American Isolation is a Good Thing

So in the final round, my opponent reveals the issue here. We are operating on different definitions of Isolationism. He claims that since he said, "My argument is that America should choose not to intervene in global politics and that by doing so hurts itself."See this is very unclear. Just because that's your argument doesn't mean that's what Isolationism is. For instance, I could make a debate that says, 'Abortion is bad', and begin with, 'my argument is that it hurts the unborn'. 'Hurts the unborn' isn't necessarily the definition of abortion, rather it's just where I'm coming from. My opponent should have defined Isolationism from the start of the debate. Why should I be punished for his lack of clarification? Had there been any doubt in my mind going in, I would've asked him to define it, but I thought Isolationism meant no interaction with other countries, period. Now I know what you're thinking, 'that wasn't a summary right there'. I know, however, I only did that because my opponent has been debating me on the economics of the issue the whole time as if he accepted my definition of Isolationism, only to try to sneak a new definition in the last round. Therefore I feel my new argument is justified, as it is in response to a new argument from my opponent. SUMMARYMy opponent and I had three major battlegrounds here. 1) InterventionismIf we adopt Isolationism, we are forced to stand by as countries fall apart that we could've helped. It is true that many of our current foreign policies are questionable, but that does not mean Isolationism is good. What would be good for people is an America that does not meddle for its own benefit (current policy) or stand by indifferently (Isolationism), but a reformed version of our current policy. The best example I provide is the third option in Haiti. There are three things we could be doing for Haiti. One, we could do nothing. Two, we could do what we're doing right now, which is questionable. Three, we could practice a reformed policy, where we help them rebuild their farms and get on with their lives. If we practice Isolationism, we cannot do that.There's plenty of things we can help with around the world. 2) OutsourcingMy opponent mostly repeated himself, talking about the poor conditions of the jobs. As I have stated earlier, this sections doesn't even need Isolationism. You could stop outsourcing without practicing Isolationism. You could improve the working conditions of jobs without Isolationism. You could stop giving tax subsidies to these big businesses without practicing Isolationism. Aside from that, my opponent failed to show that the outsourced jobs weren't a lesser evil, so we can rest on the fact that taking these jobs away would ultimately be harmful.3) EconomicsAll my opponent did was talk about how we have a high GDP, and when pressed to explain how we have such a great GDP, he was never able to show that we'd be able to do it without outside trade. His example of our economic actions in the 1800s falls apart under cursory observation. I have shown that half our trade is imports, that we are able to buy so much because we import cheap goods, and that 60% of our oil is imported. I have shown that without all of these things in place the average american's spending power would take a hit, and then so would our GDP. Final statement:Though Isolationism would probably be better than our current policy, it is still bad when you look at all the opportunities to help we'd be neglecting, and all the damage it'd do to our economy, and our people.