In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

Off-Case: The resolution implies that the ends are good. It MUST make this assumption insofar as it would be illogical say that, "though the ends are BAD, they still justify the BAD means." These two negative statement cannot form a positive conclusion. This is a logically based analysis, I just hope everyone understands. I'd like to offer the following analysis in order to clear any confusion: Means consist of the procedure (ex. torture) Ends consist of the result of the procedure (ex. terror) Justice and Utility... http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au... ********************** Thank you for accepting my challenge girr29, hopefully we can inform the voters simultaneously influence and entertain the judges. Good luck... I'd like to offer the following roadmap for the ease of the judges and voters... CON CASE->PRO CASE!! Of course... =D ********************** CON CASE: CON begins his case by assuming that I would accept his actor for the resolution. But I must contest. The actor for this debate is a just nation, the nation need not be specified, the reason it needs to be just is because the intent behind the resolution is the inquisition of moral justifications. And a nations acts can be morally justified if and only if it the actions are coming from a just nation. Just nation is a nation that adheres to the philosophical concept of justice in its most pure form. Furthermore, my opponent contradicts himself within his (II.B.) This will be explained later on in my rebuttal. The second reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because there is no context available within the resolution to assume that we are to evaluate the United States. Nor does my opponent warrant his reasoning. The third reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because we cannot evaluate empirics through a clearly philosophical resolution. (ends vs. means) ********************* I. A CON's definition of military intelligence is understandable, but I'd like to sum it up in my own words: Collecting military intelligence is the acquisition of intelligence information that is relevant to the prosperity of a particular nation, esp. the acquiring nation. CON continued his military intelligence analysis by writing that "the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence... that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..." This is not necessarily true, as I would never advocate such an obdurate position. Frowns* If the military of a particular nation undergoes unethical or immoral means, it is undermining its own priority. The priority of any military, assuming it's not corrupt, is to protect its nation, in this case, through matters of collecting military intelligence. Moreover, my opponent's way of evaluating means and ends is flawed throughout his entire case. This is because he undermines the importance of how moral theory is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good. My opponent states that PRO "implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..." This is not fully true. The only way that torture and suffering would be applicable, is if the ends are justify such means. For example, if one person is trying to take over the world, the military has the right to undergo almost anything in order to save the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. This is understandable on a weighing scale, meaning it's one life versus 6.5 billion others. Is one person's life worth sacrificing for the lives of billion of other people? The answer need not be restated. This is why utilitarianism is inherently the justification for nearly ALL his examples. But for the sake of debate I'll continue to attack each point one by one. =L B. His analysis on the term justified further proves my claim for as to why the actor needs to be a just nation. Unless he can successfully establish how the United States is a perfectly just nation. My opponent wrote, "...it is not right to do whatever it takes as long as the ends justify the means. Because have to show that you are being just or right, and doing whatever it takes to get good ends, does not always mean you used just or right means to get to that end." This is a case of petitio principii that's similar to this... I win because my opponent loses, he loses because I win. http://en.wikipedia.org... For that reason I'd like to offer my opponent a chance to clarify so I can properly refute your logic. ********************* II Opponent states, "Doing whatever it takes as long as it results in good ends is not right and not just." A. He backs up this claim using to examples. His first example is flawed because it incorrectly analyzes what a just nation would do. Never would a just nation undergo unethical means in order to achieve a risky end. Meaning, a just nation wouldn't torture a suspected terrorist UNLESS it made a profound impact upon the prosperity of its own nation. The overall prosperity of a nation and its civilians is more important than the life of one individual. Now, never could someone even IMAGINE a just nation would murder an innocent family, as that would achieve nothing. This is justified through Utility. http://en.wikipedia.org... B. His second example is where he starts to contradict his actor analysis. This is a direct contradiction because of practicality issues. The United States would not implement a homicidal solution to the eradication of aids. The end that nations are trying to achieve, is NOT the elimination of AIDs infected persons, rather a cure for AIDs. Governments are not trying to kill all people who have AIDs because it's nearly impossible, rather expensive, and of course, immoral. ********************* III. I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify his intent behind his third contention, he shows no clear link for as to how this is relevant to the resolution. I cannot see how a just nation would undergo such an irrational attempt to stop a terrorist attack. As of now this argument has no impact in today's round because my opponent fails to offer a clear link between his example and the resolution itself. ********************* IV. Once again my opponent offers a fallacious argument that continues to center around an unsound logic. I'm not inherently believing in doing WHATEVER it takes, as I have established earlier in this rebuttal, I am evaluating through a weighing scale. Meaning the military can do whatever as long it is enough to achieve the good end. ********************** PRO CASE: I. (Grouped as a whole) CON wrote, "So right here he says he's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is prese[r]ved." This a statement has been proven unsound throughout my rebuttal. I'd like to repost what my opponent considers a warrant for his attacks against my case... "[this] doesn't make it just or right so then it is not justified.". AND "...and I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified." This is NOT a proper way to attack a case. This is once again a form of petitio principii. ********************* II. Actually since my opponent offers no insight for as to how Utilitarianism is an unsound moral theory then it still stand until he properly refutes it. This point has been defended throughout my case. http://www.utilitarianism.com... ********************* III. My opponent only justification behind his refutation has already been debated. As of now PRO is winning because National Security and Utility have been upheld thoroughly within the round . Thank You.