The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.

You seem to be saying that the United States should not mitigate international affairs. You have said that countries hate us for getting involved, and how the last four wars have resulted in failure. You clearly believe the United States should not mitigate international affairs. However that is not the resolution. The resolution is: The United States HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION to mitigate international conflicts. We are not debating whether or not we should get involved, we are debating whether they have a moral obligation to. I personally do not think that we should get involved, but we still have a moral obligation to. You said it in your first paragraph. The United States, or any country, has a moral obligation to get involved in conflicts. by saying that, you are supporting my side of the resolution, since that is the phrase we are debating. I am not saying that the United States should or should not get involved in foreign affairs, nor am I saying that the United States' moral obligation to not get involved is stronger than their moral obligation to get involved, all I am saying is that the United States has a moral obligation to get involved. Let me offer you an example to clarify. Lets say there were three people, tom, joe, and smith. If smith was being abused by joe, Tom has a moral obligation to help smith. However, lets say joe had a gun, and tom does not want to risk getting injured just to help smith. Does this stop tom from having a moral obligation to help smith? no it is simply saying that Tom's moral obligation to protect himself is stronger than his moral obligation to help smith. So no matter what the US should do, or what the United States should not do, The united states has a moral obligation to help countries. Since this is the last argument of the last round, I would like to present 3 voting issues. 3 reasons why the people reading this round should vote with me for this resolution. 1. No matter what you believe, this is the side for you. If you believe the US should mitigate international conflicts, or whether you believe the US should not mitigate international conflicts, you can, with a clean conscience, vote with me today. Remember, the resolution says nothing about whether the US should or should not mitigate international conflicts, it is only talking about moral obligations. 2. My side and arguments are undeniable. It is undeniable to say that the US has a moral obligation to help countries in need. It is also undeniable to say that the United States has a moral obligation to protect its people. It has a moral obligation to do both. Whatever obligation is stronger will be the determining factor. Even if the US has a stronger moral obligation to protect its people, it still has a moral obligtion to help the countries in need. 3. My opponent. As my third voting issue, I would like to bring up my opponent's case. After my first speech, he simply was talking about how the United States should not mitigate international conflicts. Same with his second speech. This is not on topic. We are not debating whether the United States should mitigate international conflicts. We are simple talking about whether they have a moral obligation. For all these reasons, please vote with me in saying the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Thanks!