Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

before i start let me say that I definitely have a worthy competition i appreciate your love for LD debate. now lets get to business. Value Criterion Clash: first let it be known that my opponent does not provide a source for what humanitarianism is but to give something for the prestigious judges to eat off of humanitarianism means Concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare. My opponent was clever in saying that I don't say what that very need is but obviously with the negative's value being life we see that this is the very need. Also let it be known that the affirmative does not refute that life is the universal value and the superior value this is a huge voter that should be drawn across the debate round. This is a HUGE VOTER because him not refuting life as the superior value and him not having it gives the foundation that my opponents value is not focused on the right thing. FYI: my opponent did not refute my second analyzation talking about how this resolution must be looked at in a universal value. since his case is founded in a domestic situation which he also does not refute, you must provide this as another voter for the negative because as i said in round 1 it gives you the judges a wide perspective. AFF's First Contention: the affirmative side says that i didn't attack his data to support his claim (which is false) but remember that in the first constructive I state that you the judge can draw my entire first contention as a counter attack against my opponents first contention. Now whether or not my opponent di not realize this does not matter because the contention was attacked as a whole and once again should counted as a voter for the negative side. Neg's 1st Contention: My opponent says that i dont offer a warrrant as to why my first contention has a huge impact but misses that I explain how it proves the very factor that target killing makes adds fuel to the fire. The philosopher himself states himself and I highlight where he says it so please draw it across the board. AFF's 2nd contention: My opponent missed the basis of my counter argument in his second contention. His second contention can not exist without the social contract. My argument was that the social contract can not and simply will not apply to every country or state due to the same reason as morality. The norms change according to different societies. What is moral here in America could be immoral in another country such as Germany. He misses this counter-argument and so my argument still stands and should be extended across the Flow. Neg's 2nd Contention: My opponent cleverly decieves you into thinking that I have used the same tagline of data in contention 1 for contention 2 but the very thing is that it is totally different data, while it may come from the same source and piggy backs, it is still saying something different and goes towards a different view of the resolution so you the judge can still extend it across the flow. Aff 's 3rd contention: once again my opponent has not properly explained in his warrant how it pertains to his value or criterion and how it has a impact in this case so once again his 3rd contention is invalid and should be dropped in the analyses of the case. FYI: the factor that the negative has only two contentions does not mean that he has better case what so ever. This is a desperate attack to attain more voters. My two contentions are all I need to win this case and are way stronger than my opponents because they save the most lives by going against targeted kiilling. SO LET'S GO TO THE VOTERS AGAIN!!!!!!!! 1) I am winning the value criterion clash. my opponent missed the factor that I said in the first constructive that first the Negative value of life is the superior value. and next the criterion of humantarianism looks towards the welfare of human life so it is the perfect standard in the round for life. 2) He doesn't attack the 2nd analses of the round which was we must look at the resolution in a world wide view. Since he does not mention this observation he agrees with it and since he agrees with it and makes his case in such a domestic view you must vote for the negative side. 3) His first contention has been proven false not once but TWICE!!!!! so we can't look at his case what so ever. 4) His second contention can not survive without the social contract. the very factor that the social contract can not be applied to a worldwide perspective shows that his second contention can not be voted for in any of the rounds. 5) his third contention is not linked back to the value or criterion. If you do not believe me look in the first constructive of the affirmative case. since this is not linked to the value criterion debate of his case, his framework is not there and the contention can not be applied to this resolution. 6)I show how the affirmative's very goal of SAVING THE MOST LIVES is not accomplished with targeted killing. 7) I have more valid voters than the affirmative. 8)The affirmative has not fullfilled its burden of proof because i have shown how the affirmative's data is false. 9) my case is stronger in the factor I link it up to the value and criterion. 10) the vary factor the affirmative wants to save the most lives and my value is life shows that I HAVE THE PERFECT VALUE IN THIS RESOLUTION. please do not be tricked by the affirmative side of the resolution Vote Negative! Thank you for your time!