Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

Sadly, my opponent seems to not understand what my evidence is saying, and seems to actually have a misunderstanding of LD debate as a whole. And thusly, his arguments run into a lot of problems. Let's start by going through them, line by line. "LD debate is a values debate"I understand this as well as any true LD debater. That being said, just because it talks about what we value, this doesn't entail that every case MUST have a value and a criterion. That is the case format taught to most people new to LD debate. If this were true, then the vast majority of cases run on the State and National level would be invalid. Kritiks, disads, theory, topicality, plans, counterplans, word picks, and many more. So by preventing me from running a case with a burden system, he's massively skewing my ground, which is highly abusive. "Neg ran skep, so must denote some other kind of permissibility"This argument is coming off of the Joyce evidence provided at the top of my NC. He vastly misunderstands what this card is saying.1. Joyce is talking about how if skepticism is true, then nothing can be morally permissible. There may be some other form of permissibility, or some other argument that makes things morally permissible, but no such argument exists for it. So I don't have to provide some other form of permissibility to prove my side.2. Even if what he says is true, I can concede to it and simply not provide another form of permissibility. There would still be no moral permissibility, and with no other form of permissibility to go off of, we couldn't call anything permissible, which is exactly what the negative side is advocating for. So you can turn his argument as offense for me. "Neg must prove killing is self-defense"Okay, this is ridiculous.1. The resolution is talking about the MORAL PERMISSIBILITY of targeted killing. So if I'm disproving something can be MORALLY permissible, then I'm disproving the resolution. This argument doesn't apply.2. It's the aff's job to prove that killing is self-defense, since he was the one who brought up that point. If I did that, I would be doing all the aff's work for him, which is highly unfair. I'm trying to disprove his case, not prove it. The burden he's placed on me is highly abusive.3. I thought my opponent said this was a value debate. If this true, then the burden he placed on me wouldn't exist, since everything has to come down to a value and a criterion. So this will put him in a double bind because either a) burden's don't exist in value debate, and this argument is null or b) burdens do exist in LD debate and my case still stands. This argument would also stand, but you could then refer to argument number two of the burden being highly abusive. "Targeted killing = effective, so C2 still applies"I never argued against targeted killing being effective. That's not my point. Just because something's effective, it doesn't make it morally permissible. Sure, throwing prisoners into showers that spew out poison gas all Holocaust-style is a really effective way to execute people, it doesn't make it morally permissible. He MUST PROVE that targeted killing is MORALLY permissible. Thusly, my argument about contention 2 not applying to the resolution still stands. "I refuted my opponent's case"No you haven't. Your arguments vastly misunderstood my case, and didn't even apply to what it was talking about. In fact, you haven't disproved ANYTHING. "The disad is a slippery slope"This is a perfect example of the "slippery slope fallacy" fallacy. Whenever a debater shows a logical chain of events that's supported with evidence, all Hell breaks loose and the demons of the slippery slope come flying out. He hasn't actually refuted any of the evidence coming out of the disad (link to it in comments), all he's said was that it's a slippery slope (i. e. it's a chain of events). . .. .. Kay. Even if his argument ISN'T stupid, which it is, I can concede to it and just point out that he hasn't actually proven why what the disad is saying WON'T happen. In fact, he's basically conceded the entire thing. This is a game-over mistake by my opponent because it's showing exactly how if we affirm, we're going to be causing massively more pain than good, which violates his own framework. Thusly, because it was virtually conceded, this will be the easiest place to negate. Don't let him stand up and start refuting the evidence in his next round. He didn't think it was necessary last round, so don't let him do it in the next round. "My example fulfills the criteria. Here, look at this quote! "Congratz. All this is is just asserting that it does without actually backing it up with HOW it fulfills it. Warrantless assertion is warrantless. "There's plausible doubt that we can arrest him, so it must be impossible to arrest him! Right? "Wrong. That's like saying because there's plausible doubt that I may not live to see the next day, then there's no way I will live to see the next day. But there are still plenty of ways that I could live to see the next day i. e. not die. There's still plenty of ways we could arrest the bad guy in question i. e. win the battle and capture him alive. Because there's plausible doubt that we could arrest him or not, then it becomes impossible to definitively say (as the affirmative requirements demand) that we cannot arrest him. This is EXACTLY why my turn still applies, and the main reason why his case falls flat on it's face. All he says is that since there's plausible doubt in a lot of situations, then we can assume that it's impossible. But this assumption just isn't true. There are still ways that we can do it, even if the ways seem unlikely, they're still a possibility. Thusly, we can never definitively say that a target is beyond possibility of arrest, and thus targeted killing will NEVER meet the requirements imposed by the pro debater. The turn still logically applies. "No alternatives, just like no arrest. "All he does is reference the same argument that I just refuted above. No need to waste characters explaining why his logic is massively flawed again. "He didn't provide definitions, so use mine! "Okay, so we are using your definition of what it takes to meet targeted killing? So my turns DO still apply. .. .thought so. So the round breaks down in a few easy ways. 1. The NC still stands. The only two arguments my opponent makes vastly misunderstand what it's actually saying, and thus don't apply. Even if they were to apply, I sufficiently refuted them. Thus, I'm sufficiently proving how nothing can ever be called morally permissible, since morality is subjective. Since nothing can ever be called morally permissible, targeted killing thus cannot be morally permissible. First place to vote con is here.2. My opponent basically concedes the disad and says that all it is is a chain of events, and thus has to be fallacious! Not true. I refuted that argument, and he never touched a single warrant. So I'm proving how that if we affirm, we violate his own framework. Thus, by negating, I better meet HIS framework, which is a reason to negate.3. I'm showing you how targeted killing can never meet the definitions brought up by the aff as to when it is justified. Because of this, targeted killing can never be viewed as permissible, and thus we can negate off of the turns to the aff case. As long as I'm winning even ONE of these levels of the debate, it's sufficient for a con vote. My opponent has to disprove all three levels, but he hasn't even disproven one.