The Instigator
MileyRilen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,081 times Debate No: 21190
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

MileyRilen

Con

Opening statement. This will be Lincoln Douglas format. Only serious debaters please.

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Cassidy Steedley
Hello, my name is Cassidy Steedley and today I will be debating on this fine topic. Before my debate I want to thank Mrs. Sanders once again for giving me the opportunity to debate on this topic.
This IS also called the assassination policy! As Steven from Intlaw.com states: Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing.
This is one reason we should not do this, because it's unlawful killing.
Definitions:
Targeted Killing: Targeted killings are used by governments to eliminate individuals they view as a threat.
Morally
1. in a moral manner.
2. from a moral point of view: morally reprehensible.
3. virtuously.
4. virtually; practically.
Permissible:
that can be permitted; allowable:
Foreign:
1.of, pertaining to, or derived from another country or nation; not native

Since the resolution is targeting killing is right, I am against.
THESIS: My thesis is that Targeted killing is NOT a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

Value: My Value is keeping the Peace not just in our nation but in other nations as well. And if we are out killing people that are targeted, how will peace be kept and maintained? If we are looked upon as the strongest, educated country, we are supposed to show that in our actions.
My First Contention: is to look at the Bible. It states "thou shall not kill"
Warrant: This is not about what is in the Bible or what you practice at your home, but this states world peace. If we do not kill, there are other endings we can come to, such as jail, facilities where we can keep an eye on these people. Death is not the answer. If it was, in that case half of America would be dead because we are killers too! If we killed every murder on this earth, it would cut out a lot of our population.
"If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does--to kill people anywhere, anytime--the result would be chaos." --Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions states.
Impact: This will impact civilians and the world to make it a better place.

My Second Contention: Is it up to only us as Americans who can target kill?
Warrant: As my last quote above stated that if every one were to follow America and start target killing it would be chaos. Proving that other countries look up to us and try to do what we do and follow in our footsteps, we should be setting an example of WORLD PEACE. Maybe that's why the government feels so obligated to target killing in the first place because we can't even keep peace ourselves. That's the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?
http://www.enotes.com... Calls it an extrajudicial killing that lacks due process, and which leads to more violence.
This is true because if we keep killing, people are going to know there are not any consequences and will just keep doing as they want. If others are threatening to kill us and we turn around and kill them, were punishing them with the same thing we don't want to happen. We don't want to be targeted or killed but we as a country feel the need to go and kill other people for trying to kill us. There are different ways to go about this. Killing is not the answer and I believe we need to change!

Impact: This will impact our government, hopefully for the better. If we do not target kill, it will show that the US has more respect for human life!
lannan13

Pro

Dear Con this is my first ever LD debate I hope it will prepare me for T-West.
Targetted Killings- assasination outside of ones country by a person. (this exculdes drones) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thesis:Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
Value: peace and the value of life.
Contenntion 1: Terrorists are dangerous.
We must fight terrorist before they take the fight to us. I mean would you really want another 9-11 attack because we didn't kill and persure the terrorist into a submission and a hiding. Not only that but they are a unique threat so the don't count under the heading of combattant and would not count under international law. Last but not least we killed Bin Ladin by a targeted killing so if you say it's wrong we might not have killed him and he'd still be alive.
Contention 2: Saving human life.
Here is an example WW2 sure we could've gone thourgh WW2 or we could've assainated Hitler saving the Jews. It not only saves the victums lives, but it saves the lives of AMerican soilders from loosing their lives over seas and to never agian see there families.
Contention 3: Hegemety
Targeted killings are key for U.S. world power. We need to proove time and time again that we are the world power and can take care of our allies. That's what targeted killings are is a protection of our allies by killing terrorist.
Impact: We boost American Hegemety and we save lives.
Debate Round No. 1
MileyRilen

Con

MileyRilen forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
I ment that Secruity was my value.
Debate Round No. 2
MileyRilen

Con

MileyRilen forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 3
MileyRilen

Con

MileyRilen forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
MileyRilen

Con

MileyRilen forfeited this round.
lannan13

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
What's "Hegemety"? Did you mean Hegemony?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
MileyRilenlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF but both used 1 source so just a 5 point FF
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
MileyRilenlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
MileyRilenlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF