Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

Once again I apologize for the character limit, but this was the first debate that I made on this site so I thought it was word limit :/. Luckily, though, now we can use the last round as a constructive, this round as a rebuttal, and the next round as the Final Focus, so it's all fair, if not up to the LD format completely. Against my opponent's Value Premise: The value premise of National Security as proposed by the Negative is actually absorbed into my case through my VP, VC, and first contention. This is because we are both arguing that the government's ensuring of the security of their people. Because the Affirmative case upholds this Value Premise on its own, every point made for National security actually benefits the Affirmative side of the argument rather than negating it. This is why the Role of Government as defined by Social Contract Theory is the superior Value Premise in the round. Against my opponent's Value Criterion: I have two main points to rebut my opponent's criterion: 1.) Framework: I stated in the first round that "For this round we'll be using the southern definition, which says that a Value Criterion is how your Value Premise applies to the case/resolution"[1]. The value Criterion of a "cost-benefit analysis" is a northern Value Criterion, because it directly states how the round will be judged rather than how the resolution links to the resolution's morality. Because this directly opposes the framework of the round, the Negative's Value Criterion cannot be accepted as valid, so the Value Criterion of "Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory" wins the VC debate. 2.) Inappropriate use of a Value Criterion: Unfortunately, this is not a Public Forum debate, and so we are not are not judging by net outcome. Lincoln-Douglass debate is judged by the moral impact of an action, that's why the majority of this year's topics include the word "moral" somewhere in the topic [2]. The Value Criterion proposed by the Negative limits the round to an argument based on statistics rather than morality, and as such isn't a valid Lincoln-Douglass Value Criterion[3]. Therefore, the Affirmative's Value Premise of "Adhering to the moral medium of Social Contract Theory" is the only acceptable Value Criterion for the round. Against the Negative Contention 1: 1.) Although my opponent's first contention is based on the premise of National Security, he is either misusing or misunderstanding what that term implies. National security is the practice of an INDIVIDUAL NATION (caps for emphasis in the lack of italics, not for yelling) protecting itself [4] , not the protection of every individual human in the world. Therefore, my opponent's first contention does not actually benefit national security because the Negative contention is looking not only to human life in one nation, but every human life in every other nation as well, which would be Global Security. 2.) My opponent goes on to state that targeted killing causes too much collateral damage, but he does not actually provide any evidence in the round. I understand that he does not want this to turn into a statistic-heavy debate, but in every debate form evidence is needed in order to prove a point. Furthermore, he states that because no targeted killing will result in a 1:0 combatant to civilian death rate it is an immoral action, but not only is that false (when regarding case of military snipers, which take one shot to kill a combatant without civilian death), but that is an unrealistic goal when speaking in a general sense. Although a 1:0 death ratio cannot be gauranteed for every Targeted Killing, "By design most targeted killing operations use only enough force to accomplish the task. 'Targeted killing does not employ large numbers of troops, bombers, artillery, or other means that can leave in their wake far more destruction than they prevent'. ... Since most uses of targeted killing have comported with the proportionality norm, there is no reason to presume that future uses of the tactic will not do the same" [5]. On the Negative's Second Contention: My opponent states that targeted killings are immoral because one man decides when someone dies. However, not only does this not apply to the Negative's Value Premise of National Security, but it is false. As it is stated by Nils Melzer in the definition of National Security - which my opponent did not refute and so stands as the definition that is to be used in the round - " A use of lethal force by a subject of international law that is directed against an individually selected person who is not in custody and that is intentional" [1]. This defintion shows that the person selected to be killed has broken international law, and is targeted by a force charged with upholding it. So no, one person does not make the decision, the person is already found guilty in a trial. Because it is based on a faulty premise, my opponent's Second Contention is negated. On my Opponent's Contention 3: My main negation to this contention focuses the lack evidence. My opponent has no real reason, philosophical or otherwise, to believe that "Targeted Killing is a slippery slope". My opponent brought up the Patriot Act, but that is entirely unrelated. We are discussion the intentional, premeditated taking of a life, which requires an entirely different thought process to confirm it than "I think we should tap this person's phone". The taking of a life is a much more serious matter than surveilance. Because there is no applicable evidence to prove the statement made in the third contention, which results in there being no reason to believe it is true, the Negative Case's third contention fails. Because My Opponent's VP is more properly upheld through my case, because My opponents VC is not applicable to the framework of the round, and because none of my opponent's contentions remain standing, I respectfully urge an Affirmative vote, thank you. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.debate.org... 2.) http://www.nflonline.org... 3.) http://debatepedia.idebate.org... and http://www.forensicsonline.net... 4.) http://dictionary.reference.com... 5.) (Jason Fisher, 2007, "Targeting Killings, Norms, and International Law", Columbia Journal of Transnational law, 2007, p. 743)