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

I have three major responses to Con's constructive arguments. First, Governments cannot have moral obligations. In his first paragraph, Con attacked my claim that "the United States" refers to the people as an aggregate whole rather than the government, arguing that the people cannot feasibly act in unison without some form of central government. (We'll address this in my next response.) Unfortunately, however, Con creates an even greater dilemma with the introduction of government as the resolutional actor because governments by their very nature cannot have moral obligations. The classic textbook definition of government offered by any introductory government course usually is something along the lines of, "The institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled."1 Institutions and procedures cannot have moral obligations. They are merely tools. The impact of this is that Con has not proven or disproven any moral obligation. Con claims that government is created in order to protect citizens and that this somehow proves that governments have a moral obligation only to protect citizens. But if governments are merely institutions and procedures, then Con's claim is like claiming that because I make a hammer for the purpose of hammering nails, that hammer has a moral obligation to hammer nails. My second response to Con's arguments is that the nation is the resolutional actor. Con claims that "a population of people cannot feasibly act in unison without some form of central organization." However, Con nowhere denies that the people actually have this obligation (we'll see the impact of this further on). All Con is claiming is that whether or not the people have the obligation, it is impossible for any disunited people to fulfill the obligation. I have two reasons why this argument does not apply to this round. First, the argument has no impact. Con's argument does not claim that the United States as a nation cannot have an obligation. All it claims is that certain requirements must be met in order for the U.S. to fulfill this moral obligation. This, however, refutes nothing. Simply because I do not have the funds to pay my debts does not remove my obligation to pay them. In fact, Con never refutes the argument that the United States as a nation possesses the obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Thus, Con has failed in his burden. Second, the argument ignores my value-criterion. In my last post, I utilized a path criterion of government. This criterion provides the central organization that Con claims is needed in order for the United States to fulfill its moral obligation. The impact of this is that not only does the United States -- meaning the nation that bears that name -- possess the moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts (an argument that remains uncontested), this nation also possesses the means of fulfilling the obligation. If the obligation to mitigate exists, then the means by which the United States can fulfill this obligation is the institution of government because it is the sole representation of the aggregate whole. Thus, Con's refutation of my resolutional actor is inherently flawed. We are not looking in this debate at whether governments have a moral obligation (since a government cannot have moral obligations) but whether the nation of the United States -- the people as an aggregate whole -- possesses the moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. Con has yet to address this. The third argument I will address is Con's implicit value of the welfare of the people. I have two responses to this value. First, the value assumes government as the resolutional actor. Here, you can cross-apply all of my above arguments. The impact of this is that Con's value does not apply to the resolution. It only applies if government is the resolutional actor, which, as we have already seen, it is not. Second, Negation does not uphold the value. Con makes a major assumption throughout the third paragraph of Con's constructive. Con assumes that mitigation does not benefit the welfare of the people of the United States. However, mitigation often benefits the welfare of the United States. We can return to the Russo-Japanese example from my first post. By mitigating this international conflict, the United States protected its own political and economic interests in Manchuria and China. Because of the vast influence of the United States in all parts of the globe, any international conflict will pose some threat to U.S. economic or political interests. Thus, mitigation can often benefit the welfare of the United States. Even if we assumed a resolutional actor of government, Con's value fails to negate the resolution. Con has failed to uphold the negative burden. On the contrary, my own arguments provide adequate reasons to affirm the resolution. The United States as a nation has a moral obligation to protect innocent life. International conflicts inherently harm innocent life. Therefore, the United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts. 1. Lowi, Theodore J., Benjamin Ginsberg, Kenneth A. Shepsle, and Stephen Ansolabehere. American Government: Power and Purpose (Full Twelfth Edition, 2012 Election Update (With Policy Chapters)). Full ed. publication place: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.