Erwin N. Griswold once said, "The right to be let alone is the underlying principle of the Constitution's Bill of Rights." The U.S. should not endanger its citizens and itself by involving itself in another cause in which it had no part in the first place. Both the U.S. and the countries involved have a right to refrain from intervening. This doesn't mean that the U.S. can never intervene; there just isn't an obligation to intervene. This statement is not promoting isolationism, the U.S. can still venture out and perform good deeds in the world, but it's just not obligated to.
The value in this debate will be justice, because that is any government's duty, to ensure that each and every one of its citizens receives rights according to the rules of law or equity. Justice can only be achieved by at least protecting people's inherent rights with social contract, which is the criterion. Governments are created to accomplish things that couldn't have been done by individuals. The government exists to serve US in international conflicts, those people have the right to overthrow their own government to create a new, better one, but that's their responsibility to their own nation, not ours. Also, this resolution does not pertain to intra-national conflicts, only obligation to mitigate international conflicts. I stand to oppose the resolution, "The U.S. is morally obligated to mitigate international conflicts."
Contention One: No human being or government is obligated to do anything. One of America's stressed identities is defined by the idea of U.S. citizens having freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom in general. The U.S. is not obligated to do anything; mitigating international conflicts would be a choice in which the U.S. is willing to intervene. In fact, the countries involve dint he international conflict should come to the U.S. and ask for assistance; they should also be willing for the U.S. to intervene. If their government is weak and unable to satisfy their needs, they should ASK for help, not sit and wait for the U.S. to save the day.
Contention Two: the whole point of creating a government was to better serve the country's people. The government was formed to perform tasks that individuals themselves could not complete. Governments exist to protect heir own nations. The Constitution makes the U.S. government accountable to its own people. The U.S. should not be mitigating international conflicts in other countries; its own citizens should be the priority. The military of the U.S. will be sacrificing itself to something that won't even render beneficial to the U.S. The U.S. will only be just or fair to its citizens by placing Americans as a priority, not the people in other nations.
Contention Three: the U.S. has a bad track record; the more we tried to help the worse things got. Just to name a few, we messed things up in Korea, Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam, the Middle East with Osama bin Laden, Suddam Hussein. In fact, the only success we had in meddling with other nations' governments was Japan and Germany. We installed bad dictators who we ended up destroying 20 years later. The U.S. has enough problems of its own, we should attempt to solve our own conflicts before venturing out into the world to mitigate other problems.
Contention Four: The U.S. does not have the time or money to mitigate international conflicts. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been squandered in the past on mitigating international conflicts, which didn't' amount to any good anyhow. The U.S. deficit accumulates more and more every day, and if we choose to intervene in other countries' conflicts, we will only be wasting more money and time. How can a dying person stop a fight between two other stronger people? The U.S. does not have the power to intervene, as its own economy is crumbling.
However, the extreme side of this argument is not beneficial. Remaining isolationists will only serve to decrease the lack of trust in the U.S., when the time comes in which we need help, other countries will not help. After all, did we ever do anything to help them? The U.S.should not waste time by helping other countries when it already has its own problems to worry about. After all, with the track record of U.S. "intelligence" and intervention, can anyone really make the case that our society has benefited? Or has the interests of weapons manufacturers and the oil industry overruled our national security interests?