Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

FrameworkI will admit that I am not a guy who will always be wanting to enforce a strict round structure in every debate, as I believe my opponent's and I should have a bit of freedom to structure our cases as we please. However, Con has made some framework errors that seem to hurt his side of this debate:1) Con seems to have been mixing his case with his rebuttal in Round 3, and emphasizing on his own reasons for propelling isolationism with the line "I will be making my last two reasons.." Since I hold the BoP, Con should be working to refute my case more than anything as a fulfillment of my burden would mean an affirmation of the resolution, regardless of any arguments Con makes for his own case.2) As my case is the biggest obstacle for a Con win, with it attempting to fulfill the BoP, it should have been imperative for my opponent to rebut it all. Instead, he decided to drop my 1930's argument and respond to it in the last round. This is unfair to me as I will be unable to respond to anything that is said about my WWII example, and would have been able to otherwise. This is a big part of my case, so stuffing its response into the last round is hurtful for Con's chances at negating it fully.Attacks on AmericaMy opponent states that the cause of the separate attacks on the World Trace Center were due to U.S. interventionism. There's issues with this thinking:1) Con cherry picks two isolated examples of terrorism, and states that they could have been prevented by not being involved in the Middle East. This is naive thinking, because it doesn't take in the bigger picture of terrorism. In Round 2, I showed how the Iraqi dictator encouraged suicide bombers and how Baghdad fostered multiple terrorist organizations that were actively causing terror around them. Intervention in Iraq toppled this brutal dictator and ended up deciding the capitol city, which would lead to the listing of the terrorist hive that was functioning there.2) The motivation for the attack of the WTC in 1993 was not U.S. interventionism. In Con's first quote, Yousef stated that his justification "for the attack was to punish the U.S. for its support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories". This isn't America's intervention, but rather its mere support for the Israeli state. If Con wants attacks to stop, he should be advocating for the severing of alliances, not interventionism. Even so, the deaths of 6 people are too miniscule for America to go to such drastic measures.3) This kind of reasoning bends to the will of the terrorists. If the U.S. we're doing something very good which was anti-terrorist in nature, there will be some retaliation. The fact that such retaliation exists doesn't warrant the full withdrawal of such a measure. Con listed demands that Yousef, but I hope that such demands are to be taken into consideration as they are made in the form of bribery.ISISIn Round 2, I showed how intervention and the build-up in Iraq stabilized the region and lowered the death count there. Con, for some reason, assumes that Iraq was in chaos when we toppled Saddam but this is nothing but a bare assertion. I've showed how democracy spread there after we helped them out and how the order there was set into place by the time we had left. He also assumes that the Iraqi government, which encouraged and fostered suicide bombers, had order set in place there. This is preposterous thinking and in no way should be bought at face value.ISIS was the group that formed after we had left. This is an argument for involvement because it shows what happens when troops pull out and the U.S. abandons a country: chaos returns. The president could have agreed to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq to help the country progress forward, but instead the U.S. abandoned their goals and terrorists soon filled the void.ReputationAgain, this point is moot. It is irrelevant because it relies on the opinions of some od 60,000 people across many countries in order to "prove" that the U.S. is evil. It's an Ad Populum fallacy, and the serving size of the poll was not even that big to begin with. I do not see how peoples' opinions affect the legitimacy of the benefits of U.S. intervention, but rather just focuses on personal thought in order to prove a point that isn't being proven.WMDsThe Weapons of Mass Destruction already *had* been used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, and had been used on the Iranians[1], so to deny that he had them is simply nonsensical. Con states that a search was made in Iraq for WMDs which didn't find them, but reports of finding such disastrous weapons have already been made! In fact:"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."[2][3]The above was reported by the New York Times in a front page article which testified of U.S. soldiers encountering chemical weapons which fit into the category of WMDs. Con links a U.N. inspector saying he found nothing there, but this is all made under the assumption that Saddam wasn't cleverly trying to hide them. Even so, the high probability of such weaons alone souls justify an invasion as such weapons could be used with the collaboration of terrorists to launch at nearby nations of begin an attack on the West.ConclusionHaving shown the importance of interventionism in maintaining world order, I rest my case. It worked in both world wars, it deterred future outbreaks of conflict, and has helped stabilize the globe. Interventionism is *not* solely about spreading freedom and democracy, but more on reducing terrorism, maintaining security in a world where the cop exists and enforces the law for the good of the world, saving lives, and toning down explosions of war that always seem to erupt when the U.S. decides to take a vacation. Freedom and democracy simply come as a result of such endeavors, once threats are removed and authoritarian dictators are overthrown.In my initial case, I elaborated well on these very things. Con cherry-picked parts of my case to respond to, while if ignoring crucial parts such as (1) the 30's example of the theory of world policeman, (2) Libya and Iran halting their nuclear programs following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and (3) the stabilization of the country as a result of involvement. With me having the BoP, and with my opponent's failure to address them as well as show the overall downfall of intervention, I believe the resolution is resoundingly affirmed.Thanks for the debate! Vote Pro! [1] https://en.m.wikiquote.org...[2] http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...[ 3] http://www.nytimes.com...