The United States is too involved in Middle Eastern affairs

Democracy: "a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges." - Dictionary.com "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges" - Marriam Webster "a social condition of classlessness and equality" thefreedictionary.com I disagree that my definitions of Democracy are wrong, in the three credible sources these definitions were found right under your definition, i really surprised you missed these so easily. Any society that strives to be classless and equal must recognize that all people in their society or not have the same rights and are excluded due to "the absence of hereditary of arbitrary class distinctions". This means, on a fundamental level, every person born has the same rights. These rights do not differ person to person based on race, religion, socioeconomic status, location. These rights are free of "Hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions" such as the random circumstances of birth, which means if you are born outside the US borders you still have the same fundamental human rights as citizens of the country, because these are not citizen rights or societal rights they are human rights which are universal throughout the species. The concept of people in a democratic society having the responsibility to pursue the rights of humanity is an abstract one and people don't "get rights" from the direct perversion them. It is impossible for a democratic society to ignore human rights violations because by doing this they are taking away the very structure that makes their society run. To ignore the infringement of rights is to recognize that some people do not have them, and if some people do not have these rights then they are not a universal set of rights like put forth in the declaration of independence and the constitution and thus the people of the society have just as little claim to those rights as the people whose governments take them away. You asked, "why is it that the US has only been focusing on primarily the Middle East?" I must have been confused when I wrote the other response i took the fact that you used only been focusing to mean only been focusing and disregarded the fact that you said primarily because if you are only focusing on something you can't be dividing your time between primary and secondary tasks. I as well didn't list any of these conflicts because you had said we do not pay attention to Belarus, Maynard, China, Somalia, Venezuela. Which is wrong and is all the defense that statement needs. Also I mentioned the embargo on Cuba being in place for societal reasons much like our involvement in other countries. America's foreign policy reflects it's societal principles. This is what this whole debate is about. for you to say: "Militant groups in the Middle East dont hate our "American principles" they hate our foreign policy regarding the Middle East, support for Israel, etc. Osama said that himself in his ultimatum following 9/11" turns this debate back to square one. Every platform i have made has been to identify the fact that US foreign policy in regards to the middle east has been a reflection on a democratic societies principles of universal freedom and self governance. This is also coupled with the fact that of course religious extremists who pursue a state of minority rule and theocratic oppression would be opposed to American involvement in the middle east, if we were not there they would be able to take over and control the people. A straw man is a logical fallacy is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. I can give you an example of this for future reference, If i make a claim that a society recognizes that all people in their species is born with unalienable rights and you give me the definition of society and species and claim they are different and therefore my claim that people in a society must recognize that their universal rights extend out beyond their society is wrong. That is a straw-man. All the reasons I have laid out have not been correctly responded to. Instead the Pro has cherry-picked definitions from credible sources disregarding the fact that I made the distinction between a governmental democracy and a societal democracy in the first line of my first post. These independent nations have no right, in the eyes of a democratic society, to be independent if there is oppression of the people. A society must be aware of it's surroundings and protect people who are born into a state where they are treated unfairly due to the random circumstances of their birth and have no avenue to change the way that government governs over their society. If there is anything history can teach us it is that governments are their for the people not the other way around. Societies are what must be preserved and government who stifle their societies must be crushed and the power given back to the people. As well another logical fallacy is ad hominem, such as commenting on someones grammar or spelling. It doesn't address a topic or use logic to justify your point it's just a little jab you can put at the end of your posts to leave the readers with an unwarranted sense of incredibility towards your opponent.