The Instigator
laurenr701
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
iPwnuNOW
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: 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 1 vote the winner is...
laurenr701
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,778 times Debate No: 21610
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

laurenr701

Pro

Affirm.
LD style.
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Defs
-Targeted killing: intentional killing of a noncombatant individual
-Morally permissible: Permitted by one's morals
-Foreign Policy tool: a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives
Resolution Analysis: Using targeted killing as a form of foreign policy tool when necessary. In cases of terrorism or against a negative government official in order to stop something that may happen in the future.
V: Role of Government
VC: Government ought protect its citizens
C1: Locke social contract
According to the Lockean Social Contract, Locke saw the social as a contract between society and the government to protect the rights of the individual. If citizens are displeased they have the right to rebel. This is why it is the government's role to please the people. If they do not this results in a state of war in which is a state of destruction, this is why the role of the government ought be valued.
The will of the people is to be protected from harm, this is why targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. It stops harm to citizens by killing an individual who imposes a threat upon the people. Upholding the social contract results in a protection of people in which is the role of the government which ought be valued.

C2: National objectives ought be to eliminate threats.
The role of the government is to protect people. If any individual are to impose threat upon that country they are considered harmful. If targeted killing is considered they are obviously threatening your country in some way. For example a terrorist produces lack of security. A terrorist could likely take the peoples property away, or they could likely kill multiple people in your country.
By using targeted killing on a threat to your country you are eliminating chances of attacks on your own country. By valuing the role of the government a country, a country is protecting its citizens in which is achieving the social contract. If a country does not uphold the social contract, it ought be considered immoral. Since the role of a government is to protect its people.

C3: Results of not targeted killing not being morally permissible.
There may likely be multiple negative results if targeted killing is not morally permissible. Such as, loss of citizens lives, loss of freedom, or loss of property. If a country allows this to happen they are not upholding the social contract. Therefore, they are not doing what is best for their citizens. Not doing what is best for your citizens is immoral according to social contract.
iPwnuNOW

Con

Due to the lack of time to argue, I must only say that you are wrong and that you suck at how much time you give to argue. Restart the debate somehwere else and give at least two days.
Debate Round No. 1
laurenr701

Pro

laurenr701 forfeited this round.
iPwnuNOW

Con

iPwnuNOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
laurenr701

Pro

laurenr701 forfeited this round.
iPwnuNOW

Con

iPwnuNOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
laurenr701

Pro

laurenr701 forfeited this round.
iPwnuNOW

Con

Due to the lack of time to argue, I must only say that you are wrong and that you suck at how much time you give to argue. Restart the debate somehwere else and give at least two days. I NEED MORE TIME
Debate Round No. 4
laurenr701

Pro

laurenr701 forfeited this round.
iPwnuNOW

Con

iPwnuNOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by laurenr701 5 years ago
laurenr701
I willl redo it with more time eventually i have a debate tourney. so yeah
Posted by Elysian 5 years ago
Elysian
I agree 60 min is too short. I am living across the world and have about a 12h time forward, coupled with life, I think 2 day would be more than reasonable.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Whoa whoa whoa. Sixty minutes to post a response argument? Hell no. Hell to the no. That is no where near enough time. At least 24 hours, and I'll take it. At the least. I would prefer the max time limit, but 24 is as short as I will go.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Eh hold on. I actually gotta figure out if I can get my cases to fit in the character limit.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
If someone cites DDO in a round with me, I will have a field say.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Someone did cite DDO as their source in a round with me once. I won that round.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Eh, I'll let my opponent choose.
My opponent, pick which case I shall run:
Case 1
or Case 2
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Not even worried.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Zaradi, I hope you realize that people steal cases from this website. I would not post anything that you think you are going to use in a round. Apparently, a PF debater's opponents once stole his materials from this site and used them against him in a round.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I CALL THIS. NOBODY FREAKING TAKE THIS.
lower case letters to counteract all caps.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 5 years ago
Mak-zie
laurenr701iPwnuNOWTied
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: Reason: Yes, they both forfeited, but Con gave no argument at all, and Pro did. Conduct goes to Pro because all Con did was complain the entire debate about the time limit. Con: Don't accept it if you don't agree with the time.