The United States is Justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objecti

NC - AC NC First, he conceded my definitions. To win I must prove we have a satisfactory reason to use PMC's. Value His value is Justice, defined by him as "being just or fair". First, the definition is circular. Justice is doing what is just? Secondly, I cant experience justice if I am dead. At the point where thousands die without the help of PMC's, they cant experience justice either, so look to life first. The only reason justice can even be mentioned in this debate round is because we acknowledge the state of being alive. Criterion His is the US legal system. He claims that contractors aren't bound by US laws therefore violate the legal system. This if false. The US law encompasses an act called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (1). This enables the US to prosecute both the military and private contractors for crimes committed outside of the United States. Therefore this criterion is irrelevant because PMC's are bound by the law. Contention 1 Con: PMC's violate international law, which forbids mercenaries First, no link to the criterion; US law and international law are not the same Secondly, he wants to look to the US legal system. The definition of a mercenary wasn't defined by the US, it was defined by the Geneva Convention. The United States did not accept their definition (2), so its very questionable if PMC's even qualify as mercenaries. Con: PMCs commit immoral acts for money Profit motive is why they're incentivized to not commit immoral acts. If they do a bad job they wont be hired, therefore they will want to do a good job to maintain the company's reputation. Contention 2 Con: PMC's pay warlords in Afghanistan Getting rid of PMC's there creates a much bigger problem. Contractors account for over half of our military force in Afghanistan (3). With the battle already difficult enough, taking out over half of our force will make it nearly impossible to win. Therefore, the war effort is harmed either way, the impact is devoid of uniqueness. AC Life Con: Life alone has no value, need justice to live fulfilling life Justice alone has no value either, it only matters you're alive to experience it. Through a negative ballot, thousands of people die in foreign genocides, meaning they cant experience justice, which violates both frameworks. Furthermore, he never argues that the lives people maintain by voting aff will be devoid of meaning, so he cant access this argument on two counts. He drops that life is a prerequisite to all other values. That was my initial justification as to why its paramount; look to my value because of this concession alone. Maximization of Life Con: PMC's hurt lives PMC's harming lives has never been argued by the neg previously, all his impacts are on International law and Taliban warlords. Therefore there's no warrant or evidence supporting this unsubstantiated claim. Contention 1 Con: I don't mention times where PMC's failed You don't either. Its tough to do so considering how effective they have been proven to be. Con: High success rate =/= justified First, no warrant as to why we dont look to success rate, and no alternative given. Second, he tacitly concedes that PMC's are effective. Third, high success rate of saving tens of thousands of lives through genocide is surely justified. He conceded "justified" to mean "satisfactory reason". Solving genocide is surely more than satisfactory. Furthermore, he drops both examples of previous successes. He drops Darfuri genocide; extend that I solve. Most importantly, he drops Geraghty 09, who shows that PMC's are effective at solving genocides in general. At that point I am automatically saving hundreds of thousands of lives by using PMC's to end conflicts abroad. Contention 2 Con: Necessity =/= justified Food is necessary to live, so you're saying that food isnt necessarily justified? Con: PMC's operate outside US law. Extend MEJA bill which holds contractors accountable. Con: Brave Americans solve overstretch This is the strangest argument yet. First, there's no warrant as to how they solve. Secondly, these "Brave American soldiers" are the ones experiencing the problem of overstretch. PMC's solve the problem by giving us an additional supply of troops so we have more to work with. In conclusion, I urge an aff vote because he has never denied the ability of PMC's to solve genocides and civil wars. Biggest point in the round, as this outweighs everything in the neg case. Thank you. http://www.gonzagajil.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://tinyurl.com...