The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,279 times Debate No: 23907
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)




This round is just for you to accept the position, so don't type on your first post.

This is a Lincoln-Douglass Debate topic that was used in the District and State tournaments. Because this will be a LD debate, I'd prefer it if another Lincoln-Douglass debator picked up the Neg, but it isn't required if you just look at these requirements:

Value Premise: The value premise (or VP) is a word or group of words to show why a resolution is moral or immoral. The debate over the VP decides which is used to judge the round. For example: If I debate this topic and use the VP of "National Security", then I am saying targetted killing is moral or immoral because of national security. If i win the VP debate with that VP, then we base what is moral or immoral based on which case benefits National Security more.

Value Criterion: The value criterion (or VC) has different meanings depending on where you debate. For this round we'll be using the southern definition, which says that a Value Criterion is how your Value Premise applies to the case/resolution (depending on who you talk to.) for example, if my VP is "National Security", and my VC is "Targeted Killings protect citizens", then Targeted killing is moral because the protection of citizens justifies national security.

Contentions: To put it simply, your contentions are your arguments. There are no technical restrictions on how many you use, so long as you keep them within your time limit (or character limit in this case), however the typical number for an affirmative is 3 and neg is 1 or 2, but feel free to use as amny as you want. For Example, if I use the VP and VC used above were used, and the first contention was "Targeted killing kills terrorists", then that would be your argument, and you'd list what proves it within the contention.

LD format: Well, first off this LD is a moral debate style, not statistical, so it focuses a lot more on philosophers and expert opinions than it does on actual statistics. The round goes Aff constructive -> Neg Constructive -> Aff Rebutal -> Neg Rebutal -> Aff Final Focus - Neg Final Focus. There can be no new arguments in the final focus, you can reiterate on points made earlier in the round and say why you won, but you can't make new arguments in it.

You'll have a better example of what one looks like by my first post, but it would still be better for an actual LD debator to debate. I won't object to anyone who isnt' though :)


I'm a Lincoln-Douglas debater myself and I fully understand all of the rules. Please state your case, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

When arguing the aspect of morality in government, one must look past the morality of common men and instead look to a medium by which he can properly judge a government's morality. To quote John Locke: "the whole purpose of government is to make laws for the regulation and preservation of property, and for the defense of the community against external aggression, all this only for the public good." to put it simply, the purpose of a government is to work towards the public good of the citizens who have appointed said government. This concept is more commonly known as Social Contract theory, and is the proper medium to be used when judging the morality of governments. Because the role of government is to protect its people, and targeted killing is a method of accomplishing this task, I affirm the resolution with the Value Premise of the Role of Government, and I incorporate with the Criterion of Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory. before I continue, I will define a few key terms.

Foreign Policy: A policy pursued by a a nation in its dealings with acheiving national objectives, as defined by Columbia Journal of Internation Law.

Targeted Killing: A use of lethal force by a subject of international law that is directed against an individually selected person who is not in custody and that is intentional (rather than negligent or reckless), premeditated (rather than merely voluntary), and deliberate (meaning that the "the death of the targeted person is the actual aim of the operation, as opposed to the deprivations of life which, although intentional and premeditated, remain teh incidental result of an operation pursuing other aims), as defined by Nils Melzer, PhD.

Social Contract Theory: An agreement among the memebrs of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each, as defined by

CONTENTION 1: The main Duty of Government is to Protect Its People
Noted Philosopher John Locke believed in two states: the state of nature and the state of war. The state of nature is a state where men live equally and own private property, and where they form communities to care for their young and help one another due to morals, not politics. The state of war is a state where men or groups of men constantly fight one another for dominion over other groups. According to Locke, men choose to leave the state of nature and form political societies in order to prevent the state of war. Because government was formed by the people to protect them, the role of government is to protect and serve teh people who appointed them.

