The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

First of all, my opponent used the term intervene in his Burden of proof. However I would like to say my proof is not to prove that the United states must intervene in every conflict. First, that is not the resolution. Its that we have a moral obligation to MITIGATE international conflicts. Second, take the term "moral obligation." That is insinuating a singular term, which means "one." Then the the term "international conflicts" is plural, meaning two or more. So I must prove that we have A moral obligation to TWO or MORE international conflicts. My opponent is breaking grammatical rules by making this assumption. Ct.1 When my opponent was crafting his case, he failed to keep one thing in mind: National security is paramount. As that was my value, it should be valued highest in today's round, and seeing how he did not address it, it counts as a dropped argument and flows toward my side. The reason national security is so important is because that our obligation to national security is higher than our obligation to save money. I don't know about you, but I would rather be alive than live in a nation with a debt. So yes, the point my opponent's making about cost is a semi-valid one, however, as John Locke and Section 4 Article 4 of the Constitution state: National security is the principle obligation of the government. So even though it costs, that does not mean we don't have a moral obligation to our national security. Its simply that our moral obligation to national security is more important than making sure we are saving more. I would like to make another point: INTERVENING IS NOT MITIGATING. My opponent did not respond to any of my definitions, so they count as dropped arguments. Mitigating REQUIRES the conflict to BE MADE LESS SEVERE. My opponents applications that he brought up were examples where bad things occurred, SO WE DIDN'T MAKE IT LESS SEVERE, thus we didn't mitigate us, and does not fall under the resolution. My opponent's application of the two-MRC test has the same problem. If it led to more war, then it did not make it less severe, thus not qualifying as mitigation, thus not falling under the resolution. Keep in mind, if it makes a conflict bigger or more drawn out, it is not mitigation, which is what my opponent is using as proof against my case and value. THIS IS NOT MITIGATION. Thus it doesn't fall under the resolution Once again, with my opponent's example of Afghanistan, if we didn't make the situation better, then it was not mitigation. Interventions are not mitigations, there is a fine line between the two. What Professor Paul Collier was saying was absolutely accurate, however that does not disprove the moral obligation. He never said we don't have a moral obligation to uphold national security. He never even said mitigation DIDN't lead to national security. His point was that wars cause damage. But everyone is already aware of that! In order to uphold national security, mitigation is necessary, thus a little damage economically in surrounding countries is expected. Under my case, I never said we had a moral obligation to the national security of OTHER nations. Its our nation I am talking about. Two African countries fighting will not affect us, but there are many examples of conflicts that would result in breeches of national security. Remember, you are grammatically incorrect when you say this resolution is absolute. I have been debating this resolution at my job for months, and this argument falls into the absurd category. While my opponent brought up some main ideas against SCT, my opponent never argued my proof. If you didn't argue the proof, how can you argue the claim. The question we must ask is this: Why is my opponent not agreeing with a brilliant man such as John Locke or John Jacques Reuseau? Does she think they are not educated enough? This is absurd to be contradicting these men. SCT still stands. (A) WWI If we would not have mitigated, Germany and Mexico would have attacked. (Zimmerman Telegram) Thus we mitigated, and they never attacked. As a side note, It is invalid for my opponent to bring up any applications in which INTERVENING did not lead to our national security, because intervening is not mitigating. (B)WWII Its very simple. Germany was bombing our ships. Japan was planning on continuing their attack sequence against us. If we would not have mitigated, our national security would have been breached further. As a result of us mitigating, no other pearl harbor attacks occurred, and the bombing halted immediately. (C) First Persian Gulf War My opponent never really responded to this one by saying "here mitigating did not lead to national security" This point still stands. In this conflict, mitigating prevented the unification of the middle east thus protecting US National security. The readers reading this debate should take 3 things into consideration. 1. My opponent does not believe national security is moral! How would you like to live in a country in which the government's morals did not include keeping you safe! This is a machevelian, totelerianistic, and overall evil thought. 2. Mitigating is not Intervening. Just because we intervened in a conflict does not mean we mitigated it. In future, my opponent needs to bring up examples in which we made it less severe. 3. Obligating is not choosing. Just because we are morally obligated, does not mean we have to act in concordence with that obligation. There may be certain reasons we wouldn't want to mitigate, but we are still morally obligated to this. If my opponent would like to argue this, she will have to argue with John Locke and other profound philosophers. With all due respect, neither I nor my opponent have the education to be arguing with philosophers such as these.