Resolved: Consequentialism should trump deontology in the matter of national defense.

I too will present the value of justice, as both consequentialism and deontology are intended to achieve justice. Justice, although it has many different competing definition, will for this debate be synonymous with morality, as this is a general principle. So, Value: Justice Value Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative That is "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This criterion is warranted because, as Kant points out in his "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," failure to uphold the imperative leads to contradictions, and the failure to carry out justice. Thesis: Consequentialism in national defense contradicts the imperative, and is therefore immoral. Contention 1: Most military strategies violate the CI A. A reformulation of the CI is "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." Military strategies sacrifice lives, "for the greater good." This is using human life as a means to an end, disrespecting and violating the moral sanctity of human life. B. Military strategies are also contradictions of the CI in another way. The CI tells us to act as if our actions were to become a universal law, military strategy often relies on the fact that it can't become a universal imperative. For example, the maxim that was used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was roughly along the lines of "If we bomb Japan we will shorten WWII and save lives." If this maxim was generalized to "If we bomb an aggressive nation, we will shorten conflict" it could not be universalized. Every nation would be dropping atom bombs on major cities, 'in order to save lives and shorten conflict." Certainly nuclear holocaust is not Justice. Moving on to my opponent's case and moving down. I agree to my opponent's definitions. His value is fine, but it needs to be defined, I defined justice in my warrant for my value. His value criterion is flawed. he is using a criterion of consequentialism to prove that consequentialism is just. It is circular reasoning, and it cannot stand, which means we have to take the only other criterion in this debate, mine. Contention 1: The United States government must provide for the common defense, yes. But its actions in doing so cannot trump the CI, and many consequentialist actions do. Contention 2: In this you are using circular reasoning. You are saying that because bombing al-Qaeda saves lives, it is just. Consequentialism is just that, you never say why saving lives is more just, you seem to think it just is. Also, as I pointed out in Subpoint B, actions done to save more lives end up causing more harm than good if the CI is applied. Contention 3: Warrant the Just War Theory, it is just a theory, you can't state it as truth, you need to warrant its legitimacy. Contention 4: Again, consequentialist actions are warranted by consequentialism, circular reasoning. Also, "extracting" the information, ie torture, is treating the terrorist as a mean, not as a man. This is not just. Contention 5: This assumes that that primary objective of national defense is in fact just. You are begging the question. Your job is to show that consequentialism upholds justice, not the primary objective of national defense.