The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

^ Jump up to: a b Williams, Beryl, The Russian Revolution 1917"1921, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (1987), ISBN 978-0-631-15083-1, ISBN 0-631-15083-8 Jump up ^ Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W.W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0-393-02030-4, ISBN 978-0-393-02030-4, p. 446: Jump up ^ John M. Thompson, A vision unfulfilled. Russia and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century (Lexington, MA; 1996) 159. Jump up ^ Cover Story: Churchill's Greatness. Interview with Jeffrey Wallin. (The Churchill Centre) Jump up ^ i0;k2;l3;k7;k6;l0;l5;, h0;l3;k7;l2;l9;k7;l1; i2;k2;l2;l9;l0;l4;l6;k4;l0;m5;. A biography of Kaledin (in Russian) Jump up ^ Geoffrey Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), 103. Jump up ^ The Czech Legion Jump up ^ Mawdsley, p. 27 Jump up ^ W. P. and Zelda K. Coates, Soviets in Central Asia (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), 72. Jump up ^ Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia, 104. Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 70. Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 68"69. Jump up ^ P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 74. Jump up ^ Edward Allworth, Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule(New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 226. Jump up ^ Mawdsley, p. 35 These are some of the many sources explaining the statistics for the civil war. For my opponent to question these statistics would be preposterous and absurd. Also to state that the amount of deaths in one civil war surpasses all the deaths that the US has experienced in all world wars, civil wars, and other conflicts. That is what is preposterous and absurd. However, even though these statistics are contradicting, and it would take further clarification to straighten out these figures, this argument is not important. Russian civil war happens in one country, involves one country, effects one country, and is only potentially harming one country. This then, is not an international issue, and this should be dropped from our debate. In my opponents first speech, he did not reply to my definition of international stability, so it stands for the rest of the round. International stability is the condition of multiple countries not changing with each other. During a war, they are changing all the time, as they are attacking or getting attacked. After a war however, most countries are just focused on growing their economy and not getting involved in more conflict. My opponent also seems to question my historical knowledge, when that is not his place to do. Seeing how he does not know me, calling my historical knowledge debatable "at best" is not his place to do. He is extremely arrogant when he is saying he is right and my historical knowledge debatable. He is being extremely disrespectful and rude. So moving on to the 3 applications for the roaring 20's 1) Germany had national instability and so did France, yet they were still focused on pure economic growth, and were not changing, making them stable. International stability is the condition of countries staying the same politically with other countries. Same with central Europe, which he did not bring up any exact countries so this argument can not be directly refuted. There was not a war or conflict, because many countries were just focusing on enlarging their slices of economic pie, instead of sacrificing some of their economic pie for conflict. If they are focusing on economic growth, they are most likely a stable country. In the case of France, Russia, Great Britain, the US, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Ottoman, Bulgaria, Serbia, Australia, and New Zealand, they were focusing on enlarging their slices of economic pie, making these countries stable. 3) The UK had an enormous debt, that is true. But like I said, they were focusing on enlarging their economic pie, excluding them from any conflict, making them focusing on constant growth making their economy go in one direction, up. I would like to pause from my opponents arguments and point out an important fact. Out of the 3 contentions and 3 applications I brought up in my first speech, he responded to 2 contentions and 1 application. That leaves 1 contention and 2 applications that go unresponded. Seeing how we are now in rebuttals, he can't respond to these, and they flow to my side. Even if his arguments for this application of the roaring 20s were correct, which they are not, then there are still 2 applications that I have won. Back to the case. The Treaty of Versailles was called "the treaty of peace" if it was called that, why is my opponent questioning that. Also this is not the point. Peace and international stability are different. International stability can occur without peace, its all based on the decisions the country makes and their attitude to enlarge pieces of economic pie. War is breaking out in the middle east, but Israel is still stable because of their economic growth. Moving on to my opponents main points My opponent obviously has a problem with upholding national security. Security mostly deals with relations with other countries, and to become secure, one of the best ways to do it is to eliminate conflict that threatens your security. But seeing how my opponent is not fond of your and my security, I suppose he doesn't think that eliminating conflict that threatens security is a justifiable cause. I will most definetely define the ideal status quo IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY- Defining the whole status quo of the whole nation would take a lot more than I have room for. The status quo in terms of national security is being a state that is not as extreme as privacy is violated unreasonably, but not so little that an attack like 9/11 happens again. Somewhere in that range is close to the Status Quo. Obviously my opponent did not pay attention to my definitons or any other definitions. This is absurd. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE US TO INTERVENE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS FOR THEIR PURPOSE OF THEIR SECURITY. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE UN AND UNSC. It is the purpose of the US to MITIGATE international conflict for OUR PURPOSE of national security. My opponent thinks that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens. EXACTLY! They have an obligation to their own citizens, to uphold their general welfare, and to UPHOLD THEIR SECURITY! Finally, we are not the police. We are the upholders of national security. We don't mitigate conflicts to police other countries. We do it to uphold national security. As I have explained many times, social contract is the "nature of morality" and seeing how my opponent did not respond to this argument, this flows to my side. So lets sum up. First, he dropped 1 of my contentions and 2 of my applications. He has dropped half of my arguments! He has not responded to this and can not respond to the dropped arguments because we are in rebuttals. As any readers can see, he does not think national security is important based on the claims he has been making. Also he has failed to read my definitions or contentions, and therefore misinterpreted my claims and facts. So who do you want to vote for? Someone who upholds your national security and morally? Someone who is shooting for a status quo of safety? or Someone who doesn't value your security, someone who doesn't respect your morality. The choice is clear. Vote for safety, vote for your well being, vote of affirmative. Thank you