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

Final Focus: This is where all the arguments are weighed. No new contentions. Let's look at the reliability of each sides' sources: My opponent's: http://www.ncjrs.gov... I accessed this source, I saw only this: "Incorrect Id passed." http://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com... you search this up on Google, it says "Welcome to the New Beyond the Cusp. BTC is an opinion and viewpoint blog." This obviously is not a very reliable source. Mine: http://www.npr.org... opponent probably copied and pasted the link. The link works fine on my computer. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11--This is arbitrary? geography.about.com--If my opponent agrees that there are 23 countries in the Middle East this source isn't needed. planet debate/past debates--The former is used by my high school debate team as a source. It has to be reliable. The latter is accepted as a valid source in high school debate. Next let's weigh both sides' contentions. My contentions: #1 Democracy promotion does not set up a successful democracy--My opponent has given some counterexamples, namely Germany and Japan, but Germany and Japan were world powers and presently we are trying to promote democracy in an impoverished region. We've tried that before and failed during the Vietnam War. We are likely to fail again in the Middle East, due to its similarity to Vietnam. #2 The fate of other nations is none of our business--My opponent tries to argue that Middle Eastern economics and terrorism affect the US. The only way that Middle Eastern economy can affect the US economy is through oil. The US already has allies which supply it with adequate oil. Most Middle Eastern terrorist groups only attack Israel, and thus don't affect the US in any way. #3 Intervention is expensive--My opponent does not even address this contention, and thus he concedes that intervention is expensive. This can be clearly outlined by the alleged successful democracy in Iraq. The Iraq War cost us $800 billion. If we set up democracies in the other Middle Eastern countries, the total cost would exceed $800 billion times 20, or $16 trillion ($3-4 trillion more than our current national debt). The expenses of democracy promotion would far outweigh any economic benefits we can get from the Middle East, seeing as we already have all the benefits. My opponent's contentions: #1 Democracy promotion sets up successful democracies--The US may be able to set up democracies in countries like Germany and Japan, but Germany and Japan had the finances to set up a successful democracy. Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries don't, so there is no guarantee that the US will set up a successful democracy in the Middle East. #2 Foreign Governments affect the US A:True, economies of other nations can significantly affect the US economy, but only if those nations have valuable resources that the US wants. We already have certain ally countries that supply us with oil, so the economies of other oil nations is none of our business. B:First, this only affects Israel, as mentioned before. The only terrorist group that has attacked the US is the one that was led by Osama, and we have killed Osama. Second, democracy promotion would not reduce the amount of terrorism, since democracy promotion does not solve the problem of hate. A better solution to terrorism is reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors. Finally, let's weigh the crossfires. My opponent has asked me no questions this entire debate. In effect, he is conceding to every one of my points, since otherwise he would question me on their validity. In a real PF round, major points are taken for being recessive during crossfire. In crossfire 1, my opponent's answer to the question "Can human rights violations be resolved with just military intervention, or do we have to set up a successful democracy?" was "Sometimes setting up a democracy involves military intervention, the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. But sometimes not, Germany, Japan." This is an obvious attempt to avoid the question, and therefore he concedes that just military intervention will solve human rights issues. In crossfire 2, for question 1, my opponent concedes that the Nazi war machine was militarily very strong, which means it must be economically strong (one needs money to build tank destroyers and fighter jets). Thus Germany was a world power before WWII, so of course it would be able to set up a successful democracy after WWII. For question 2, he claims that Stalin lifted the Berlin Blockade to improve public relations, but when did Stalin ever care about public relations? The Berlin Blockade was lifted not out of pressure from foreign nations, but out of the blockade's ineffectiveness due to the Berlin Airlift. This effectively proves that the people of West Berlin did not starve under the "corrupt leaders" of their fledgling democracy, and thus my opponent lacks any clear evidence that the democracies in Germany and Japan were corrupt to begin with. For question 4, my opponent states that "Palestine is the only country attacking Israel"and thus implies that we don't need to worry about Israel. His sub-point B in his 2nd contention falls, since it is out of concern for Israel that we fight terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. For question 5, he quotes a website that says on its home page that "BTC is an opinion and viewpoint blog" and thus is not a very reliable source. For question 6, my opponent claims that we weren't intervening when we retaliated against Japan. This may be true, but we were intervening when we attacked Germany. Thus democracy promotion so far on the part of the US has resulted in military intervention. For question 7, my opponent concedes that we have a military presence in Germany and Japan, thus maintaining complete control over their affairs. He then states that Hitlers would have rebelled against the existing democracy. Do power hungry people hate democracy so much that rebelling against it is worth political suicide? Because political death would befall anyone who was rash enough to oppose the US in a US controlled area. For question 8, my opponent states that most of allies are both democratic and our war allies. But the factor that weighs more is the latter one, otherwise we would not be allies with Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. For question 9, my opponent claims that "Same government usually means same ideals". Usually, this statement is true. Unfortunately, the ideological differences between Israel and its neighbors far outweigh any ideals that they may share if they were all democracies. Thus, it's easier to maintain peace in the Middle East by reconciling Israel and its neighbors than promoting democracy in 2 different nations. For question 10, we support a corrupt leader to keep out communism, and we support a corrupt leader to promote democracy. Either way the goal is to further US interests, and the means are almost the same. For question 11, my opponent claims that we need Middle Eastern allies to supply us with oil. We already have Middle Eastern allies. Conclusions: 1. My opponent's contentions are just rebuttals to my contentions. 2. I have refuted my opponent's contentions, and thus my points still stand. 3. My opponent refuses to ask me questions during crossfires, and thus concedes to my points. 4. My opponent uses unreliable sources to answer my crossfire questions, and thus any points he makes in the crossfires are void. 5. I have verified the reliability of my own sources, and thus my sources are more reliable than my opponent's.