human rights commission in Kenya considers its government to be violating these Principles...[even] after the violence.'"" [1]."Humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, which are probably the largest in recent decades, are mainly due to foreign interventions (mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the humanitarian interventions, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive...US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized." [2]."Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not fewer. Bombing civilians--whether deliberately or by so-called 'collateral damage'--produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less, and the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons."" [2].[1] http://www.brookings.edu...[2] http://dalehan.blogspot.com...