the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs

The resolution is clear: The United States should stay out of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs is defined as matters having to do with international relations and with the interests of the home country in foreign countries. [1]I am Con, meaning that I must show why we should not stay out of foreign affairs. My opponent is Pro and has the majority BOP to affirm his position beyond any and every counter-argument I make in regards to the resolution that the United States should stay out of foreign affairs. ArgumentsI. GlobalizationGlobalization is defined as the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets. [2]No one can argue that we are not moving towards a more globalized world. With the invent of the internet, mass cable television programs, and worldwide news sources, we are starting to see the world develop greater communication methods which indeed allow us to live in a newly globalized society. Even here on DDO, I am holding conversations with individuals from Pakistan, Germany, Britain, and Australia among other foreign countries. Just a few decades ago such communication would not have nearly been as possible with such ease. It goes further than that though, we as a Nation have international relations with almost every country in the world now partly in due to such advancements in globalized communication. We have corporations based in America which outsource to India, China, Pakistan, and other countries in terms of jobs. We have goods which we both import and export to and from our neighboring countries including energy resources such as oil as this image from an NPR article shows: [3] The article itself, which is linked in source reference #3 shows how America depends on several other nations other than just ourselves to maintain our current oil dependency. It is evident that the necessary trade practices, lines of communication, and maintaining good relations are all key elements that can be attributed to the success of America in terms of globalization. My opponent must show how ending such things would actually be a benefit to the United States as a whole, because if we are to affirm his position and end all of our foreign relations, surely a negative impact would be felt in all three factors. Maintaining our current position in regards to current affairs is key in our efforts of having positive relations with various nations around the world in this new globalized world. II. Maintaining dominance in the fields of Intelligence.What is the end-game of all of this? The borders between nations, the differing religions all striving for control over the souls of the masses, the extremist movements fighting for control over a certain region. Everything falls under the efforts for control. Control over the valuable resources, control over the strategic locations, control over the minds of the many. We can be good sheep and pretend this isn't how the world works, but let's call it how it is shall we? Our world is in a perpetual state of war over control. World-wide control. Every war has been over either land, influence, passion, or all three. I only hope my opponent is aware enough of how the world works to see the point I am now going to make:If we pull out of any and every foreign affair, we lose a significant advantage of knowing what is going on in this world. My opponent might have failed to realize the military advantage we as the United States have over most countries in this world in regards to how far-reaching our intelligence efforts really go. Essentially, if we were to remove ourselves from foreign affairs then that would include removing our embassies, relations with other international intelligence agencies, and our overall ability to sway political, corporate, or personal interests in our favor. We are in the age of advanced civilizations with immense technological capabilities including thermo-nuclear warheads such as Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba, which has a payload of 57 Megatons. In an article relating to that very bomb, "That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb. One explosion. And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done." [4]As my opponent can hopefully realize for himself, our current efforts in regards to our involvement in foreign affairs is vital to our ability of maintaining accurate and current developments in any country, be it technological advancements, political movements, dangers being posed to our imported resources such as oil, etc. Rebuttals I. Opponent lacks justification in his claims."the united states wastes its time intervening in the affairs of other nations. we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries in aid but it never gets anything done those countries go into chaos anyway..."My opponent makes this argument in his first round. The issue with this is that as Pro, my opponent has a burden to prove the accuracy of those claims. The only example he gives is of Egypt.How is Egypt in chaos right now due to American causes? This is a question my opponent will need to answer with evidence that can be considered valid. My opponent also said that we pump billions of tax dollars into other countries but with no results. I would think it wise that my opponent provide some evidence to back up this grandiose claim of his. As it currently stands, there is no reason we should take my opponents word as accurate when he has failed at providing any valid sources which would further give weight to his claims. II. Problems in Egypt = Problems everywhere?My opponent listed Egypt as an example. The problem with this, aside from what I pointed out just above, would be that problems emerging in one country does not justify the U.S. stopping it's foreign affairs in any other country aside from the one in question - in this case, Egypt. It does not hold that we should end all forms of foreign affair activities for the sole reason of supposed issues arising in one country.Until my opponent can show that every country we have foreign affairs with is worthy of being dropped from our agenda, I see no reason why this resolution should stand in favor of the affirmative position. In Conclusion, I have provided arguments and rebuttals which cover both my own position and attempt to negate the affirmative one. I thank my opponent for starting this thought-provoking debate, and now return the floor to him. Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.npr.org...[4] http://gizmodo.com...