The Instigator
ericM373
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mimshot
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Targeted killings are a morally permissable 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 3 votes the winner is...
Mimshot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,260 times Debate No: 20905
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

ericM373

Pro

i say its all good man. kill 'em before they kill us.
Mimshot

Con

Thank you for the interesting and provocative topic. Since my opponent did not specify that the first round was for acceptance only, nor make an argument of his own, I will make only a brief introductory statement of my position and allow him to post the first substantive argument on the merits of the proposition.

The debate challenge states, "Targeted killings are a morally permissible foreign policy tool," but it does not state what system of morality is to be applied. For this reason, I will presume we are discussing morality under contemporary American standards. Under contemporary American standards, use of force is justified to prevent eminent harm (See: http://www.justice.gov...). Targeted killings, being by definition in cold blood, is a use of lethal force without any danger of eminent harm.
Debate Round No. 1
ericM373

Pro

ericM373 forfeited this round.
Mimshot

Con

That's unfortunate. While he's probably not coming back I will post a brief argument in oposition in case he does.

Killing in self defense is only valid when threatened with imminent harm. This standard has been in place for quite some time and there is no reason to replace it now. Targeted killings (as opposed to killing that occur on the battlefield) are by definition in cold blood There is therefore no eminent harm threatened. Therefore, targeted killings are not morally permissable.


Debate Round No. 2
ericM373

Pro

ericM373 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ericM373

Pro

ericM373 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ericM373

Pro

ericM373 forfeited this round.
Mimshot

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ericM373MimshotTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Quadruple forfeit
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ericM373MimshotTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
ericM373MimshotTied
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: Forfeits, and the grammar on Pro was bad.