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

LD: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Scorbie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,859 times Debate No: 22550
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

first round is acceptance
second is aff posting case while neg posts case and attacks aff
third round is aff attacking neg and defending aff while neg defends itself and makes any last arguments
fourth round is aff attacking neg and defending aff while neg can only give constructive criticism for aff last round as aff gets last word in real ld rounds
if you will accept this then please accept the debate
thanks
Scorbie

Con

Thank you Pro for this very important debate. I believe in today's World it is very important to think critically about this practice and I hope we both bring up some interesting points to get some thoughts into motion.
Debate Round No. 1
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

"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 the government is set up to provide 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
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.
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.
Scorbie

Con

Thank you Pro for the debate topic when researching targeted killings I became very disgusted at the numbers presented in studies.

Firstly I would like to further elaborate on the definition of what is morally permissible, this is not a new definition but pros definition but into its original context "A moral system differentiates among behaviors that are morally prohibited, those that are morally permitted, those that are morally required, and those that are morally encouraged.... Permitted [means] behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system. It is morally permitted to act in any way that does not cause others unjustified harms."[1] So by this definition it was morally prohibited to assassinate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because in the Bombing a innocent women and child where harmed, so I argue that by Pros example does is not morally permissible by his definitions.[2]

My second argument is again with Dennis Elliot's definition on the moral code, things are morally permissible that do not cause unjustified harm, or are morally prohibited. Murder and target killings are both morally prohibited in the moral code and by law. By carrying out Assassinations(I'm not a politically correct type of guy) we are overruling national Law, and international rule of law. In the fourth Geneva convention in Part I Article 3 section d "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."[3] Also by the own law of the united states executive order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan or Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905.[4][5]

Even in the most successfully cases of targeted killings we have something called Blow back, when Qaddafi was killed by rebels he met all 5 criteria pro has laid out, but this did not serve the greater good. Currently Libya instituted a strict religious rule of law and is currently set to separate into two different countries when it was once the most prosperous country in Africa. Did this act serve the common, good I say it doesn't did it save more lives?, I argue that it did not proving Pros point of the common good to be an idealistic fallacy.[6] Targeted Killings do not provide for the common good because blow back always happens history shows that toppling regimes by assassinations leads to more radical and harmful regimes. Similar to targeted killings are assassinations, I would like the audience to think did the assassination of Franz Ferdinand help the common good, Abraham Lincoln. I would also like the audience to consider this if our President was assassinated would we surrender or would it lead us to retaliate?

Pro argues that in war Civilian deaths are morally permissible so that Assassinations must also be permissible because it lead to less civilian deaths. This is a false statement most civilian deaths are attributed to drone attacks carried out to killing Iraqi militants, If we stopped trying to killing military officials we would have less civilian casualties and would serve the common good.[6][7] There have been over 1.5 million Iraqi deaths since the invasion the majority from drone attacks does this seem morally permissible to you?[8]

If Pro wants to argue on that of Logic and reason one needs to look no further in history where not one targeted killing meeting his criteria lead to that of the common good.

I will post other rebuttals in next post because I am running low on time due to work.


Sources
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...
( Quoted directly from Ethics in the first person by Denis Elliot)
http://www.foxnews.com...
The Fourth Geneva Convention
http://www.ford.utexas.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...
http://www.bostonglobe.com...
http://antiwar.com...
































Debate Round No. 2
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

praise-worthy-warrior forfeited this round.
Scorbie

Con

I extend my arguments for the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
praise-worthy-warrior

Pro

praise-worthy-warrior forfeited this round.
Scorbie

Con

Pro had to forfeit due to time constraints so I ask the audience to not deduct points due to forfeiting, and I hope we can re-post this debate at a later date. Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Scorbie 4 years ago
Scorbie
Its fine just type in pass
Posted by praise-worthy-warrior 4 years ago
praise-worthy-warrior
Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances I cannot complete this debate because of time constraints. :( if possible is there a way to cancel the debate without it being on anyone's record? If not I guess I must forfeit but if the debate can be canceled then I'd like to redebate my opponent when time allows. Thanks
Posted by Scorbie 4 years ago
Scorbie
Posted with 2 min left /facepalm will post rest of rebuttal in next post
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
If I can post my case in a google document link, I will accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
praise-worthy-warriorScorbieTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Vitreous 4 years ago
Vitreous
praise-worthy-warriorScorbieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were did very well, but con provided a more pragmatic argument then pro. I'm really looking forward to this being finished.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
praise-worthy-warriorScorbieTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF