Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

I welcome my opponent as this is his first debate on DDO. I'll cut directly to his arguments as I don't object to anything he has said thus far.Pro Case C1: On its surface, "can implies ought" seems utterly bizarre. I can break the arm of my 7 year old brother, how on earth does this imply that I ought to do it? I think Pro has mixed up the phrasing; the first sentence of the article states a near universal affirmation of "ought implies can" which makes much more sense. As to "can implies ought" the author in the article referenced writes "Can implies ought" is not necessarily true. Its truth, if it is indeed true, depends on acceptance of a principle that an agent who has the ability to help in a given situation thereby has some ethical responsibility to help" [1]. I feel this point should be considered settled. C2: Democracy does not inherently protect human rights. A constitutional (liberal) democracy (i.e. a republic) does provide a buffer against majoritarian rule, but other forms of democracy do not structurally contain these "inviolables" but rather subject them to the whims of the population. Even in constitutional democracies there are courts which interpret the extent of constitutional clauses which may result in a perversion of their original intent. Ultimately, those who are in power have the ability to overturn long-standing conceptions of "rights" as they hold a monopoly on force regardless of the governmental system. C3: Dictators have been overthrown largely by an unhappy population on countless occasions throughout history. I don't need to reference history to validate my claim, Pro only needs to look into the "Arab Spring" movement which has already toppled Mubarak and Gaddafi. In post-Mubarak Egypt a democracy is being established in theory. A similar scenario is unfolding in Libya although there was direct intervention in that case. This will be expanded on later in my own case.C4: If I'm correct in my interpretation Pro is taking an active view of intervention that seems to preclude diplomacy and even trade embargoes. I'm happy to grant him this definition.C5: Noted. This point does not really add to Pro's argument.C6: This one really needs to be more flushed out, and Pro so far has only asserted without building a case. I'm still looking for Pro to make case studies since the burden of proof is ultimately on him. As Hitchens put it, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [2].Con Case P1: CostOperation Iraqi Freedom is just one example of one of the possible implications of what Pro is advocating. The Congressional Research Service placed the cost of the operation at $806 billion [3], with the human cost at over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and over 4,000 US soldiers since the war began [4]. It's not entirely clear the extent to which we "intervene" but the term implies direct action. Any direct and aggressive action against a sovereign nation can serve as a casus belli for the other nation, and the international community is unlikely to be sympathetic to unilateral American aggression in modern times. Pro weakly asserts that it's okay to appeal to the UN, but granted the certainty of disapproval from the UN over the prospect of directly intervening against all non-democracies this will lead to the US inevitably committing unilateral aggression. A study carried out by the Economic Intelligence Unit on democracy around the world categorizes 55 countries as authoritarian regimes, including China [5]. The cost of intervening in all 55 of these nations as well as against rising superpower China would be staggering to the United States and would completely demolish our standing in the world. Also, keep in mind Pro's active definition of intervention coupled with the moral obligation to intervene holds aggressive implications. In other words, if "intervening" is a moral obligation we ought to go about it vigorously! It should be clear that the costs of such a policy to the US would be utterly detrimental in both monetary and human costs.TURN: Pro defines democracy in a very general sense as government by the "whole population." The EIU study cites 141 nations as either flawed democracies, hybrid systems, or authoritarian regimes. Where do we draw the line? Will we be intervening in 141 nations until they all fit our general contemporary model of democracy?P2: Is democracy is an inherently superior model?We have seen several Arab dictators (Mubarak, Gaddafi) toppled in the Arab Spring protests and many of the results of these protests will present themselves in years to come. In Egypt, elections following Mubarak's downfall led to Islamist parties holding an overwhelming majority of votes in the recent Parliamentary elections [6]. The victory of these parties represents an obvious setback to women's rights and homosexual rights. It would be infeasible for Pro to take the line that all authoritarian regimes are inferior in terms of the welfare of the people in comparison to democratic ones. Pro must realize that all democracies cannot be expected to work like the westernized system we are used to.Closing comments: Pro's case really must be two-pronged here: He must show a) how democracy is inherently superior to non-democratic systems and b) That it is a moral obligation to intervene in non-democratic nations to promote the democratic system. B does not follow logically from A, for instance, I might believe that apples are better than oranges but it would not follow that I have the moral right to intervene against those who think differently. Pro thusfar has cited a few basic reasons, generally without much support, to promote his position. Hopefully these reasons will be flushed out a little more in the upcoming rounds. [1] http://www.tparents.org...;[2] http://en.wikiquote.org...;[3] http://www.usnews.com...;[4] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...;[5] http://graphics.eiu.com...;[6] http://www.boston.com...;