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

It's a very interesting topic, and I was worried that no one was up for it. This is my first real debate, so we'll see how it goes. Before I proceed to rebut my opponent's arguments I think it's necessary to point out that my opponent neglected to rebut any of my points. My argument is simple: contractual obligations give rise to moral obligations (I support this with a basic analysis of social contract theory), and there is a contractual obligation on the part of the United States to mitigate international conflicts. It's a simple syllogism, and there can only be one conclusion: the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. My opponent made no effort to counter my topical analysis, my evidence, or even the syllogism itself. In fact, I'm not even sure he read my argument. In context of debate, when an argument goes unaddressed it is inherently and implicitly accepted. For my opponent to fail to address my argument in any way is in essence him forfeiting the debate. But that's a shitty way to win =D. For the sake of the debate, I will show very clearly that my opponent's arguments are A. non-topical and B. do not prove that America does not have this moral obligation. For the sake of clarity I will put markings on each distinguishable argument of my opponent, making it easier for me to rebut and for you to follow. 1. Harboggles starts his argument by presenting a cursory and bare bones analysis of four wars in recent American history: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the War in Iraq. He chalks the first two up to be motivated by a legitimate fear of the spread of Communism and he chalks the last two up to be motivated by a legitimate fear of instability in the oil market. 2. He then continues to point out that the United States has not declared war since World War II. I'm not quite sure why this is significant and neither, it seems, is my opponent. His argument continues in this unguided manner: he says that there are many conflicts all over the world that the United States is not involved in. Okay? He says that problems in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe are rooted in economic instability. Okay? 3. His last paragraph holds his most coherent argument, which is that America's "primary moral obligation is to restore the rights of people in our country . . . before we even CONSIDER helping other countries. " I will address these arguments in order. 1. For him to say that in the past, American intervention was never motivated by interests of promoting peace is both A. wrong and B. non-topical. For instance, in our intervention in the Bosnia-Serbia conflict in the 1990s, there was very little strategic gain to be had from the mission. There was no oil, no democracy to prop up, no communism to defend against, and no Al Qaeda to kill. There was just genocide, injustice, and persecution that needed to end. It's pretty clear that our intervention was motivated by our desire to promote human rights. Furthermore, even if I accept what you argue to be true, why does this therefore prove the resolution wrong? So what if America has acted with ulterior motives in the past? Does this therefore mean that we don't have the moral obligation? Think about this example: A policeman's obligation is to keep the peace. If he accepts a bribe and looks the other way when a murder happens, does this therefore mean that his obligation to keep the peace no longer exists? Of course not! Your argument is simply non-topical and doesn't prevent a compelling case to vote Con. 2. I'm grouping these various statements together because they are unguided and don't seem to contribute to the debate, but they're worth responding to. First of all, why does it matter that America has not waged war since WWII? Mitigating international conflict does not immediately entail a military invasion. It could mean diplomacy, international sanctions, appeals to the UN, sending doctors and foodstuffs. Second of all, why does it matter that there are many conflicts in the world that America is not involved in? Like I demonstrated earlier, just because we fail to uphold our moral obligation does not mean that our moral obligation does not exist. And finally, when you say that the conflicts in Sudan and Zimbabwe are deeply rooted economic issues, how does this therefore mean we should vote Con? And why does this therefore mean that American should not mediate the conflict with, say, diplomacy or economic aid? All of these arguments are misguided and fail to prove anything. 3. This is my opponent's most coherent argument. He says that we have a more important moral obligation, which is to help ourselves before we help others. Regardless of whether or not I agree with him, I'd just like to point out that competing moral obligations can exist, even in contradiction. If I see a mugger assaulting a young woman in a dark alley, even though I want to run in and punch the guy in the face, my moral obligation to protect those in need contradicts my moral obligation to not hurt others. In this situation, they can both exist concurrently, and I can simply choose to value one more. In this case, I'd punch the mugger right in the chin. Both moral obligations still exist =D In other words, the resolution only asks that the affirmative prove that a single obligation exists; how that obligation is weighed against competing obligations does not fall within the scope of the resolution. A car salesman has an obligation to provide for his family, which translates into an obligation to sell as many cars as possible. There is a competing obligation to not lie or misrepresent his products, even though he could probably sell more cars if he did. Both obligations exist, and they are mutually exclusive to some extent; however, acting on one does not remove the other because the obligations have self-contained value. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote Pro. ~Aietius