Furthermore, Otto Pick, professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science states: "Security is an essential precondition of an ordered human existance", and that "governments must provide a secure environment which would allow people to pursue their their economic and social goals without undue anxiety and fear". He further states that the National Government's main duty is to uphold national security because "the concpet of security covers every facet of life" [(COLLECTIVE SECURITY, 1974, p.15]

Because this social contract is formed between the government and the governed, the government is morally required to work towards the protection of the people it serves. When using this as the medium of determining what makes a government's policies moral or immoral, the policies that adhere to the Social Contract theory by working to protect the citizens of the government making the policies would be considered moral. The use of targeted killing can be used to protect the people being governed, and as such if a government chooses to use this method in order to work towards the good of its people, then they are making a morally correct decision due to the role of government itself.

CONTENTION 2: Targeted killing is proven to lead to protection.

A government's use o targeted killing has been proven to lead to the protection of that country, and therefor deemed morally permissible through its adherence to the social contract theory medium.

One of the most well-known targeted killings in modern times would be those directed from teh United States towards leaders of the terrorist groups Al Qaeda. According to, although Al Qaeda had various other sub-leaders and individual organizations, "Bin Laden worked hard to try to knit these disparate organizations together. His success has made them all far more lethal, but keeping the ties strong depended heavily on Bin Laden's charisma and his access to funds. Zwahiri [Osama's former right hand] is less charismatic than Bin Laden. Perhaps more important, he and other potential new leaders may not have teh fund-raising powers that Bin Laden's star power gave him." to put it simply, even though Osama's death may not lead to the immediate dissolving of Al-Qaeda, they are now crippled ot the point where they cannot recieve the recruits or funding needed to linch high-profile attacks.

Isreal also protected its people through its use of targeted killing. According to Steven Down, professor of international relations: "In sum, in the majority of cases... has not been tantamount to assassination because Isreal is engaged in armed conflict with terrorists, those targeted are often killed by conventional military means, and the targets of the attacks are mostly combatants or are part of the military chain of command, ... the threat of teh Israeli practice of targeted killing is consistent with a country's right to target specific individuals in the pursuit of self defense." [David, 2003 (Steven, Professor of International Relations, "Isreal's policy of Targeted Killing")]

Furthermore, Stephen Knoepfler states: "Currently, even during times of peace, there are moments when it is permissible... to use lethal force because apprehension is infeasible and it is otherwise immediately neccesary to protect themselves or innocent bystanders. ... In killing the individual, the assassin is killing the person insofar as that person is prominent, has a particular title, or has a particular amoun of influence. In the circumstance in which the targeted individual is killed out of self-defense (or the defense of others), ... is targeted insofar as that individual is uniquely capable in that instant of bringing about the death of law enforcement officers or innocent bystanders... would be a permissible assassination, even in peacetime." [Knoepfler, 2010 (Stephen JD, "Dead or Alive: the Future o fUS Assassination Policy Under a Just War Tradition)].

In conclusion, as I have stated in the round, when judging a government's morality, we must look to the medium of Social Contract Theory as defined by John Locke. Because a government's main duty is to uphold this theory, and Targetted Killing accomplishes this, it is moral.


Due to the character limit, I will use this round solely to make my case against the resolution. My rebuttals will in the following rounds.

Targeted Killing: Collateral damage, or collateral murder?

Because I believe Targeted Killing to be murder and not damage I negate the resolution, Resolved: targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

Value: Today I will be valuing that of National Security. National Security is a state's right to protection and safety within its physical limits. It should be a nation's obligation to achieve their own National Security; therefore any action that infringes upon this should be deemed immoral. Because Targeted killings involve another nation stepping over their bounds, targeted killings are immoral.

Value Criterion: This round should be judged based off of a cost-benefit analysis. The side that better argues the benefits of using or not using targeted killing outweigh the costs should win this round.

Now, moving onto my contentions.

Contention 1: Targeted Killing results in the loss of innocent life which is counterproductive to the goal of National Security.

