The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

Indeed, if my opponent paid any attention to these sources, he would have easily found they were the sources from an article on "The 20th Century Russian Civil War" However, only some of the sources listed on the article were supporting my side. These sources are books, most long books, about the Russian Civil War. This is where the article got the information, and are credible sources. I don't know why my opponent has a problem with this, but he obviously has a problem with credible sources. My opponent made a claim about how the Civil War didn't just affect one country, but he failed to support it. Any half way good debater knows you have to support your claim, which is exactly what my opponent didn't do. I will now proceed to tell you WHY it only affects one country. Keep in mind this was a civil war. Little military aid was offered or accepted, because this was a civil war. However I must make a claim about the other side of the same coin. There were around 14 countries trying to "create a power" that would help Russia. These troops made it inside of Russia, but soon came out again because they were risking loss with their poor strategic planning. As a result, very few troops died, and little money was spent on the transportation of the soldiers. Money on weapons was kept at a minimum because the countries just used their own military supplies. Reduced Military aid alone reduces the impact the war has on other people, because now other countries aren't losing money or troops. To add to that, the Russian Civil War stayed in Russia. Few battles were fought outside of Russia, keeping the conflict inside Russia, and most of the impact inside Russia. Additionally, lets address the other side of this. The troops that did enter Russia, most of them entering Russia in 1920, withdrew later that SAME YEAR. Keeping foreign troops at a minimum help reduce foreign impact. Lets look at some economics supporting this claim. Russia's government as a "Soviet Union" was established 1920 and 1921.This whole idea was a communist idea, and became a communist government. Communism economics is based, as you hopefully know, on a classless, moneyless, social order based on common ownership on the means of production, among other things. So when the majority of this war was fought (1918 to 1925), they were under a communist government. Why does communism limit foreign impact? It is there sole economics of common wealth that make other countries not as affected by losses occurring inside Russia. The main reason other countries are affected so much, is because money is borrowed, troops are stationed, and money on aid is spent. But with common wealth, and the other two things I explained, all three of these are at least reduced. So of course there was some foreign impact, but not an extreme amount amount. Again my opponent is being disrespectful by saying I have a "complete lack of knowledge of modern world and US-history" that is extremely disrespectful and rude, only hurting him further. On his next point, again my opponent is being disrespectful. In future arguments I would appreciate if he would make his claim without being a twit about it. On to address the argument. My opponent is accusing me of dropping the argument of WW1, when that has been one of my and my opponent's main arguments. I have addressed it every speech, and now my opponent has the boldness to say I dropped it. That set aside, I will now explain why WW1 was during a period of international stability. Here is a list of 15 countries: France, Greece, Brazil, China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Liberia, Panama, Portugal, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and Cuba. Out of these countries, the ones that were unstable and their amount they were unstable were(approximately): France 25%, Russia, 80%, Germany 90%, Uk 30%. Like I said, these are only approximate, but they still show instabiilty. I have conducted research on these countries, and the ones that were unstable are listed there. The rest were getting along fine, and were mainly focused on growth, resulting in stability. In addition, the term "International Stability" is fulfilled by the fact that the 11 countries above that were stable, were not having conflict with each other. This is why we have international stability. Under his next point, unfortunately he never defined how a proper debate is supposed to be held, so he can not make any judgements. Second, my sources are from various articles, but they do not go unchecked. I do not blindly copy and paste the list in without researching the sources which I am using. Whats shameless is that he is judging when he never defined how a debate should go. He can not make this claim.Under his next point, I make an astounding discovery. My opponent is blind. He claims I have not explained this nature of morality nor have I explained the status quo idealisticly. Why is my opponent saying I didn't say something when it was clearly in my last speech? Maybe he is that desperate to win, and doesn't care about the readers' voters, and my security. This whole 1st point under his argument should be dropped because he was making false claims that any one with half a brain could prove wrong. Under his second point, He agrees the US has a moral obligation to its own citizens. EXACTLY! Because the US has a moral obligation to its own citizens, he is admitting, first, that countries can have a moral obligation, and second, that the US has a moral obligation to keep them safe (national security). Because the US has a moral obligation to keep the people safe, they have a moral obligation to the means by which they will do so. I will now proceed to explain morality in even further detail than I did in my last speech. Morality is a hard issue to grasp. I am sure my opponent agrees that we should all do whats moral. So if we should do whats moral, where does that leave the government. That goes into the government has different morals than us. For instance, we don't have a moral obligation to another state to protect their rights, but the government does. Like I have said so many times, but because my opponent is blind I am forced to say this again, we are not "policing" the world for the sake of "policing" the world. We are doing it to uphold our national security. We can not be international state police, because we don't have the responsibility to police the world. We only police the world when it is necessary, making us not have the dedication that international state police have. If we were international state police, we would have gotten involved in Syria, but because Syria didn't directly harm our national security, we didn't get involved. No police does that. Police are there for EVERYONE. The US is here for its people. Once again he claimed his 2 points remained unaddressed, when I have addressed both of them, further proving his blindness. I will now present 4 voting issues. These are 4 reasons why overall, voters should vote for pro on their ballot. 1. Dropped arguments Let review a complete list of all the dropped arguments. My original Ct.1: He agreed with making me win this argument My original Ct. 2: He only addressed my second application leaving 2 other applications unaddressed. My original Ct.3: He dropped leading to a running number of 3 dropped arguments 3 DROPPED ARGUMENTS! That's a big deal, because if he dropped these arguments, it shows one of three things. One, my opponent didn't read carefully enough and didn't respond because he didn't know that argument existed in the first place. Second, my opponent agreed with the argument so he dropped it. Or third, my opponent couldn't think of a way to refute it so he dropped it. In any of these circumstances, I would win the argument. Therefore, I already have 3 arguments that I have won. 2. Blindness sucks doesn't it? My opponent is being extremely careless. He is claiming I have left arguments unresponded when I have clearly addressed them in my last speech. This shows either a deceitful attitude, or a careless mind. Either way, is that the person you want to vote for? Someone who is being careless with his work? I would think not. 3. No, guns are not necessary. Guns are not necessary for anyone to be safe. It is the government's job to keep you safe, and to uphold your national security. According to my opponent, we shouldn't have our national security valued. He is saying that it is not moral for the government to keep you safe! Do you want to vote for someone who doesn't value your security, who believes the government doesn't have moral obligation to the means by which to keep you safe and happy? Again, I think not. If you vote for me, you are voting for your safety, your general welfare, and your security. 4. Lacking historical knowledge eh? Here is an important point. Especially in the last couple speeches, there has been quite a mix up with the sources concerning my opponents and my evidence. But I want to make a very important statement. Sources are sources. As long as you reviewed the sources, which I most certainly did, and they are written by a scholar who has studied history, then they are credible. I don't know why my opponent has such a problem. So lets sum up this entire debate round. I ran a value of national security, showing you I support and care about security. I ran a criterion of social contract, showing that I care about the people's and the government's morality. I have run an argument that shows I value security extremely highly. So the choice is yours. Are you going to vote for your security and morality. Are you going to vote for your happiness and general welfare. Or are you going to vote for someone who doesn't understand how important your security and morality is. The choice hopefully is clear. Vote for a safe future, vote for a moral future. Vote for a future where you know, that, no matter what happens in the world around you, your government will keep you safe, vote for Pro