The Instigator
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
renaissance_man
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 22052
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Zaradi

Con

The resolution is as stated below:

Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

LD-style debates. All forms of LD cases are acceptable.
Round format will go as thus.

Round One: Pro posts case
Round Two: Con posts case and refutes, pro defends and refutes
Round Three: Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends. No new arguments in this round.

With that in mind, I await my opponent.
renaissance_man

Pro

I regret to inform everyone, but i will not be able to debate at present. me things have come up. if Zaradi would challenge me again in a week and a half, I would be more than happy to accept.
vote Pro ;)
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Con

Since my opponent conceded, vote con.
To get argument points, I'll present an argument.
Targeted killing sucks because it kills someone. Killing is bad. Thus, targeted killing is bad.

There's my argument. Since pro conceded, vote con.
renaissance_man

Pro

well, i don't want to forfeit, so i l just give an argument similar to my opponent's.
My opponent says targeted killing is bad because it kills people.
Targeted killing is good because is saves people!
vote pro .
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Con

If you don't want to forfeit, then why didn't you post a case?
Ergo, since you have yet to post a case, then you forfeit.
To respond to my opponent's points, it doesn't because targeted killing only pisses terrorists off, thus making them kill more people. So he's wrong. Thus, targeted killing sucks.

Vote pro.
renaissance_man

Pro

WOW! thank you Con, for urging everybody to vote pro. you automatically lost.
I win, and i don't use foul language.
Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Oldfrith 4 years ago
Oldfrith
TK is a tool. If I kill someone with a hammer, does it make the hammer immoral?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
And I unformally tell you to drop the semantics. You wanted my help? Fine. Debate me, and I will help you. If you're gonna play games and act all cute and funny, you can forget my help. You came to me and asked if I can help you. And you're really starting to piss me off. I don't like to work with people who piss me off.

It's your choice, really. If you want my help so badly, then freaking man up and debate me. If not, screw off.
Posted by renaissance_man 4 years ago
renaissance_man
I am sorry, I admit that i was just having a little fun. If you continue to use this poor language and slang, I will refuse to debate you.
Someone who uses that kind of language shows a lack of knowledge.
So I formally ask you to discontinue the use of foul language, and slang.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Oh screw off. You forfeited, and now you won't admit you forfeited.
If you don't want to forfeit, I'll challenge you again right now and we can do this for real.
If not, then admit you forfeited and I'll challenge you when you're ready.
Posted by renaissance_man 4 years ago
renaissance_man
sorry for the grammatical error, the sentence should read as follows "some things have come up".
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
Zaradirenaissance_manTied
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
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
Zaradirenaissance_manTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
Zaradirenaissance_manTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
Zaradirenaissance_manTied
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: Pro FF'd, so conduct to Con.