Without human life within a nation, there would be no nation to protect. Because every nation aims to achieve national security the human life within each nation becomes an invaluable commodity. Targeted Killing then becomes counterproductive towards the goals of national security. There are numerous sources of evidence for collateral damage caused by targeted killing, but I will spare you a debate that’s centered on multitudes of cherry-picked evidence. Regardless of the source used, the point is this: Targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life. In no cases is there a 1 to 0 combatant to civilian death rate. The fact that we blatantly disregard the lives of others for our own goals is highly immoral just as the practice of Targeted Killing is to reach these numbers. When applying this to national Security we can see how Targeted Killing is not by any means a moral solution. By killing innocent citizens and marking them as collateral damage we put a bulls-eye right on the heart of national Security. By using Targeted Killings and tearing down the purpose for making a nation secure, we undermine its very reason for existing.

Contention 2: Targeted Killings allow for one judge, jury, and executioner.

One person with all the power, what they say goes and there isn’t anybody else to say otherwise. This is a dictatorship, this is tyranny, and this is the reality of targeted killing. Checks and balances are not required, just the okay go from one man in the executive branch. The problem with one person holding this much power is the fact that immoral judgment can and will occur. Take for example the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. Anwar had potential ties to Al Qaeda and instead of detaining him per his American rights he became a VICTIM of targeted killing. This is a case of extra-judicial process and is why we have things like checks and balances. Especially in cases like Anwar’s we can see a major flaw in Targeted Killings and National Security. Targeted Killings allow you to murder your own citizens which is the opposite of securing a nation. To allow targeted Killings is to allow a nation to unleash havoc on itself.

Contention 3: Targeted Killing is like skiing down a slippery slope.

We can begin by killing a person who has taken the lives of 3000 innocents, but then what? 1500 innocents and you’re dead, 500 and you’re dead, 50 you’re dead, all the way until one innocent and you are the next target. With this slippery slope, targeted killing leads to further immoral and justified actions. A good example would be the Patriot Act. The government passed this act in the interest of protecting the American citizens from foreign threats. Although, only three of the 763 “Sneak-and-peak” requests for the fiscal year of 2008 involve terrorism cases. Whereas 65% involved drug cases in the U.S. [1] The Patriot Act, intended to protect is actually being used to harm U.S. citizens. These basic infringements on citizen rights deter us from achieving national Security. Targeted Killing is a slippery slope that my opponent will have you believe is a helpful tool, when really they are only Band-Aids to a festering wound, a quick fix to a snowballing problem.

Targeted Killing has a greater effect on National Security than one might originally think. They have the ability to throw a nation into extreme dishevel. We want nations to be secure. National Security promotes safety and stability, but as I’ve shown, targeted Killings threaten to dismantle this very important institute. It is because of this that I strongly urge you to vote for the negative, thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


Once again I apologize for the character limit, but this was the first debate that I made on this site so I thought it was word limit :/. Luckily, though, now we can use the last round as a constructive, this round as a rebuttal, and the next round as the Final Focus, so it's all fair, if not up to the LD format completely.

Against my opponent's Value Premise:
The value premise of National Security as proposed by the Negative is actually absorbed into my case through my VP, VC, and first contention. This is because we are both arguing that the government's ensuring of the security of their people. Because the Affirmative case upholds this Value Premise on its own, every point made for National security actually benefits the Affirmative side of the argument rather than negating it. This is why the Role of Government as defined by Social Contract Theory is the superior Value Premise in the round.

