The Instigator
Slader_M
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
2 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 3 votes the winner is...
Slader_M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,356 times Debate No: 27818
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Slader_M

Con

Contention 1: Osama Bin Laden
While this is a well known fact in the United States, it still needs to pointed out and addressed that on May 1, 2011 U.S. Navy SEAL team six completed a mission of assassinating Osama Bin Laden, one of the most well known terrorists to the average U.S. citizen.
Criteria 1: Can you prove anything?
Everyone has told their fair share of jokes, including me. They are usually funny if they are worth sharing, but when telling this joke I did not give credit to anyone. Of course why would I credit anybody? It makes me seem funnier and more original. This is a very typical attitude of an average person, and who is to say Osama Bin Laden is any different? Theoretically, what if he took the credit of 9/11 even though he didn"t organize it? The only "proof" the United States has is a claim by Osama Bin Laden. I think killing him could be appropriate given proper fair trial by a U.S. court.
Criteria 2: The Sixth Amendment
Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.....
Where the crime is committed is where it should be tried... Should Americans be the jury? No because we are all "victims" of the attack. We would definitely say "Death to Osama".
Contention 2: Its easier to learn from your own mistakes than those of others.
Its harder to feel the pain or trials of others than to remember your own.
Criteria 1: Presidential Replacements
Friday April 14, 1865. A day that many know the event, but not much else. On that night a play was held At Ford"s Theatre entitled Our American Cousin. The Lincolns, Abraham and Mary Todd, were in attendance. During the play actor John Wikes Booth assassinated Mr. Lincoln. While the nation was devastated, vice president Mr. Andrew Johnson, stepped up to become the 17th president of the United States.
July 2, 1881, a lesser known attempt at assassination. James A. Garfield was shot in the chest. He lived until September 19, 1881. After his death vice president Chester Alan Arthur became the 21st president of the United States.
November 22, 1963, a very well known event, the day John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot in a parade in Dallas, Texas. Just like the other two presidential assassinations before him, Vice President, Richard M Nixon, took place as the 37th President of the United States.
Now take in mind this: Each one of these three presidents were assassinated, and each time the Vice President stepped up to the spot of president. Lets say Al Qeada has the same principle. When a leader, or in our case the president, dies or is killed, a new leader will step up in their place. So killing Bin Laden allowed for new leadership. Did killing Osama Bin Laden help the U.S. in anyway? Nothing more than the satisfaction of revenge. Osama Bin Laden was familiar to citizens and if anything it was easier to predict his tactics, if he was responsible for the given attack.
Criteria 2: Isoroku Yamamoto
Dont recognize the name? Don"t feel too lost. He is the Osama Bin Laden of WWII. Let me briefly explain who he is. Isoroku Yamamoto was The Japanese Admiral who led the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. He played a major role in WWII but very few would be able to tell you much about him. Take in mind this: Mark Twain once said "History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes". I had to sit and think about this quote for sometime before I fully began to understand that this runs true as north. I have an excerpt from militaryhistory.about.com about Isoroku Yamamoto: "On April 14, 1943, Fleet Radio Unit Pacific intercepted message NTF131755 as part of project Magic. Having broken the Japanese naval codes, US Navy crypt-analysts decoded the message and found that it provided specific details for an inspection trip that the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Isoroku Yamamoto, intended to make to the Solomon Islands. This information was passed to Commander Ed Layton, the intelligence officer for the Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. Meeting with Layton, Nimitz debated whether to act on the information as he was concerned that it might lead the Japanese to conclude that their codes had been broken. He was also concerned that if Yamamoto was dead, he might be replaced with a more gifted commander. After much discussion, it was decided a suitable cover story could be devised to alleviate concerns regarding the first issue, while Layton, who had known Yamamoto before the war, stressed that he was the best the Japanese had. Deciding to move forward with intercepting Yamamoto's flight, Nimitz received clearance from the White House to move forward." Four days later on April 18th, 1943, The Ariel plan Operation Vengeance took place and Isoroku Yamamoto was killed mid-flight, but the war continued years after until we used brute force against entire cities. The point is Yamamoto was the leader of a major attack on U.S. soil, almost identical to the way Osama Bin Laden led an attack. We killed Osama, but which city will we have to bomb to end this war? Both were killed by U.S. force, but most of us only remember one.
Criteria 3: We killed Osama More on Media Hype than Probable Cause.
Similar to my previous criteria, this criteria deals with WWII, and the reason for that is that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are the two most significant attacks on U.S. soil, but the main difference is Pearl Harbor wasn"t blown out of proportionality, well at least not anymore. You see while the U.S. was being attacked during Pearl Harbor, they still tried the best they could to fight off the Japanese planes. Afterwards instead of dwelling on the dead and giving up due to lack of Navy equipment, they turned into a manufacturing powerhouse. When the U.S. was being attack on 9/11, just 10 years ago, we sat in fear and cried due the feeling of helplessness. Isoroku Yamamoto was killed just over two years after the U.S. entered the war, Osama Bin Laden made it through two wars, and wasn"t killed until nearly ten years into the second one. This war that we still fight today is the longest fought in U.S. history, the only two years the United states has not bombed Iraq since the declared end of the gulf war was 1994 and 1995. This has cost nearly $1 trillion dollars of taxpayer money just since September 11th 2001. Take all that from our dying economy and you have a bigger disaster than the Stock market crash of 1929. You cannot blame just one person for the help of many, but by killing Osama Bin Laden, we just did.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The only way to end evil is simply to love. I would like to finish this debate with one last quote "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln. I stand in Negation to this Resolution and hope that I have convinced you to do the same as well.
RationalMadman

