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

Pro is correct in stating that he did not explicitly name the USFG as the actor in the resolution. Just as in our last (now deleted) debate, my error in my comprehending the debate's terms has rendered my entire constructive case to be irrelevant. .. I therefore drop the constructive. It was not necessary anyhow, as the burden of proof was upon Pro to affirm the positive claim made in the resolution-- that the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts-- and he has not successfully done so. His entire case is based on the bare assertion that "innocent life is intrinsically valuable". He states that "innocent life is valuable because it is innocent life," admits that it is circular logic, yet still claims that his premise is valid. This is completely baseless and self-contradictory. Innocent life, as defined, refers to those who are not involved in the conflict at hand; there is nothing morally 'valuable' about that-- it is morally neutral at best. I could just as easily put forth my own alternative value of "national sovereignty", justify it by the same circular logic Pro is using, and then argue that foreign involvement (i. e. mitigation) without consent is unjust because it is a violation of that sovereignty. But such an approach would be flawed because I need to justify the existence of inviolable sovereignty before making an argument based entirely in it. Similarly, Pro needs to justify innocent life having intrinsic value before he can make his case. Since he has not done so, his case fails, and the resolution is negated. On the subject of my second rebuttal. .. Pro, in attempting to affirm the resolution, is claiming that mitigation is best way to fulfill to overarching obligation to protect innocent lives during international conflicts (and thus there is an obligation to mitigate); I am arguing that mitigation of those conflicts is *not* the best way to protect innocents due to its counter-productive consequences, and that humanitarian aid or total neutrality would be preferable. This negates the resolution, which specifically refers to an obligation to mitigate those conflicts. My rebuttal does *not* ignore Pro's argument regarding obligations vs. consequences, as Pro assumes. To use Pro's analogy, Pro's "obligation to mitigate" is the equivalent of an obligation to deliver the Heimlich maneuver to a drowning man. Pro's only makes one specific response to my argument-- that there are "other forms of mitigation" outside of military intervention, but he declines to name or demonstrate the efficacy of even one alternative. For that reason alone, we can reject his response. In the modern world, diplomacy is ineffective and only results in increased tensions, as the world's biggest "trouble-makers" (i. e. China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. ) have very little respect for (or fear of) the United States and other international authorities such as the UN. No form of mitigation is effective, often being counter-productive instead. In conclusion, the underlying premise of Pro's case is wholly unwarranted. Even if we assume that it is true, we only derive an obligation to save innocents in international conflicts, and I have shown that mitigating international conflicts would actually work against that obligation; military intervention is generally the only feasible form of mitigation, and Pro concedes that it is harmful. Thus, even if we accept Pro's premise (which we shouldn't), the claim in the resolution is not affirmed. Thanks to AOG for the debate!