Against my opponent's Value Criterion:
I have two main points to rebut my opponent's criterion:
1.) Framework:
I stated in the first round that "For this round we'll be using the southern definition, which says that a Value Criterion is how your Value Premise applies to the case/resolution"[1]. The value Criterion of a "cost-benefit analysis" is a northern Value Criterion, because it directly states how the round will be judged rather than how the resolution links to the resolution's morality. Because this directly opposes the framework of the round, the Negative's Value Criterion cannot be accepted as valid, so the Value Criterion of "Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory" wins the VC debate.
2.) Inappropriate use of a Value Criterion:
Unfortunately, this is not a Public Forum debate, and so we are not are not judging by net outcome. Lincoln-Douglass debate is judged by the moral impact of an action, that's why the majority of this year's topics include the word "moral" somewhere in the topic [2]. The Value Criterion proposed by the Negative limits the round to an argument based on statistics rather than morality, and as such isn't a valid Lincoln-Douglass Value Criterion[3]. Therefore, the Affirmative's Value Premise of "Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory" is the only acceptable Value Criterion for the round.

Against the Negative Contention 1:
1.) Although my opponent's first contention is based on the premise of National Security, he is either misusing or misunderstanding what that term implies. National security is the practice of an INDIVIDUAL NATION (caps for emphasis in the lack of italics, not for yelling) protecting itself [4] , not the protection of every individual human in the world. Therefore, my opponent's first contention does not actually benefit national security because the Negative contention is looking not only to human life in one nation, but every human life in every other nation as well, which would be Global Security.
2.) My opponent goes on to state that targeted killing causes too much collateral damage, but he does not actually provide any evidence in the round. I understand that he does not want this to turn into a statistic-heavy debate, but in every debate form evidence is needed in order to prove a point. Furthermore, he states that because no targeted killing will result in a 1:0 combatant to civilian death rate it is an immoral action, but not only is that false (when regarding case of military snipers, which take one shot to kill a combatant without civilian death), but that is an unrealistic goal when speaking in a general sense. Although a 1:0 death ratio cannot be gauranteed for every Targeted Killing, "By design most targeted killing operations use only enough force to accomplish the task. 'Targeted killing does not employ large numbers of troops, bombers, artillery, or other means that can leave in their wake far more destruction than they prevent'. ... Since most uses of targeted killing have comported with the proportionality norm, there is no reason to presume that future uses of the tactic will not do the same" [5].

On the Negative's Second Contention:
My opponent states that targeted killings are immoral because one man decides when someone dies. However, not only does this not apply to the Negative's Value Premise of National Security, but it is false. As it is stated by Nils Melzer in the definition of National Security - which my opponent did not refute and so stands as the definition that is to be used in the round - " A use of lethal force by a subject of international law that is directed against an individually selected person who is not in custody and that is intentional" [1]. This defintion shows that the person selected to be killed has broken international law, and is targeted by a force charged with upholding it. So no, one person does not make the decision, the person is already found guilty in a trial. Because it is based on a faulty premise, my opponent's Second Contention is negated.

On my Opponent's Contention 3:
My main negation to this contention focuses the lack evidence. My opponent has no real reason, philosophical or otherwise, to believe that "Targeted Killing is a slippery slope". My opponent brought up the Patriot Act, but that is entirely unrelated. We are discussion the intentional, premeditated taking of a life, which requires an entirely different thought process to confirm it than "I think we should tap this person's phone". The taking of a life is a much more serious matter than surveilance. Because there is no applicable evidence to prove the statement made in the third contention, which results in there being no reason to believe it is true, the Negative Case's third contention fails.

Because My Opponent's VP is more properly upheld through my case, because My opponents VC is not applicable to the framework of the round, and because none of my opponent's contentions remain standing, I respectfully urge an Affirmative vote, thank you.

Works Cited:
3.) and
5.) (Jason Fisher, 2007, "Targeting Killings, Norms, and International Law", Columbia Journal of Transnational law, 2007, p. 743)


First I will be going over the Pro case and then I will defend mine.

Pro Case

Pro's definition of targeted killing is perfect because it is vague enough that it completely supports my second and third contentions. Literally anyone can become a victim of targeted killing. All that is required is the consent of the man in charge. Keep this definition in mind when you read over my case.

Value: Locke's Social Contract Theory.