Pro

I shall refute your points in round two.

I shall ask you some questions, please answer all otherwise you forfeit this debate as they relate to it strongly.
  1. Why is Moral Nihilism incorrect?
  2. If it is/isn't incorrect then from where do we draw morality?
  3. What justifications do you have for this source of morality?
  4. If Forein policy is largely to prevent conflict between nations then why is targetting a conflict instigator immoral?
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Slader_M

Con

1. The Resolution: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Is not a debate on Moral Nihilism which states the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. We can define Moral's as what one would find to be good or bad based on Religion or depending on your perspective.
2. Morality is usually drawn from a religious source. HOWEVER that does NOT necessarily mean that an nonreligious person CANNOT have a moral compass. Take for Example Abraham Lincoln "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." -Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly enough Abraham Lincoln was a Religious person. He didn't want you to think that his morals came directly from his religion. Where does one draw the line for anything? The boundary of a State, Property Lines, Boundaries of Countries? Some boundaries are obtained through much fighting and war. However, many lines are drawn on the principle of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a Human Value that says that no matter the Danger, no matter the statistics, if anything produces a GREAT amount of Happiness, we as a populous have a right to obtain happiness.
3. How can one justify sources of Morality? Why is Batman a good guy? Why do we fight in wars? We say Batman is a good guy because he protects people from having infringement of his/her rights. We say that Batman is a Good Guy even though by all technicalities he is a vigilante simply because he does what our nation justifies as right.
4. How is killing one person preventing conflict? I understand the purpose of Foreign Policy. The debate is the Morality of what the Foreign Policy tool is. Just because the law says that something is 'Okay' doesn't mean it's morally justified. For Instance. For Seventy Eight years after the Constitution was Ratified it was LEGAL to have a slave in the United States. It took until nearly 1968 for discrimination laws that had been passed for almost 100 YEARS to be enforced. The law said it was justified for an individual to own a person, now, just because the law said that it was justified, was it really moral? Answer that.

Also Answer these questions:
Are you Aware of what the sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights States?
Have you ever told a joke?
if yes: When telling this joke did you credit the person who made it up?
If yes: Do you do so with all of Your jokes?
If no: So you have never told a joke?
Do you agree with the statement that "Its easier to learn from your own mistakes than those of others?
if yes: So you would agree that if you sawed your arm off you would then know not to saw off your other arm?
Are you aware of Isoroku Yamamoto's role in WWII?
if yes: Are you aware that he was targeted and killed?
if no: Are you aware of what happened at Pearl Harbor?
Are you aware that World War II was not ended after his death?
Are you aware of the freedom of Press?
Are you aware of the term "Unalienable Rights"?
If you say it's okay to target and kill someone, doesn't that mean you are granting permission to kill?
Are you aware of the Presidential Replacement System as described in my first round?
RationalMadman

Pro

Your source of morality is rather unjustified SUbjective feelings?!

