The United States ought to be Isolationist

If we find that Isolationism is not moral, than by Pro's definitions, the resolution can not be affirmed.Argument I: Evidence Against Isolationism.Pro's first argument assumes that because the US wouldn't get involved in other nations, that we are safer. This has been proven false in almost every era of history.The US practiced isolationism for much of it's early life, including before World War I and World War II (1). We found that this led to a weak US power, with a nearly non-existent military. When Pearl Harbor happened (read: attacked during isolationist period), the US wasn't ready, and had little to any military (2). This made the war incredibly expansive, and caused the US to send an inexperienced army up against and encounter numerous major defeats against Italian and German soldiers in Africa. Isolationist principles became popular because of the troubles of war, but as WWII shown, Isolationist principles lead to greater problems. Isolationism didn't protect the US here at all (3). Many were, rightly, concerned that despite US isolationism during World War II, if Germany/Italy had established hegemony in Europe. and Japan did the same in Asia, the US would be in danger.As Australia and Canada shows, world affairs like ISIS affect one's nation, regardless of how much you ignore them. There is further evidence against Isolationism that exceeds war, but I'll explain those in my next few Arguments/Rebuttals. Argument II: US Interests.Not all National Interests are caused by a lack of isolationism. This includes trade, and the maintaining of strategic locations. To becomes isolationist, the US would lose billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth in interests a year. This includes maintaining Oil in USDs. While many think this attitude is bad, in reality, if China were to intervene and nationalize oil, selling it in their currency, it would have negative effects on Europe, and would cripple the US economy. By maintaining a high demand for USD's, the US keeps the value of the dollar high, and ensures other nations want to buy the dollar. Maintaining this interest is vital for the US economy.Nations depend on a secure external enviroment for things like trade. Assuming ISIS conquered Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (4), and Syria (the four most likely to be attacked), it would own literally 20.98% of the World's oil production (5). They could cripple Europe, who gets 25% of their supply from that region. If it conquered the surrounding nations, it could own as much as 30% of the world's oil production. The group has already began selling oil from it's conquered areas (6). For any given group to conquer that small region would endager the US greatly, if the 1973 Oil Crisis shows us anything. US Interests (or the Interests of many nations) are built into the world like sand in a beach. They exist because we exist, and isolation doesn't make those interests any less real or serious. The US maintains interests abroad because it must, not because it can't keep out. To think the world only effects the US if the US pays attention to it is a grave error.Argument III: Moral Obligation.Isolationism has major moral implications. In WWII, Isolationism was one of 4 issues that led to a lack of empathy towards victims of the Holocaust. Isolationism led to a refugee policy in both the US and Switzerland that harmed Jewish victims greatly (7). Isolationism is often followed by selfishally ignorance of major world problems. To put this into a personal viewpoint. This is like an NRA rally seeing a murder in progress, and not intervening because they had a 'moral' obligation to worry only about their own saftey. This selfish principle is considerably the opposite of moral. Rebuttal I: Success Rate.Pro brings up three nations; Switzerland, Japan, and China. Japan and China are ironic examples. The results of Isolationism on these nations are quite opposite of Pro's assumption. They were forcibly made to break their Isolation by Western forces. Isolationism did not protect them from the rest of the world, but it did make them very vulnerable. The two nations became industrially, militarily, and economically backwards. Isolationism only harmed the nations, and guaranteed their defeats (8).Switzerland survived world history because of the mountains and a militarized population. But it's questionable if they could survive a major war today, where mountains aren't as influential like in WWII. Switzerland's benefit was that they weren't worth the high cost of fighting them. Even than, Pro's WWII claim is historically wrong. Hitler fully planned to invade Switzerland (9). If Germany hadn't lost on the Eastern Front, Switzerland would have been invaded, and would likely have lost. Switzerland had to enact massive spending increases to hopefully defend against Germany. If not conquered, they would still have been surrounded by German and Italian fascists, a situation worse than most any other. Staying neutral only saved them because of the US and USSR intervention, the formal of which hurts Pro's case. If the US had remained Isolationist, Switzerland's neutrality would have failed.Rebuttal II: Better Education.To tackle Pro's concern about Education. The US tops the list as either 3rd or 1st highest spending nation per student (10, 11). Pro's number also lacks context. As ACE puts it, if University A has an 80% graduation rate, and University B has 50%, it doesn't mean University A is bettter. University A might only accept the top 30% of applicants, while University B accepts any application (12). In fact, there are a lot major issues with Pro's use of OCED's study, from the quality of diplomas, to inflated graduation rates (13).Conclusion: Isolationism did NOT work in WWI, WWII, or for Japan and China. Isolationism also hurts nations in a heavily connected world where the actions in another continent greatly ripples to every other nation (ISIS, for example.) And Isolationism is not moral.Sources: http://tny.cz...