It is from the Social Contract that the Pro case derives the moral permissibility mandated by the resolution. If I refute the Social Contract, then there is no way you can justify an affrimative vote.

First of all, Locke's Social Contract makes it very clear that "legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed." [1] What this means is that the Social Contract is only valid if ACTUAL consent is given to the government by free men.

So I would ask Pro, and anyone else reading this, have you ever signed the Social Contract? Have you ever given your explicit consent to your government to govern you? Of course not. The Social Contract is non-existent. According to Anthony Quinton, philosopher David Hume agrees with me on this;
"He [Hume] allows that the very first states may have been created by a contractual agreement between the comparatively few people involved. But that has no bearing on current political relationships. These cannot be attributed to tacit consent. Most people have no idea that they are giving such consent, nor could mere presence within the boundaries of a state add up to it, since for most people there is no real choice but to stay where they are.The governments which exist in the world today mainly orginated in conquest or usurpation, but that does not deprive them of legitimacy. Obedience to them arises from customs and habit, not from any kind of promise." [2]

With Pro's moral connection to the resolution completely refuted, there is no way the Affirmative case can absorb my value of National Security.

Value Criterion: Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory.

This Value Criterion is completely invalid since the Value Premise has already been refuted.

Contention 1: The main Duty of Government is to Protect Its People

Once again, this Contention can't stand if the Value Premise is refuted, but I will go over it anyways.

I completely agree with Professor Otto Pick's quote. However, targeted killing is counter productive to the security the affirmative case is trying to provide. More on this later.

The affirmative case focuses on terrorism, specifically the Al Qaeda organization. The United States is the country which used targeted killing to combat Al Qaeda so it is perfectly appropriate for me to use them as an example here. Even if the Social Contract was valid and applied to the United States, targeted killing would undermine the Social Contract between the U.S. government and it's people. Looking back to my contention 2, targeted killing would undermine due process and the rights of all 310 million American citizens. Targeted killing does not uphold the Social Contract. Targeted killing is more akin to a totalitarian regime.

Contention 2: Targeted killing is proven to lead to protection.

This has already been addressed in my attack on C1, the Social Contract, and more importantly, my C1. The question is, protection for whom? As I've said before, targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life, period. Additionally, undermining the rights and privileges of 310 million American citizens is hardly moral. What kind of Social Contract prevents citizens from being safe within their own borders and from their own government?

Con Case

Value: National Security.

Pro has not attacked my value head on, rather they have tried to absorb it into their value. However, the Social Contract is utterly refuted so this simply is not possible and my value of National Security remains completely untouched. That alone is enough to justify a Con vote.

Value Criterion: Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Pro states that I innapropriately used my Value Criterion. To clear things up, I would like to reframe my Value Criterion as consequentialism; a moral philosopy that frames morality in regards to the more favorable consequences of actions. This is an appropriate criterion because it connects to morality, and at the same time it is literally the same exact thing as a cost-benefit analysis. They both seek the more favorable consequences. I would even say that the cost-benefit analysis is the heart of consequentialism. This also addresses the second attack on my VC.

Contention 1: Targeted Killing results in the loss of innocent life which is counterproductive to the goal of National Security.

1) Pro seems to misunderstand my Value. I am not valuing the security of any specific nation. I am not valuing the security of the nations performing the targeted killings, nor am I valuing the security of the nations where targeted killing takes place. Rather, I am valuing National Security as a whole. Meaning I value the security of all nations indiscriminately and negative side effects of targeted killing are seen in the nation doing it and the nation in which tking is taking place.

2) The evidence Pro asked for; "A reduction in the number of civilian deaths would be the one sign of progress, yet the number has increased every year since 2006, and a third of the nearly 10,000 total are attributable to Nato or Afghan government forces. A confidential US military report in 2009 conceded that Nato was causing "unnecessary collateral damage"; but policies causing civilian deaths continue, notably the use of drones for surveillance and "targeted" killings – though they mainly kill civilians." [3]

"Suffering by ordinary Afghans is even greater. Around 2500 non-combatants were killed and 4000 wounded during first 10 months of the last year."

