The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

A point of order: In his last rebuttal the opponent cites a wide array of sources, supposedly to support his case. But what the instigator has done is simply copied a list of references of a Wikipedia article. In other words, he has cited sources he does not know in support of a claim that even this Wikipedia article, which itself sets the total amount of casualties at 3 million deaths, clearly denies. Adding to that, the statement made by the opponent, that the Russian Civil War (and I quote) "happened in one country, involved one country, effected one country, and was only potentially harming one country" is ludicrous. To even suggest that the impact of the Russian Civil War and its outcome only affected Russia is preposterous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of modern world and US-history. In this discussion the most pivotal case to be made is that about the nature of [morality], but I find it impossible not to chastise the instigator at this point. My opponent claims that the post-World War I world was one of great international stability (and therefore, as claimed by the instigator, that international stability equals safety for US citizens) has been utterly proven to be false. The opponent however has not gone on to concede the point or " in line with a common debate tactic " avoided mentioning it in following rebuttals, but has lowered himself to ignoring authorities sources while providing false citations "in support" of what can only be described as his own uninformed, historically incorrect and ridiculous opinion. This is not how a proper debate is held and I consider this behavior shameful and " in light of the obvious and blatant incorrectness of the statements made - shameless. The true matter at hand: 1)My opponent still claims that the US has a "moral obligation" to uphold national security for its citizens, and that it, in doing so, needs to intervene in the worlds affairs to preserve the status quo in favor of the United States. He has yet (this is the 3rd time I ask for this) to explain the exact nature of this supposed moral obligation to intervene in world affair nor has he defined this ideal status quo and I cordially challenge him to try a third time. 2)Though he has yet again tries to obscure the fact, the opponent still claim that the US has a "moral obligation" intervene in international conflicts as a global policeman or mediator. I repeat yet again that the only true obligation the US has is towards its own citizens, and I repeat my question to my opponent (again, for a third time) for him to explain the exact nature of this "morality", that is, the moral philosophy behind his idea that the US should play the role of any form of international state police. To this I add, in light of my opening in this rebuttal, that I would find it insulting, not just towards me but towards any reader, if the instigator in his closing remark would still have shamelessness to again claim the veracity of any of this previous historical assertions. My two points are clear and remain unaddressed, I suggest you direct your mental capacities towards doing that, instead of historical fraud.