Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

To open, my opponent gives a succinct definition of the social contract (a theory a hold to) and establishes the burden of proof as "The negative burden is to show that our relation to the other justifies a prohibition of targeted killing whereas the aff burden is to show it is morally permissible". I don't disagree with this definition. I do, however, take issue with what he says next; "Moreover, prefer this standard because ethics is impossible without understanding the relation to the other because that rejects subjective narrative’s and allows ethical violence". In my view, what my opponent is suggesting here is that no violence is ever acceptable, and this is confirmed by his first point of reason: that face-to-face contact with another person means that violence against them is always unacceptable, regardless of what they have done. In my view, this changes my opponent's burden slightly, however, as he must defend this claim, that there is no such thing as "ethical violence" and that self-defense is never appropriate. He must, in essence, make the case for it would be unethical for a person, who has the opportunity, means, and legal justification to prevent a terrorist through force, or that the act of violence against another individual is, on balance, more moral than the act of preventing said action. Regardless, there are numerous critiques one can make of his reasoning here. First, a targeting killing is, by definition, not a face-to-face encounter. It may be directed through a drone, but the killer never truly makes contact with the target until the strike. Second, the relationship in this situation is not between two persons, but between a sovereign nation and a (presumably) lawbreaking fugitive. Third, the piece my opponent cites is taken drastically out of context. The piece my opponent cites is not arguing for a prohibition on violence, but has been selectively edited to cut out what it is arguing for: a prohibition of revenge. You can find an unedited version of most of this here. [1] Accordingly, what he should be arguing is that targeted killing is revenge. How can we distinguish revenge from justice, however? By necessity, any action taken by the legal system robs an individual of rights, be it through confiscation of property (a fine), revocation of the right to travel for a period of time (probation or house arrest), slave labor (community service) or even through the ending of one's life (the death penalty), and yet out society, to an extent, views these as morally acceptable. This goes to the heart of the social contract: according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:"Socrates makes a compelling argument as to why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city. He personifies the Laws of Athens, and, speaking in their voice, explains that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the Laws because they have made his entire way of life, and even the fact of his very existence, possible. They made it possible for his mother and father to marry, and therefore to have legitimate children, including himself. Having been born, the city of Athens, through its laws, then required that his father care for and educate him. Socrates' life and the way in which that life has flourished in Athens are each dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however, this relationship between citizens and the Laws of the city are not coerced. Citizens, once they have grown up, and have seen how the city conducts itself, can choose whether to leave, taking their property with them, or stay. Staying implies an agreement to abide by the Laws and accept the punishments that they mete out. And, having made an agreement that is itself just, Socrates asserts that he must keep to this agreement that he has made and obey the Laws, in this case, by staying and accepting the death penalty. Importantly, the contract described by Socrates is an implicit one: it is implied by his choice to stay in Athens, even though he is free to leave". [2]In essence, the social contract my opponent and I both agrees on places a burden to follow its laws. If you do not like the laws, you can go and move to a place with different ones - however, because you as an individual have benefited from those laws, you have implicitly accepted them, and continue to do so for as long as you live in that area. Your rights come with responsibilities, and by breaking your end of the contract, you are no longer entitled to the protections. This is how any contract works, and the social contract is no different. What we can gather, then, on the first argument is that it is incorrect. It is taken incredibly out of context, applies to a completely different situation (man vs. man rather than state vs. man), and also runs contrary to the social contract both my opponent and myself have explicitly accepted. My opponent's second contention is that targeted killing denies our shared vulnerability and denies we can always be affected by the other. His argument continues from the Butler source, where he presumably shows that any self-defense is wrong as it justifies a never-ending cycle of violence. Once again, this is taken mildly out of context - scholar Bronwyn Davies, in her review of the Judith Baker piece, asserts that she is not arguing against a right to self-defense. Rather, it is that "the burden of justification [of self defense] must be assumed in all its weight". [3] Essentially, the burden is on the person claiming self-defense to prove it. I'm extremely bewildered by what my opponent says after this. He goes into what appears to be a fairly lengthy rebuttal of my opening round - by his own words, he says things like:*"Now, go to his case. The first thin you look at is that I'm the only one providing any kind of ethical framework under which to judge what is 'morally permissible' or not"*"Then, go to his first argument from self-defense. It's K time baby! "*"Then, go to where he says that TK is effective. "I would like my opponent to explain his reasoning for an early rebuttal, which contravenes the mutually agreed-upon rules of this debate, where rebuttals are explicitly limited to the third and fourth rounds rounds. My opponent accepted the terms of this debate - which we both worked together to create - and I am extremely disappointed if he has indeed broken them, as the terms of this debate make rule-breaking an offense that is punishable by requiring a forfeit. Regardless, his points can be fairly easily refuted. My opponent asserts I am not arguing the resolution - however, I have indeed done so. I've explained targeted killing (which my opponent has not done, and has not contested my 5 rules for targeted killing), and explained rationales for both self-defense and efficacy (both is eliminating the target and protecting civilian lives and property). These are clearly moral arguments, and my opponent cannot sweep them under the rug. From here my opponent attempts to tie targeted killing to the ancient Roman status of 'homo sacer'. This is a rather silly comparison, given homo sacer was an obscure Roman law that applied to people who broke oaths, as back then oaths were made under the condition that the gods could punish you for breaking it. Accordingly, being killed by someone would not be punishable, as it would just be the gods taking revenge upon the oath breaker. [4] In contrast, targeted killing is a direct attack on a military target who cannot be reasonably arrested; it is a military action taken upon fugitives when all options have failed, essentially. The two are so different the comparison itself is laughable. Finally my opponent concludes that targeted killing is not effective, asserting that in the immediate aftermath of targeted killings, terrorist attacks increase. This may be the case, but I demonstrated they result in immediate, long-term damage to the organizations in question. A brief increase in attacks by a dying terrorist group would net less losses than consistently frequent attacks by a stable terrorist group. References:1. . http://books.google.com...2. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...3. . http://books.google.com...4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...