Based on these statistics, targeted killing is hardly proportional.

Contention 2: Targeted Killings allow for one judge, jury, and executioner.

First of all, Nils Melzer never defined National Security as he says he did. Nils Melzer only defined targeted killing in this debate. I really don't know what he's talking about here. Until this is cleared up, I really don't know what to say.

Contention 3: Targeted Killing is like skiing down a slippery slope.

The important points I bring up here are not empirical, they are logical. If a state is willing to go against it's own laws and Constitution with something like the Patriot Act, then we have a serious moral dilemma on our hands. The Patriot Act, intended to fight terrorism, (which is noble, I'm not going to deny that) was actually used to for something else entirely and infringed upon the privacy rights of American citizens. This is what I mean when I'm talking about a moral slippery slope. Targeted killing may be intended to only fight terrorism, but as a consequence, there are numerous civilian causalties and 310 million Americans are having their rights undermined.

Debate Round No. 3


As this is my final focus, I will only provide evidence for what I didn't have the chance to refute based on my opponent's statements in the last round, and I won't argue anything before that or provide arguments for my case, as pertaining to the rules of LD with a slight edit since we can't uphold LD structure exactly.

Brief Roadmap: As the only thing I have to do is leave my affirmative case standing to affirm the round, I will begin by adressing my opponents claims last round starting at the Pro case and moving to the Con case, then move on to dropped arguments if there are any, then post voters for the round.

On the definition of TK:
My opponent believes that my definition of TK is that anyone can be killed indiscriminately, however as he dropped in the last round and as it states in the definition, it shows that the target has to be one who has broken international law, and to show they need international law they need a trial. And so, it does not back up his second or third contentions.
On Social Contract:
My opponent states that because the you can't sign the social contract, it doesn't exist. However, he does this by first providing a definition of Social Contract. However, as I did provide my definition at the beginning of the round and my opponent did not, mine is the accepted definition.
Simply because you don't sign the social contract, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Despite what the Con's quote states, all citizens of America of rational mind (meaning excluding the mentally disabled and those to young to know such things) know their laws, and it is the same throughout the world. By staying citizens under the law, they know that these laws are in effect, and they adhere to them, this is the social contract, gaining of protection for the loss of freedom. If at any point citizens don't believe the protection or the laws are worth the loss of freedom, they have the freedom to immigrate to another nation. So just because not every citizens knows the definition of "social contract", it does not mean they don't know the denotation. After all, nobody here can see or touch oxygen, but we all know it exists. Because the Social contract is in fact in effect even though you can't see or touch it, my VP and VC stand.

On my VC:
My opponent's only argument against this is the one against my VP, and that rebuttal is stated above. As he completely dropped the case that we need a moral medium to judge governments, and he did not negate social contract, then this social contract is a valid Value Criterion.

On my C1:
Not only is this contention proof of the Social Contract (and as such is evidence that it is a valid contract), the Con does not properly refute it. His first argument was "targeted killing is counter productive to the security the affirmative case is trying to provide. More on this later.", but never proves it, he then goes on to say "targeted killing would undermine the Social Contract between the U.S. government and it's people. Looking back to my contention 2, targeted killing would undermine due process and the rights of all 310 million American citizens.". This argument is flawed because 1.) Because the use of TK against operatives of Al Qaeda in no way affects the US citizens other than increased protection from those who are sworn to kill them, so Social Contract is upheld and 2.) As I've stated, TK is used as an object of international law after a trial to prove he person in question broke international law. So not only does the use of it against Al Qaeda not affect the US citizen's right to a trial, it doesn't even affect Al Qaeda's right to a trial.
As this was his only argument against my C1, and the argument was refuted, my C1 stands.

