Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

The negative's first action in this debate is to abide by the affirmatives definitions. the neg sees no conflict or definition clash. The negative values life. life is the superior value in the factor that it supporst life to the upmost and life is a universal value. the standard the negative uses in this round is humanitarianism. Humanitarianism is the perfect criterion because it supports human life. Analyzation of resolutionn: A-this case is not specified to a specific country. B- The most lives saved on a side is the winner of the round. Contention 1: TARGETED KILLING SPURS INTENSE RETALIATION, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS OF TERRORISM Daniel L. Byman (, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, "Do Targeted Killings Work?" foreign affairs, http://www12.georgetown.edu... Volume 85 No. 2, 2006) tells us, " Terrorist groups retaliate when their leaders are killed" HE tells us, "Following the strikes on Hezbollah during the 1980s, the group replaced its fallen leaders and accelerated its suicide attacks on Israel. Some experts believe that the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish and Israeli targets in Argentina were a response to Musawi's death and Israel's kidnapping of another Hezbollah leader, Mustafa Dirani. As Clive Jones, an expert on Hezbollah, put it, when Israel ramped up its campaign against the group it crossed "a Rubicon of restraint that had been tacitly acknowledged by both sides." Muhammad Dahlan, a senior Palestinian security official, has also argued that "whoever sign[s] off on killing a leader among Hamas or any other leader on the Palestinian side should turn the page and should sign off on killing 16 Israelis." As Israel learned after the Musawi and Ayyash killings, many terrorist groups do not operate at their full potential and can up the stakes in horrific ways when subjected to a targeted-killing campaign." This data shows how targeted violence will just increase the terrorism that my opponent is trying to decrease. DRAW THIS AS THE FIRST ATTACK AGAINST MY OPPONENTS FIRST CONTENTION AND AS A VOTER ACROSS THE BOARD FOR THE NEGATIVE. Contention 2: Targeted killing will put innocent lives at risk. Daniel L. Byman states, "Critics also level an even more damning moral charge: that the attacks inevitably lead to the death of innocents. Bouchiki was one such victim, and as the Shehada attack showed, even the most carefully planned strike—and one that actually accomplishes its goal—can produce a great deal of collateral damage. The costs of such mistakes go beyond the loss of lives and can call into question the legitimacy of the entire counterterrorism campaign. If terrorism is condemned because it kills the innocent, how can one justify counterterrorism tactics that kill them too?" The very lives that targeted killing was meant to protect is hurting those very lives. we can't support targeting killing because it goes completely humanitarianism which will wind up taking away the superior value of life. NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE AFFIRMATIVE SIDE OF THE FLOW. My opponents value is morality but seeing how the resolution is in the world wide view you can not vote my opponents value because morality changes through different societies while my value is a universal value that you must look to before morality. next his criterion is protection of life. With this standard he contradicts his case which i explain in contention two talking about how innocent lives are put at risk with targeted killing, draw my contention 2 as an attack against my opponents criterion. Lets move on to my opponents second contention. The social contract is not applied to all nations and states. the the very facto the social contract does not involve a worldwidde view, shows makes this very contention weak. My opponents third contention is proving that the process of targeted killing would not go against any right or law but this very point does not support his criterion nor his value. The affirmative has not proven nor given a valid warrant on how his data or claim for that matter links to the criterion. and seeing how it is an LD framework his third contention is invalid. SO LETS LOOK AT EARLY VOTERS!!!!: 1st- the negative has the superior value because its universal and suports the primary goal of this resolution. 2nd- The criterion on the affirmative side contradicts the affrimative case. the very goal the affirmative was trying to achieve is being put at risk. 3rd- My opponents first contention is false. I show how his first contention actually causes more terrorism. 4th- My opponents second contention is not a universal concept so we can not get the impact of the contention. 5th- My opponents third contention does not link to his criterion so it is not valid in the LD framework. 6th- I am winning the framework. 7th- I have the stronger based case. 8th- I am winning the value- criterion clash 9th- My case is in a universal view so the audience can get a wider perspective. Vote Negative!