Your questions are irrelevant as is your sense of morality.
Debate Round No. 2
Slader_M

Con

Morality cannot be justified as a single principle and defined as the same thing for all individuals. Morality is based on the premise of perspective. "We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses." -Abraham Lincoln. Perspective is one's point of view, what one sees, others may not. Morality is similar to perspective. What one may find to be bad or good, others may not.

Your statement that says "Your questions are irrelevant as is your sense of morality" is false. Allow me to put you into perspective. First I'd like to apologize for not previously numbering my questions. I will do my best to defend the relevance of my questions by numbering them in the order of which they are listed above.

1. In the United States, the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Thus stating that in The United States (One country that uses foreign Policy) All human beings have the right to a public trial. A person that is targeted and killed would not have the luxury of a public trial.

2, 3, 4, and 5 (The ones talking about telling a joke) My point is that sometimes people take credit for things that they didn't exactly make or create or even execute themselves to make he/she look superior or very powerful. This COULD have been the case with Osama Bin Laden, now, I'm not saying it is, I'm simply stating it is a possibility and will we ever know for sure? Probably not, The United States did not allow a public trial in the district the crime shall have been committed.

5 and 6 (The ones about learning from your mistakes) Mistakes are made. How do we learn from them? Just don't repeat the same harmful action twice.

7, 8, 9 and 10 (Isoroku Yamamoto) Isoroku Yamamoto was the Japanese Admiral that led the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He was targeted and killed. He is definitely relevant to this debate.

11 (freedom of press) Could Osama Bin Laden been killed on nothing more than just media hype? Possibly. In the United States, people have freedom of speech, but most people choose not to publish stories that would make them look like an invalid source of information. Such as Newspapers or News Networks.

12. "Unalienable Rights" Comes straight from the Declaration of Independence. Basically Unalienable Rights are the premise that the rights that you or any individual for that matter are not given by a government, but rather by a Superior Being (A superior being could be defined as a God).

13. If you are for Targeted Killing, you are giving permission to kill based on any threat to you. Hiring people to Target Kill is no different than hiring a hit-man. Giving permission to morally kill is no different than saying that it's okay to kill no matter who it is or for what reason.

14. The Presidential Replacement System is an example of where leaders of our nation were killed an INSTANTLY replaced by another person. My argument here is that Al Qaeda is no different. Assuming that Osama Bin Laden was a leader of some sort, upon death he would be replaced instantly by another person. Therefore killing him was not only immoral, due to lack of accomplishing anything, and pretty much pointless.

In debate all points should be taken into consideration for their relevance, just because a point isn't direct on the case, doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
RationalMadman

Pro

Firstly raising new points in last round is bad move.

Secondly using one country's (USA) law to define morality of all nations is arrogant.

Thirdly your justificatoinf or your morality and permissiveness of this method was Abraham Lincoln's individual feelings... Lame.

Also you never refuted any of my points.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
You wall of words rushed into my mind like Seal Team 6.
Posted by Slader_M 3 years ago
Slader_M
ha ha.. um thanks?
Posted by emj32 3 years ago
emj32
Wow, that wall of text hit me like an Obama drone strike.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Slader_MRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: No debate occurred here. Pro presented no arguments to challenge the premise, only a bizarre red herring ("moral nihilism") and clarifying or rhetorical questions. (" why is targeting a conflict instigator immoral?") Barely coherent, rambling and random, Con made few arguments that could be called "convincing." However, Pro made no serious attempt to engage even these weak and ineffective arguments, forcing my score on "Convincing Arguments." Accepting a debate, and then dedicating this little effort towards it, disrespects the sport enough that I awarded a conduct point to Con - something that I rarely do. I gave S&G to Pro, despite his mangling of the English language - simply because I could clearly understand what he was trying to communicate.
Vote Placed by baggins 3 years ago
baggins
Slader_MRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only problem is with definition of morality being used by Pro. That looks like an excuse to avoid and sidetrack the debate.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Slader_MRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't engage with the argument at all. Con at least made a case.