My opponent provides two arguments against this contention, first: "The question is, protection for whom? As I've said before, targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life, period". I've answered this in my first contention. A government provides security FOR IT'S OWN CITIZENS, and so that is who they're protecting by killing others, so the loss of of innocent life in Pakistan does not affect the protection of the life of someone in France.
Secondly: "Additionally, undermining the rights and privileges of 310 million American citizens is hardly moral.", but he cannot prove that this happens in any way. All he tries to prove is that it undermines the right to a free trial, but this free trial isn't for an American citizen, and I've proven it doesn't even strip that freedom from terrorists.

My opponent has not and can not refute the social contract, and as that was his only defense the attack stands.
Although I appreciate that the Con is trying to adjust his argument, according to the rules of LD and pretty much every civilized debate style, you cannot change what you're arguing for halfway through the round when you find out it lost.
1.) My opponent says I misunderstand, but he goes on to say that he values the security of al nations indiscrimantely, but that's precisely what Global Security is. The protection of every Nation in the world, while National Security is the proection of one nation. As he goes on to define Global Security rather than national security, my statement that he does not benefit his own Value Premise still stands. However, even if he did, that VP is absorbed into my VP, so that point actually benefits my case.
2.) My opponent just now provided evidence, so I'll be able to break this up into 2 arguments
2a.) As a nation engaging in its own security does not have to bother with the security of other nations, this evidence is meaningless as long as these losses are not caused by the same nation as the losses occured in. And as the evidence proves it did not, it doesn't affect National Security.
2b.) As this is my first chance to provide evidence on the topic, here's a bit of evidence: "Civilians and other noncombatants who are within or in close proximity to a military objective assume a certain riskthrough their presence in or proximity to such targets; this is not something over which an attacking military force normally would have knowledge or over which it would have control."[1], so a government cannot be held accountable for civilian damage.
My bad, that should be the definition of TK, not the definition of NS.
My opponent's only justification for this is the Patriot Act, but he drops that it cannot be used for killing. He also brings already refuted arguments at the end of the paragraph.

-Every point made for my opponent's VP is made for my own
-My oponents VC is not valid and cannot be substituted
-As my VP and VC are superior vote Pro
-My opponent's C1 doesn't even benefit his VP, and instead advocated Global Security which neither side is arguing.
-All of my contentions stand as my opponents arguments are fallacious.
-A target must be confirmed by an international law trial.


TheDiabolicDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
Sorry about that, I was a little overwhelmed by graduation and family visiting. Vote Pro.
Posted by photopro21 4 years ago
I'd love to vote- but I haven't completed enough rounds yet. Great round to both of you though!
I'd ultimately be voting pro, by the way. But con did a good job as well!
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
As my opponent has forfeited, extend all arguments
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
After adding teh period on the last voter, I hit 0 characters exactly :P If you dont' believe me, feel free to copy and paste my argument into your argument box :P

Anyway, since neither of us had room for our works cited in the round, here's my workds cited for the source:
[1]: [Parks,1989 (W. Hays, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to the Judge Advocate General of the Army, "Memorandum on Executive Order 12333 and Assassination: Department of the Army: office of teh Judge Advocate General of the Army. (November 2, 1989)
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
Ahh I see. Yeah there really isn't any way to for sure know some of the abbreviations on this site. Sometimes I just infer their meaning but that doesn't always work. Anyways, I look forward to seeing your rebuttal.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
Oh, I just saw the abbreviation and not the explination :P I men Final Focus
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
Thanks, and doesn't FF mean Full Forfeit? I mean I'm pretty sure it means something like that. I don't think that's what you meant though haha.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
I've been there, I managed to nail a debate on 0 characters once and I was so ecstatic!

Anyway, awesome rebuttal, I'll post the FF tomorrow
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
Man, that was close. I only had 13 characters left :p
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forrfeit
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
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: Con forfeited. He also seemed to drop all of Pro's arguments due to the forfeit.