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

Nice rebuttal, Harboggles. It's much more fun to debate when we're talking about the same thing =P! I will start by responding to the arguments given by in my opponent's 2nd round and will finish up by crystallizing why I won this debate. My opponent begins his rebuttal by critically analyzing the contact between the United States and the United Nations. He argues that all actions must be approved by the UN, otherwise all nations would be able to invade other nations under pretext of "aid." His assumptions require quite a leap of faith, and I would like to note that he provides evidence for none of it. Every argument that I have given has had substantial evidence. He then goes on to say that the US has no moral authority to be the world police, and the world agrees. However, this is irrelevant and non-topical. I'm not saying America should intervene in every conflict nor am I advocating for more military force. All I am saying is that the moral obligation exists to mitigate international conflict. We ALSO have the moral obligation to respect the sovereignty of our neighbors! Like I explained multiple times in both my Round 1 argument and my Round 2 argument, multiple moral obligations can exist, even in contradiction of eachother. Ultimately, my opponent completely ignored the second part of the minor premise of my syllogism. For the purpose of clarity, I'll briefly resummarize what I'm referring to. Major Premise: Contractual obligations give rise to moral obligations, according to Rousseau and the Social Contract Theory Minor Premise: America has contractual obligations to mitigate international conflicts, with two examples: 1) US signed UN Charter in 1948, obligated to promote human rights, save generations from scourge of war. "All members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter." 2) The United States has a contractual obligation TO ITS CITIZENS as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to protect the people, including from international conflicts. Since international conflicts affect US citizens, and the US has a contractual obligation to mitigate harms done to US citizens, the US therefore has a contractual obligation to mitigate international conflict. "As the world is becoming more integrated, the range of factors that influence both national and international peace and security has expanded. Threats to national and international well-being can arise from environmental, social, economic and human rights problems, as well as from traditional military sources. For example, social conflict in one area of the world can interrupt the supply of goods and services to countries across the globe, as well as cause human migrations that overtax the resources of other countries and internationalize local conflicts." We can see then, that because international conflicts negatively affect the citizens of the United States, the government is contractually obligated to mitigate them. This argument was completely ignored by my opponent, even though I brought it up in the 1st Round. As can be seen, I have successfully proven that A. contractual obligations give rise to moral obligations (which my opponent agreed with) and B. the United States has a contractual obligation to mitigate international conflict. THEREFORE: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict. It's a simple syllogism, and it's a shame that my opponent has failed to respond to it successfully. As such, I urge an Affirmative (Pro) vote. ~Aietius