The Instigator
praise-worthy-warrior
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

LD: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
praise-worthy-warrior
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,427 times Debate No: 22371
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

Hi, I would like to have an LD style debate on the Ld topic: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. I will be affirmative so I would like a contender to go negative.
This is how I would like the round to run:
Round three: accept debate
Round two: affirmative puts up case then negative puts up case and attacks affirmative case.
Round Three: Affirmative attacks negative case and defends affirmative case. Negative does the same.
Final round: Affirmative attacks negative and defends affirmative getting the last words in as a regular LD round and Negative can help Affirmative get better by critiquing so affirmative has a chance to do good in state. :)
petersaysstuff

Con

well, i usually do policy debate but what the hell? i'll try this.
Debate Round No. 1
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

I would like to thank the negative side for taking up the debate.
"In today's wars, there are no morals." a quote by the infamous Osama bin laden. What this quote shows us is that the enemies of the U.S. will not let anything stop them from achieving their goal, the destruction of the US. Therefore the U.S. must be allowed to use the necessary means to protect itself from the enemy, whoever that may be. Because of this I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Observation I: Definitions
Cambridge University Press, Feb 15, 2010
Targeted Killing: According to Gary D. Solis, a Georgetown University Law professor, there are five things that must be in place for something to be considered a targeted killing.
1. An armed conflict must be in progress.
2. The target must be a specific individual.
3. The individual must have been beyond reasonable possibility of arrest.
4. The killing must have been authorized by a senior military officer.
5. The individual must have been directly participating in hostilities.
Ethics in the first person by Deni Elliot
Morally permissible: behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Foreign policy: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives.
Tool: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose
Further clarification can be provided in cross ex.
Observation II: Value and value criterion
My value in today's debate round will be that of the common good. The common good consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments, on which we all depend, work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, flourishing economic system and effective system of public safety and security. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning. My value criterion in today's debate round will be that of reason. Reason tells us that is the government is to follow up on priding the common good then the government must have the means to provide the common good which includes public safety and security. If that mean MUST include targeted killing then targeted killings can be made morally PERMISSABLE.
Observation III: Contentions
Contention I: Targeted Killings have substantial benefits
Subpoint A:Editorial, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 1, 2010, p. B2, LEXIS-NEXIS Academic.
Some argue that it is useless to target terrorist leaders because there is always another waiting in the wings. Experience, however, has demonstrated that there are substantial benefits in taking out leaders. It disrupts networks, hampers operations and may deter others considering careers as violent extremists. The effects can be dramatic. When Abu Musab Zarqawi was liquidated by an air strike in June 2006, it was the beginning of the end for al Qaeda in Iraq.
Subpoint B:
Even if assassinating leaders doesn't always improve the political/humanitarian situation in their country, it only takes a few assassinations to deter power-seeking dictators from committing actions like genocide that might get them targeted for assassination. And things like genocide are bad enough that the chance of preventing them is worth the moral cost of killing a few dictators (or high-ranking members of their regimes).
Contention II: If war is permissible then logically so is targeted killing
War-fighting can be morally justified even though it kills large numbers of people, many of them innocent civilians. Targeted killing has the potential to achieve the same ends as war-fighting by killing one not particularly innocent person instead of many innocent people (and with fewer collateral consequences in terms of infrastructure, economy, etc). Therefore, targeted killing can also be morally justified, at least in the circumstances where war-fighting is justified.
Contention III: TARGETED KILLING IS MORAL WHEN THERE IS NO ALTERATIVE
Amos N. Guiora [Professor of Law, U. of Utah], CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Winter 2009, p. 273, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP.
Before authorizing and firing, the commander must ascertain who the target is; otherwise, the policy is illegal, ineffective, and immoral. But if you're sure you've got the right guy, and you have no other viable options, fire away. The nation's safety may depend on it.
Contention IV: The US currently already uses targeted killings without any dilemma
James S. Robbins [Executive Director, American Security Council Foundation], in FOCUS, Summer 2010, p. 22, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP.
Targeted killings have become the nation's primary tool in the war on terrorism. The rise of remote-control counterterrorism has come about as the result of a combination of sophisticated technology and the radical shift in America's international behavior since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. What was considered a questionable, even illegal application of force before 9/11 became increasingly acceptable in the years following the attacks.
For theses reasons and many more I respectfully ask for an affirmative ballot, thank you.
petersaysstuff

Con

petersaysstuff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

praise-worthy-warrior forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

petersaysstuff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

praise-worthy-warrior forfeited this round.
petersaysstuff

Con

petersaysstuff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by praise-worthy-warrior 4 years ago
praise-worthy-warrior
ok sorry about the glitch. its not my fault though lol.
Posted by petersaysstuff 4 years ago
petersaysstuff
i suppose i lost...i mean i couldn't post anything so..
Posted by praise-worthy-warrior 4 years ago
praise-worthy-warrior
what should be done?
Posted by praise-worthy-warrior 4 years ago
praise-worthy-warrior
what should be done?
Posted by petersaysstuff 4 years ago
petersaysstuff
mine is at 750. i can't post a full contention..
Posted by praise-worthy-warrior 4 years ago
praise-worthy-warrior
The max was supposed to be 8000?
Posted by petersaysstuff 4 years ago
petersaysstuff
it seems there is an issue with the character count, namely, yours s much more than 750 characters.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
praise-worthy-warriorpetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
praise-worthy-warriorpetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: pro wins the argument on all grounds due to forfeiting....