Serious human rights violations legitimize international military intervention

I know this is unorthodox and it is usually the affirmative speaker who defines it, but as I am going first, it appears that this responsibility falls to me. I define 'serious' in this context as a problem that requires some form of action, or at the very least, a demand for attention. I define 'human rights' as a right which belongs to each and every person, regardless of: status, age, gender, nationality, sex, beliefs and any other possible variable in this context. I define 'violations' as breaking the standard code or procedure. My definition for 'legitimize' is to allow or make allowances for under a circumstance. I define 'international' as all registered and formally recognized countries of the world. I define 'military' as legally recognised armed forces of a registered and recognized country. Lastly, I define 'intervention' as causing a disruption to normal procedure. Now, I will proceed with my substantive material: There have been countless examples of serious abuse of human rights over the course of the history of mankind. Some of these have included the holocaust, and in more recent times, torture in countries in the Middle East. These are inhumane and heinous crimes that go against the very fabric of human morality, and sneer at the likes of: compassion, empathy and sympathy. One of the worst aspects of this problem is that in most cases there was no help for the victims, no form of compensation, revenge, not even a guarantee that this toying with the fabric of morality would ever stop. There is often no help from the countries own armed forces, indeed they are disturbingly frequently involved in the heart of the brutal torture themselves. In these cases, armed military intervention of international sources is absolutely pivotal to upholding a key tenet of humanity in the victims, that of hope. Especially in third world countries, where this abuse of basic human rights happens more frequently, people have no means of protest against this indignity and this brutal torture. They cannot resort to arms without the appropriate resources and even if they did, the oppressive government would have no second thoughts about bombing or otherwise disposing of them in a violent massacre. In these cases, there is simply no other option for those caught in the pitiful quandary of having their basic rights discarded, apart from armed intervention. Now onto my second point: Without armed military intervention to restore order, the citizens who have lost their basic rights will resort to much more extreme measures in order to survive. With no hope, there will be a massive increase in the number of murders, robberies and other crimes, simply to attempt to escape from the problem which should never have existed in the first place. Without military intervention, countries will begin to fall apart over human rights violations, and costly civil wars will spread like grassfires. Today I have shown that armed military intervention is indeed necessary in case of serious violations of human rights because: The citizens that are being oppressed will be helpless without it. Civil bloodbaths will break out as a measure of desperation. To take away the basic human rights of people is undoubtedly unjust and cruel, and international military intervention is indeed needed to rectify this offence.