Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

Final Focus B: ------ Weighing Sources: My opponent's sources:ï¿½ 1.ï¿½Npr.orgï¿½Nope still goes to home page. 2. ï¿½"The cost of the war in Iraq" isnt a source. It's an arbitrary number that you do not reference. 3. Past debates may be a source for your high school, and "Donald Duck" is a source for my highschool. My Sources: 1. My opponent only listed two of my many sources (the only ones with doubt). Please note that I Listed many more in round 1. 2. Works for me. 3. The blog references existing evidence and studies. ------ Contentions 1. Germany and Japan WERE NOT world powers before WWII. Both had weak economies and strong militaries. We are promoting democracy in impoverished nations rather than ones with large militaries like Germany, doesnt that make it easier? 2. There are two major flaws with my opponent's flaws. The first is that without Middle Eastern oil the US would not be able to sustain its economy and way of life. Secondly, terrorist groups don't only attack Israel, as we have seen on 9/11 and the Christmas Day Attempt. 3. I concede that it is expensive, but the economic benefits in the future would outweigh the comparatively small cost of intervention. --------- My contentions: 1. Get your facts right, Germany and Japan were war-torn dumps after WWII. Japan had had its two most productive economic cities obliterated by the atomic bomb and Germany had lost its cities to bombing campaigns by the allies. In fact, middle eastern countries are probably better of because of their vast oil reserves. 2. A: We depend on middle eastern oil, stated earlier. B: Al Queda (the terrorist group run by Osama) is still active. Killing Osama is not worth anything if his organization is still up and running. Israel is irrelevant because they will not negotiate and because they arent the US. ----- Crossfires I refuted all of your points. No 'questions' needed. Crossfire 1: What you are saying is nonsensical. I never conceded, and I didnt avoid the question. Military Intervention is sometimes needed but not always. I provided two examples for each, how are you not getting that? Crossfire 2: 1. Military =/= Economy. 2. Stalin lifted the blockade because of its ineffectiveness, true. His goal of putting up the blockade was to starve the people, and make them join East Berlin. He failed because the people starved but did not leave. Plus I have given evidence the diet was corrupt, you just ignored it. 3. ï¿½My opponent ignored question 3 and therefore concedes. 4. It doesnt mean ignore Israel. It means that we look at things realistically. There are more threats to the US than to Israel, therefore we should focus on us. 5. A blog that quotes RELIABLE SOURCES.ï¿½ 6. It was a war, if you define was as intervention, then yes you win. But war is not intervention. Plus our goal wasnt to set up democracy. 7. Misconstruing my words, again. Military presence DOES NOT MEAN WE CONTROL THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM.ï¿½ 8. It isnt a question of weight, its a question of number. 9. Promoting democracy in the middle east would also promote peaceful ideals, as stated in round 1. 10. That makes no logical sense. 11. Not enough! ------------------- Conclusion: 1. My contentions were clearly labeled in round 1 and remain standing because of shotty refutations and ignoring the point. 2. You have failed to provide any clear sense of rebuttal, only answering questions with questions and using red herrings. 3. I used one source (out of many very reliable ones) that could be considered unreliable. However this source references evidence that is reliable. 4. Asking questions =/= refuting points. I refuted all of your points, therefore I concede to none.ï¿½ 5. You haven't proved they were reliable, you just stated "Oh, they work on my computer, sorry you cant see them".ï¿½ Concluding statement: My opponent failed at keeping his contentions and refutations afloat and his sources are highly questionable. This is why I urge a vote for pro. Vote pro. Also thank you for this tough and interesting debate. I hope to debate you another time in the future. Ciao.