The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

I hope we both enjoy ourselves as well! My opponent says that I have not proven all obligations stem from morality. True. This is something he has to prove. My counter-definition argues that obligations may come from various sources - law, morality, promises, etc. My opponent's definition, if you recall, was "something you must do because it is morally right." Therefore he must prove that all obligations stem from morality. My opponent argues that he was using the Social Contract as John Locke intended it. I will overlook the obvious problem this creates of governing society based on times as they were centuries ago. Even Locke's social contract extended only to those who had given permission to live under it. Other communities would have established separate social contracts, so to speak. Locke's contract inherently excluded those without property, for example - hardly a benefit to national security. But we're not here to argue about Locke. That North Korea threatened the United States in a case directly involving the US and thus naturally justifying mediation. The safety of the United States was directly on the line. Its social contract was threatened because it was threatened. But what if North Korea had threatened, say, South Africa? Or Mongolia? How does the US, without a direct threat, have a moral obligation to mediate that conflict? Its social contract is not threatened. The Pax Romana supports international stability leading to national stability only through force. Unless force becomes part of my opponent's argument, then this claim is irrelevant. I move that it be dropped. My opponent's response to my critique of his 2nd application is interesting. However, he contradicts himself. If international stability leads to national stability, and international stability existed, why were countries like Germany, Greece, Turkey, England, and France unstable? Since my opponent acknowledges the instability within these countries and claims that international stability promotes national stability, then he must explain why, then, these countries were not stable. He dropped my point about conflict existing when Greece and Turkey went to war in 1920. Please extend this argument. This is an clear instance of conflict that would prevent a sense of international stability existing. The collapse of the Soviet Union may not have sparked any direct wars, but is my opponent really going to argue that it did not instigate disorder? Any time a superpower collapses, a vacuum fills its place. And, related to application 2, there are plenty of other instances of national instability in the 1990s. As noted in the Journal of International Money and Finance, Latin America launched several economic reforms that were ultimately failures in many aspects [1], and, as the Journal of International Affairs notes, Pakistan went through nine different governments in the 1990s [2] - hardly indicative of national security. If international stability promotes national stability, how did it fail for all these countries? My opponent claims that we invaded Iraq for our own safety. However, we know that there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How, then, was it in our safety to stay as long as we did? My opponent now claims that "if [a] country poses no threat to national security, we should not mitigate the conflict." This contradicts the entire resolution - that the US has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Nothing signifies that the US must be involved prior to mitigation. My opponent's point is my argument, and if he believes it, then he may as well concede the debate to me. I am arguing that the US does not have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. I challenge my opponent to explain how the US can mitigate a conflict without becoming involved. Whether the US sends one soldier or hosts peace talks, it is becoming involved in the affairs of other countries. My opponent argues that if US involvement makes the conflict worse, they have not mitigated it. True. But my opponent must stand by them having a moral obligation to try or else lose the debate. My argument is that US attempts to mitigate conflict have resulted in larger, more severe conflicts. Whether or not mitigation failed does not impact whether or not the US had a moral obligation to try, though my opponent falsely claims it does. Unless the affairs directly concerned the US, I do not believe they had a moral obligation to get involved and mediate the conflicts. Under the resolution, for example, if Scotland were to declare independence and begin a war with Britain, the US would have a moral obligation to get involved. I am arguing against that idea. However, when the affairs present a clear and present danger to the United States, the US certainly has an obligation, though not necessarily a moral one, to intervene. Again, my opponent must prove that obligations only come from morality. My opponent completely dropped my arguments about alternative threats to national stability besides international conflicts; therefore he concedes these arguments. Please extend them. I look forward to my opponent's responses in round 3! As it is the final round, I shall try and refrain from constructing any new arguments. For all the reasons above, please vote CON! [1] http://www.anderson.ucla.edu... [2] http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu...