Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

I'm going to be short with the following things, because this really shoulnd't be a thing that I have to discuss but do for some reason...No, I'm not running the social contract. To say that they're the same is to say that epistemology and normative ethics are the same when they don't even talk about the same thing. But I don't even see why this is important because he never refutes the social contract in any way, sooo...Moreover, his "Butler isn't saying what I'm trying to make it say" still makes no sense. I'm saying "Butler says x" and citing Butler as my evidence. He's saying "Butler says not x" and citing some other person for his evidence. Both of us are just saying our interpretation is right, so you prefer my interpretation because I'm actually citing the person we're talking about and using their interpretation rather than some third party's interpretation.My opponent's literally just trying to refute the K by laughing at it and saying that Roman laws don't apply because they're talking about different things. It's as if he just didn't read the first part of the K which explains that targeted killing voids the value of life and harms the autonomy of the individual. Note that this has nothing to do with the actual Roman law literally, rather it talks about the implications of Homo sacer. To say that they aren't talking about the same thing when the implications are literally the same thing is just, y'know, him trying to refute a K by laughing at it.And c'mon man. You should know I'm not a conduct debater. And yes, saying "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." after we've talked it through in the comments is trying to rule-shark me. And I'm not sure my opponent knows what a new argument is. A new argument is a contention or rebuttal or defense that has not been said before, a.k.a. is new. Remind me where the first time his utilitarian point came up again? Oh wait, the last round was where it first came up? That can't be right...And, his whole "self-evident" moral framework is literally just him trying to BS a moral framework after he realized he needed one. Him just saying it's 'self-evident' doesn't mean that a) it's actually moral (insert Nazis, slaves, native americans references here), and b) doesn't answer my response that it begs the question of why it's actually moral. He never answers said question. Okay. Now that all that pointless stuff is out of the way, let's go into the actual debate now. First thing I want to talk about is just an overview of the affirmative position.Right now the affirmative literally has zero reason why you should vote for him. Why? Let's take a look at each of his arguments here. His framework, the non-existent one that is, is the first place that gives you zero places to vote for him. He's showing you, at best, that targeted killing is a good way of killing someone (as if we needed this debate to know that dropping a missile on someone did a good job of killing them), but he's not giving you any kind of reasoning as to why it's morally permissible, nor is he giving you any kind of reasoning on any kind of "morally". Even if you're not buying the K and you go with self-defense, it has no framework to convert self-defense into any kind of moral permissibility. Since he's not showing you this, it's impossible for him to actually affirm the resolution. His first argument of self-defense is entirely refuted and turned around on him by the K I read and he tried to laugh off. But even if you're not buying the K, even though there's literally zero reason you shouldn't unless you're, like, Wylted and you just categorically hate any kind of kritical lit for some reason, he's not linking it back to any kind of moral framework to turn self-defense into moral permissibility. So even if he's winning this argument, there's no actual offense coming off of it. His second argument of effectiveness is equally as useless. Let's just ignore the back and forth between stats and whether or not it's actually effective (because I don't feel like sorting through his "okay well we just don't TK when it sucks and TK when it doesn't suck" excuse). Refer back to my first response of why it being effective doesn't make it permissible (insert nazis, slaves, native americans reference here, again). This went 100% dropped and absolutely destroys his argument here. Moreover, even if you don't like the response for whatever reason, he's not showing why it's morally permissible because the first part of this list, which means there's literally no possible impact this argument can be having on the resolution. And that's it. That's literally all of his arguments for affirming the resolution. There's no turns on the negative case, no turns on the K, no other arguments imtroduced later. That's literally it. From here you negate simply because a) I'm the only one with an argument that efficiently responds to the resolution, and b) I'm the only one with an actual risk of offense.The next place you're looking is the negative case. His only response to literally the entirety of the negative case is that I'm misquoting Butler. I've already addressed that at the top of this round, but that was literally the only response. So even if, in the weird circumstance, that I'm misinterpreting Butler (I'm not, but let's humor him), he's not responding to any of the actual arguments I'm making. This means that my negative case, which shows why targeted killing is never morally permissible, is literally 100% dropped. Like, is this the easiest negative vote or what?The last place you're looking to negate is the K. This is the silliest part of the debate because it's literally just my opponent trying to refute a K by laughing at it. Most of the explaining was done above in this round, but to quickly summarize it again: he doesn't actually respond to the warrants coming out of the K. He simply picks one part of it, the least critical or even relevant part, and tries to use it to show how it's not relevant to the discussion. This strategy ignores the actual warrants and implications of the argument, which is basically the same thing as ignoring the argument. He doesn't respond to the impacts of the K, and doesn't respond to the alt of the K either. This means that a) you negate because the alt shows us why targeted killing is never morally permissible, and b) even if you don't want to negate off of it (Wylted please), it gives you a reason to not buy the self-defense argument (even though it has no impact in the round anyway).This breaks the debate down really, really easily for the voters. There's three ways to negate the resolution, and literally no way to affirm the resolution. The ballot becomes an easy negative vote.