Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

"Never" I assume Pro concedes that he stretched the "never as a rule" definition. Never can be implied to mean as a rule, but not as most of time. Pro also leaves the crucial point that, even with this loose definition of never, all that is required for me to win the debate is to find an exception and conceive of a world or future where this particular exception is not rare at all. For example, all that's needed is to find it conceivable that in the future, or in alternate theoretical worlds, conditions comparable to those that surrounded The Six Day War could be fairly common place. Framework This point is becoming somewhat semantics based and unimportant. The correct statement would be, if killing is wrong as a rule, it is almost always wrong. Under the current statement asserted by Pro, you could be saying one thing, then offering exceptions. Pro equivocates allot. The very definition of "should" that Pro presented for this debate was of a "morally right thing to do". He now states that the "should" in his moral example, meant as a rational choice. Furthermore, the scenario and the choice the hypothetical person was being faced with was a moral quandry and thus it ought to be assumed in such hypotheticals that saying the person should do X or Y, you are saying that is the morally right thing to do. Either way, no matter what definition we use, if we say that you should choose one way over the other in a heavily moral dilemma, then you must be saying it as the moral thing to do. Whenever someone should do something, we have to assume the choice is at terms with morality. That doesn't mean every "should" is a moral choice, but since the options of killing one person to save five or killing one and saving none both heavily weigh into morality by saying one should choose the former, you are saying he is morally obligated to do so. Furthermore, Pro continually states, but never adequately defends his assertion that both acts are immoral. Since killing one to save five is by far more in line with basic moral values than the only other option available to him, the man is of course obligated to choose it. Would you not judge him if he killed the one to save no one else? And would you honestly feel justified to judge him for killing the one to save five when he must kill someone no matter what? It would be as far as contemptible if he defended his choice by Pro's interpretation that both acts are evil and immoral and thus there is no obligation to do one over the other. Therefore, if killing, or war, is the best choice out of all the alternatives, it should be done. Pro's only argument is that rights, like the right to vote, contain obvious exceptions and so, apparently, I deny all rights. This is seriously in error. Since it contains obvious exceptions, we can merely rephrase the right to vote as the right to vote for all sane legal citizens of age who have no serious criminal status. I asked Pro why these rights should be universally stated but he merely presupposes it. The Absolute Standard I will again show why Pro's objections could be applied to almost all moral theories, including his own, and how it misses the point of what the standard is for. I assume Pro values freedom and fairness and thus, when those values are at odds, he must be made to make the same choice of one over the other. There's no problem with that because it's the very basis of most moral dilemmas--which value is stronger in that scenario. Moreover, the standard was not presented as a formula to answer all questions such as those, so the objection misses the point. C.1 Deontology Pro's moral views are full of double standards. To paraphrase Pro, if the war has started and intervening brings it to a swifter end we may intervene, but if the war has not yet started, we cannot initiate even if it will most likely lead to less innocents killed. However, I hardly say what delineates the two. Pro never explains his ambiguous application of standards. It seems he's very OK with war most times, but when it comes to actual initiation, he is dubious. Since Pro has previously given us a scenario where we should kill an innocent person, proving that the killing of innocents is immoral falls short of proving we should never do it. I hold that war, despite killing innocents, can be moral, but even if it were immoral, Pro has supported a framework where immoral things should sometimes be done. War does not need to be a certainty for war to be on the horizon. If an imposing nation is strengthening its forces on your border, announcing political hostility, putting its military on maximum alert, and other suspicious acts all at the same time as forming suspect treaties with other nations--all of which was the case of the Six Day War--then it is not certain but still probable enough that you will be attacked. Stalin did not want to start a war. The war was almost initiated by the United States and was extremely uncertain. In other words, there was no intel that could have hinted towards war being on the horizon. It's only afterwards that we can say it almost happened; and this is not at all an example where striking first to protect innocents was an option. The Mexican example is simply an example where there would be no reason to strike first. Pro's source pretty much states that the US would have annihilated Mexico. To do that before Mexico had even shown aggression would have been clearly unnecessary and unjust. C.2 Utility I don't really care if Japan is the best example. A case study would be something but one example of a country with defensive weapons proves nothing. And their constitution prohibiting them from initiating war makes them unique--other countries would built up weapons without this law directing their potential use. Furthermore, since offensive and defensive can often not be delineated, countries will build up offensive weapons even if they plan to use them mainly defensively. Not only that they will prefer weapons that are not limited only to defense as that makes their weaponry clearly stronger. Finally, since it is accepted that just societies can participate in already started wars, there is nothing stopping them from collecting offensive weapons in anticipation of joining wars or attacking countries that declared war on them. It's probable, and at the very least conceivable, that the Jews could only escape genocide by initiating war. Pro limits their retaliation to "small isolated clashes". My simple question is WHY? If a people are under threat of genocide they should be able to do almost anything within their power to prevent it. Genocide is a massively evil moral infringement that I can very comfortably state warrants retaliation by war. I did answer Pro's alternate intervention point saying "In the vast majority of times it would not be near enough to put the genocide to a stop. " SB Pro merely says that the allies would have seemed like unjust aggressors had they attacked Hitler first. In light of our historical perspective of World War II, we can easily say it would have been better had the allies attacked first. Pro merely speculates that the allies would have been viewed as unjust, which is moot and irrelevant as we know for sure it would have not been unjust even if it would have been unsure in an alternate version of events. C.1 Preemption and Other (? ) Yes I backtracked in round 1 and 2 due to accidentally mentioning standards I did not at all mean to support--that is perfectly acceptable and I don't know why Pro has lingered on this. Preemption does not require incontrovertible evidence but if it does, then there are simply cases that don't match the preemptive standards that I still support. I will note there was only one example of poor intelligence, not multiple ones. As stated, I accepted it because it was only on example. I lauded one benefit of one particular part of the UN. "I never advocated the prime infallibility of the UN. " I wish Pro could explain what is so rare about the Six Day War. The situation was not the least extreme nor improbable. It could very conceivably happen to any nation, and thus is an obvious exception to Pro's rule of thumb. Since the Six Day War entails obvious foreseeable exceptions, it directly breaks the rule. Furthermore, Pro never responds to my hypothetical situations. Pro ignores my reasoning as to why a US preemptive strike before Pearl Harbor would have had to have been an act of war. It is inconceivable to think that a preemptive strike by the US on a massive Japanese air force intent on starting a war with the US would not have initiated war. In that alternate reality, all historians would look to the US preemptive strike as the start of the war. Refraining to preemptively strike in a potential nuclear war could guarantee annihilation and war, when it is on the verge of entering your doorstep, is often best countered with preemptive initiation. Last, it's poor conduct for Pro to call it "Con's standard of incontrovertible proof" when I dropped that long ago. C.2 Protection of Rights and Well-being There is no debate against America having initiated the American Revolution and since this is Pro's only objection, we can view it as an example of a just war. Britain was the father nation so sending in troops to maintain order was far from an act of war. The colonies rebelled and Britain endeavored to stop it. Pro ignores my quote that unequivocally states the colonies reacted to British oppression with initiation of war. The Hutu nationalists were a formidable military force and inflicted massive deaths in their Tutsi genocide. Sending enough troops to stop them and with the intent to use force if necessary, would itself be war; or once the fighting started it would be. It does not matter who fired the first shot so long as the intervening troops are there to fight.