The Instigator
scgates
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissable 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 2 votes the winner is...
scgates
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,169 times Debate No: 21329
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

scgates

Con

The rounds will be conducted as follows:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive Cases
Round 3: Cross-Examination/Questions
Round 4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Crystallization
Debate Round No. 1
scgates

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting.

Definitions:
Targeted killing: killing of political or military targets
morally permissable: acceptable according to accepted values of society.

Value: Societal Welfare
Value Criterion: Diplomacy
My value criterion upholds my value because: the only way we can keep our society under control and for it to survive against other societies is to maintain a measure of diplomacy.

Reason 1: Targeted killing is NOT diplomatic
Killing a high-priority target, such as a leader (whether domestic or military) is not diplomatic. We do not negotiate world issues with snipers. we solve these issues with without violence. An example of this is the debate happening right now. If targeted killing were morally permissable, then I could theoretically shoot my opponent because he has a different point of view.

Reason 2: There is no cause needed
The resolution only states that targeted killing is a permissable tool to use. It does not specify what the cause has to be or when it isn't ok. According to the resolution, we could kill EVERY world leader and it would still be all right. This cannot work without restrictions, which the resolution does not provide.

Thus, I urge for a negative vote for this debate.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
scgates

Con

it is regrettable that my opponent could not post their constructive case, but I have some questions nonetheless.

Is it morally right for a serial killer to run loose in society, killing targets?
Would we not be serial killers ourselves if we were to do the same thing to world leaders?
How is this at all diplomatic?

that is all. I hope that my opponent posts their case in this round, along with some questions.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
scgates

Con

I quite literally have nothing to argue against, because my opponent has not posted a case at all. I urge him to do so as soon as possible.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
scgates

Con

My opponent didn't post an argument at all throughout this debate, and it is too late now for him to do so. therefore it is plain to see that I win.
joshuaXlawyer

Pro

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by scgates 5 years ago
scgates
i understand.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
I didnt debate because i didnt wanna put my case on the web i have debates in LD soon so yeah.
Sorry man.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
scgatesjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible argument from con, so I refuse to vote off of that. But I give him conduct for having pro FF the entire debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
scgatesjoshuaXlawyerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF