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

Links and what case they are are below.NC: https://docs.google.com...#Disad: https://docs.google.com...#Now, onto refutations of the pro case. As an overview to contention two: my opponent makes the mistake of equating legal permissibility and moral permissibility as the same thing. This is flat out not true. In so far as his second contention is proving that targeted killing is LEGALLY permissible and not MORALLY permissible, it's going to be irrelevant going forward in this debate. So the only thing that he could leverage offense off of is contention one. But to talk about his framework first. His framework is effected by multiple layers of the debate.Layer One - The NC. If the NC is true, then it becomes impossible to affirm off of his framework of utilitarianism. If skepticism is true, then we cannot call anything morally permissible, which would take out his framework and be an independant reason to negate. But if he's sufficiently refuting the NC, then we go to the second layer.Layer Two - The Disad. So even if you're buying his framework of maximizing good ends, I'm showing you by affirming, he violates his own framework by causing nuclear war. By negating, we prevent this nuclear war from happening, which means we can negate off of his framework.So he has to be winning off of the NC and the disad before you even look to his framework. If he's not winning off of one of those, it's a sufficient reason to vote con.Now, onto his contention one.Let's look to his first example of the sniper killing the enemy general as justified targeted killing. It fails to actually meet his defined metric of what qualifies justified targeted killing because it's impossible to know if he was beyond possibility of arrest. Who are we to know if we wouldn't win the battle the next day and capture the enemy base and arrest the general? Targeted killing wouldn't be justified because of this.This same principle can be cross-applied to the entire affirmative case because he fails to meet the principles set forth by his own definition. We can't ever truly know at any certain point in time if someone is beyond possibility of arrest because we can't see into the future. Maybe we could arrest him, maybe we couldn't. But since we cannot definitively say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the enemy is beyond possiblity of arrest, then targeted killing will never meet the justifications set forth by the pro case. So you can turn his own definition as a reason to negate the resolution and to vote con. Now, let's look at the evidence he provides cited by Mr. Teson. This, again, falls under the same mistake as before because we can never fully claim that there was no other possible alternative. That entire debate would boil down to a matter of 'he said, she said' and nothing would ever get resolved. It's impossible to determine whether or not there weren't other possible alternatives to an action at any given moment. We can't see that far into the future, so we cannot fully meet his own standards for what makes targeted killing morally permissible. Thusly, you can turn this evidence as a reason to negate, since targeted killing will never be able to meet the criteria provided by the pro debater. So this debate breaks down in a few easy ways:1. The NC specifically states that because morality is subjective, then it's impossible to call something morally permissible. This is the first level of the debate, and if the pro is losing on this part, then it's game-over for the pro debater.2. Even if he's successfully refuting the negative case, the disad is showing how making targeted killing a morally permissible tool leads to nuclear war, a result that violates his framework of utilitarianism. Because of this, he's failing to meet his own value and criterion, and thus is enough to merit a con vote.3. But even if he's winning on both the negative case and the disad, he still has to refute the two turns I made on the contention one arguments that say that targeted killings will always fail to meet the justifications provided by the pro debater, and thus can never be morally permissible. This is a game-over argument, and is the absolute bottom line to vote con.Thusly, I urge a con vote, and will now turn the floor over to the pro debater.