targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

I congratulate my opponent on posting his argument with only seconds to spare. To come so close to losing without actually forfeiting is quite an accomplishment. I will begin by defending my position against my opponent's weak attack, and then I will move to the offensive position and attack my opponents weak case. My opponent argues that the value premise of Life invalid on the grounds that TK is taking the life of an individual. I ask My opponent which i worse. one terrorist killed in self defense, or myriads of innocent lives killed for no reason at all? My value premise is based on Utilitarianism. now you can see why you are incorrect. My opponent has made the argument that my first contention is incorrect because targeting an individual in another country could be perceived as an act of war. I remind my opponent that Almost all TKs are acts of self defense and preemption. The attack one alwaki was not perceived as an act of war. My opponent does not agree with conventional warfare. i ask. how does he propose to deal with the terror threat? I never implied hat targeting Hitler would involve military personnel being "dropped" into Berlin. we did have bombs. and even then. if that scenario was replayed today, we have drones, voice recognition explosives, etc. etc. On my third contention, my opponent makes the assumption that the targets have already killed hundreds of lives. please explain this. the truth is, that the terrorist leaders ARE in hiding! i do not understand what my opponent means by "we make it seem as if to take their life" Alright! not to attack my opponent! over all, I invite the Voters to examine my opponents grammar and witting. i should receive that grammar point. First, My opponents Value Premise. Although international cooperation is valuable, it does not compare to the Value of life. My opponent's Value criterion. I am afraid that it is nullified, unless he can prove that all countries are bound by the constitution of the united states. I remind him that The Resolution does not specify the U. S. Contention 1 My opponent did not provide a definition of targeted killing, so will be assuming that he agrees with the definition provided by the UN. Under the UN's definition, Targeted Killing does not refer to leaders alone. in fact, TK is hardly ever used to take out country leaders. In almost all cases, it is terrorist leaders who represent an eminent threat. therefore, killing a terrorist leader would not brake negotiations, nor treaties. i refer again to the example of Anwar Al-Alwaki, and Yemen. we are still at peace with Yemen. Therefore, my opponent's first contention is nullified. Contention2. Targeted Killing is NOT an act of terrorism, But an act of preemption. The Humans Targeted Are threats . therefore, when we use Missles or Machine Guns, we are not terrorizing, we are merely eliminating a threat. Osama Bin laden was a threat. it did not matter weather he was armed a the time of his death or not. He had killed hundreds of innocent civilians. and the killing os his family? that was collateral damage. if we had not done it because of the lives of osama bin laden's family, who knows how many more hundreds of innocent individuals would have been killed by him? My opponent's second Contention is nullified. Contention3 targeted killing is murder? let us first look at who these targets are! most, if not all of the targets are terrorists! what do terrorists do? they practice mass destruction! if your third contention is valid, than if a man ran up to me and tried to stab me with a twelve inch buck knife, and i shot him, i would be a murderer! I don't think so! My opponent's third contention is NULLIFIED!