Mar./Apr. LD topic

My Case:Since the resolution asks to evaluate if an action can be allowed under a moral framework, the value is morality. Because it is inherently immoral to kill someone who has done nothing wrong, and all individuals have an intrinsic right to life until their right to life is taken away due to overwhelmingly just cause, the value criterion is innocent protection.Contention 1: TK harms innocent civilians In the long-standing conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, the Second Intifadahas been characterized by the increased use of suicide attacks by the Palestinians and anincreased number of Israeli targeted killings of Palestinian leaders. Nearly half of the over1,000 Israeli fatalities in the Second Intifada have been caused by suicide attacks, while about8 percent of more than 4,100 Palestinian fatalities have occurred during targeted killings. Ofthese, nearly 40 percent were not the targeted individual(s). [1]Indeed, targeted killings in Pakistan may even be causing more problems than they solve. As Daniel Byman notes, "U.S. strikes on Pakistani soil are deeply unpopular.… No political leader wants to line up publicly with Washington."[21] The killing of bin Laden and others, including many innocent collateral victims, has heightened political tension between Washington and Islamabad and inflamed the resentful Pakistani population. [2] So because targeted killings have been shown to harm the innocent and create tension on the international level, there is no justification in using them. Sources: 1. http://www.djaeger.org...; 2. http://www.miwsr.com...;His Case: First observation: "This means I just have to show there is no injunction against targeted killing." Not much of a distinction between this and his second observation, which I will get to. I'll assume that he's taking "injunction" to be under a moral framework rather than a legal one. Second Observation: "The negative must defend a prohibition otherwise targeted killing is permissible and you affirm apriori. If there are no normative qualities then something is permissible." Flow across. It's logical, but I'm already giving you a normative quality to look at the debate through (innocent protection). Mutual value of morality. No clash there. "Transcendental empiricism says we must not ground our ethic in abstract nor purely physical qualities. Rather we must deal in the moment of experience and always creating." I actually don't know what this means, hopefully my opponent can explain, but it doesn't really matter because the right to life is paramount."The standard is consistency with transcendental empiricism. The framework establishes that 1) we must look to the question of how we create abstractions given the physical world we are thrust into and 2) we must reject ideologies of representation in favor of one of creating new concepts and new ways to approach ethics and call something ethical. My contention is that under transcendental empiricism everything is permissible thus targeted killing is permissible."Cross apply above to 1 and 2, but he's advocating that everything is permissible in his contention, which is fundamentally untrue (refuted by my vc, or the Holocaust if you're so inclined), but he doesn't warrant this anyway, so whatever. "Second: Ethics becomes not something overreaching and transcendent but rather something the agent decides and is created in relation to the agent. This means we affirm everything is permissible under a theory of immanence." Once again, a morally relative idea is insufficient due to the right to life, and even if you believe in the moral framework being relative to the actor himself, not all peoples value killing at all, so we don't know where he's affirming or negating. "A) Targeted killing doesn’t intend a harm. We are saving ourselves not harming the enemy."No warrants for the doctrine of double effect, and even though self-defense may be permissible in general, the tool itself isn't allowed because we harm the innocent in the process. Secondly, the utilitarian benefit of self-defense isn't inherent due to increased tensions on the international level, as shown through my sole contention. "B) Targeted killing doesn’t violate international law. UN Charter calls for targeted killings." Moral frameworks rather than legal frameworks should be used in this debate. However, targeted killings violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was also adopted by the UN. "C) Targeted killing is permissible under state sovereignty because a state must be able to defend themselves against threats." Self-defense is fine, but if an agressor provokes me, it isn't permissible for me to kill him and another guy who hasn't done anything wrong.