The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

International conflict is what we are mitigating, but we are not questioning whether we SHOULD mitigate, we are questioning whether the US has a MORAL OBLIGATION to mitigate international conflict. Being US-centric, which is a very strong term and not accurate of my arguments, is not problematic for this resolution. I would say that my version of European history is precisely what happened, while your "version" has some incorrect facts First of all the Russian Civil War had a little over 1 million casualties (John Grenier The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier (Cambridge University Press) pg 195"200), and seeing how my opponent did not bring up any evidence, my source is the one that stands. So more US men have died than occurred in the Russian Civil War. Second of all, concerning all his other arguments saying the "world wasn't stable during the 20s" he is misinterpreting the term "international stability" I don't mean "each and every country in and in itself being stable" because that is not what "international stability" means. Obviously my opponent does not have a very good understanding of this term, and should not be attempting to debate it until he does. International stability is INTERNATIONAL. Meaning its countries being stable with other countries, not just one country being stable by itself. Indeed, during the 20s INTERNATIONAL STABILITY was at a high. Because WW1 had just concluded, not many countries were at war with OTHER countries. Sure countries had debt, sure countries weren't economically stable, but they were stable with other countries, resulting in INTERNATIONAL STABILITY. Moving on to his main points 1) 2 things are apparent here. Number one: My opponent does not value your or my security, as he is saying we shouldn't mitigate other conflicts just for national security. Second, my opponent thinks mitigate and intervene are the same thing. Plz smart up before you reply to my argument. Also please reread my first argument so you know my definitions and my interpretations. Yes mitigating conflict will result in more national security, which obviously my opponent does not want. 2) I already responded to this argument, but seeing how my opponent lacks attention span, I will repeat this argument. We are not being a policeman for other countries. That is the job of the UN and the UNSC. We are simply mitigating conflict so that we can uphold our national security. Lastly he asked me to expound upon the idea of "morality" and where it comes from" I will gladly do this. Social contract, which my opponent says he agrees with, clearly states that the people will give up some of their freedom so the government can keep them safe. That is the "right" thing for the government to do. We know then because of that that the government has an obligation to uphold national security, and because of my definition of morality, they also have a moral obligation. (moral being defined as concerning right or wrong) Lets summarize Ct.1 My opponent has not responded to this except in agreement, so we will move on. This is why the government has a "moral obligation" Ct. 2 His arguments are based on the assumption that international stability is each country being stable, while as I defined it and other dictionaries defined it, this is not the case. International stability is stability between nations. Also he had uncited and faulty evidence, only lowering his credibility. He also hasn't responded to application 1 or application 3, making them automatically flow to my side. Ct. 3 He hasn't directly responded to this contention, and so it flows to my side. Lets take a look at the facts 1. Of the five points to my original case, my opponent has responded to 2 of them. Since we are following Lincoln-Douglas debate format, he has lost his chance to bring up the remainding 3 arguments. 2. He has faulty evidence and is also not reading my cases clearly and therefore is misquoting my claims and definitions 3. He obviously does not value security very highly as he doesn't think we should uphold it. So the choice should be clear. Do you want to vote for someone who upholds your and my security, and values your morality, and believes that the US security is important, or do you want to vote for someone who is misinterpreting facts, bringing up faulty evidence, dropping arguments, undervaluing morality and security, and is not citing his evidence. The choice is clear. Please vote for your safety, vote for your future, vote for affirmative.