Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

I would like to point out that the details of this event are not fully known, as my opponent has stated. As a result, we must take the most likely approach. We must figure out whether or not Gaddafi's death was most likely justified or not. This is very important when debating about a semi-mysterious event. 1. Muammar Gaddafi's death was either unavoidable or it was notNothing to rebut here.2. If Muammar Gaddafi's death was unavoidable, then it was justified (not prohibited by international doctrine). My opponent has answered this question himself, but I will simply reiterate. Gaddafi's death was not caused during an armed conflict. There are numerous sources which state that dictator was dragged out a tunnel, beaten, begged for his life, and was finally executed (1) (Please watch the video beside the text). We can clearly see that in the video, Gadaffi was not killed in a crossfire. The rebels surrounded him, and with no way to defend himself, they executed him. I agree with the fact that deaths during an armed conflict our justified, but deaths by mob execution are not.3. Even if Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable, there may still have been justification, but there may not have been. My opponent has presented possible explanations for the fact that his death may have been justified. They are:1. Death may have been accidental. http://www.youtube.com...2. Threat to his captors3. Fake footage1. I would like to refer you to this article (2). In it, a Libyan man said and claimed that he was the man that killed Moammar Gadaffi. He said:"We grabbed him,' the fighter says in the video. 'I hit him in the face. Some fighters wanted to take him away and that's when I shot him, twice: in the face and in the chest. "To prove the legitimacy of his claims, he later showed Gaddafi's personal belongings, which he took from the body (Refer to article). While Moammar Gaddafi's death may have been accidental, it most likely was not. Not only has a man stepped up and claimed that he killed Gadaffi, but also the video clearly shows that there were a group of men beating Gadaffi.2. This one I find to be absurd. If anything, the captors obviously posed a threat to him. The rebels were beating him on the ground, while he was in the fetal position. He was not a threat.3. While its true that no footage has been independently verified, the overwhelming majority of clips and pictures of his death seem to make it that he was most likely executed by rebels. 4. Killing Muammar Gaddafi when his death was avoidable, and without justification, would have been a crime. Yes, it would have been a crime. This is exactly where my case is coming from. There most likely was no substantial justification for his murder. Your proposed propositions for a justification have been very weak, which I already rebutted.5. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I agree with my opponent.6. No one has been charged or convicted of the crime of killing Muammar Gaddafi. People have stepped forward, but nobody has been formally convicted.7. Ergo, until the status of #6 changes, then we must either conclude that Muammar Gaddafi's death was justified (either unavoidable or some other form of justification). This is where my opponents argument fails. My opponent has made the presumption that because nobody has been charged, then it is acceptable by international doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth. From what I can infer, my opponent is implying that a crime cannot be considered justified or not justified if there are no charges. If somebody killed X, and the somebody is unknown, does that make the crime justified? The short answer is no, especially in the case of Gadaffi. Having a lack of charge does not mean that it was justified. Yes, international doctrine does presume that people are innocent until proven guilty, but this is irrelevant to the case at hand. Our debate is not about whether somebody should be charged, but whether it was justified. My opponent believes that "no charge= justifiable". This is not true. Human rights and the right to life fall under the category of "International Doctrine". It is certainly not justified to go around killing people without a just cause. My opponent has also stated that legally, a crime of murder is justified by internal doctrine. I urge him to expand on this point as it is clearly false. If the debate was titled " X should be charged with a crime for the murder of Gaddafi", then my opponent's arguments would have stood. But our debate is clearly about whether or not it was justified by international doctrine. I would like to quickly define "International doctrine". This is not a semantic argument, but simply a definition upon which our entire debate is based upon. International: Existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more nations. Doctrine: A belief or set of beliefsIt is clear, that around the world, human rights are taken into account by nearly all countries. Therefore, the term "International Doctrine" does not only apply to government policy, but also to sets of beliefs and values held by countries. In conclusion, my opponent has stated that international doctrine implies that murders are justified unless there is a charge. Not only is this legally false, but also morally and ethically false (which falls under the category of international doctrine). To restate my case, I would like to point out that the rebels violated the "right to life" of Gadaffi (a protocol of UN international doctrine), created an oxymoron in their wanting of an establishment of a democratic state, had no reason to kill Gadaffi, and most importantly, no justification. I urge the readers to vote CONGood luck to PRO(1). http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...