Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

At this point, my opponent is so rude that I can barely stand debating him. Do we really want someone that rude to win? I wouldn't vote for him on any level as an outsider. Also note how he even said in the comments people should vote for me for conduct. Anyways, sorry if I apparently don't understand his crazy philosophical stuff. I've done LD a total of two times.. But let me clarify (hopefully without being mocked :( ) what I am saying and why you can give me the win in arguments as well. I think I make more realistic sense to at least 98% of the population. I gave what morality or even moral permissibility was when we are talking about a government actor. The government has to uphold national security. This doesn't change from whoever is holding power. It is not objective. National security/safety upheld=morally permissible for a government. I then talked about how this happens through targeted killing which my opponent didn't refute. It's not just legal permissibility. That's what also dictates the moral permissibility. It's probably not a coincidence that they seem similar, since the govt shouldn't legally permit something that they can't morally permit. Even if you buy his skepticism thing consider this: At the point where you believe any morality exists, you can give me the win. Because I won that targeted killing upholds national security (it's been uncontested.) Then, the majority of perceptions of morality (even if subjective) if not all, would say that a government upholding national security/the safety of its people is morally permissible. (Remember that we are talking about this as a tool in the toolbox, not necessarily the only option. But perhaps when other options have been exhausted, the govt is faced with the choice of doing a targeted killing or letting their own people be at risk.) And I did provide why morality is a universal thing. We as humans do not determine what is and isn't moral. That is up to God, or universal principles (whatever your beliefs are). It's like the way a colorblind person doesn't actually determine what a color is. He may have a skewed perception of a color but that doesn't determine the color itself. We can find examples of universal morality in human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion. There is a reason that there seems to be so much overlap, to overlook that is foolish. Yes, I did mean objective. sorry. And moreover on why you are going to be voting against his subjective morality and why he can't make harsh judgements: The essence of the problem with subjective morality is that you cannot judge subjectively. It smells of appeasement. Terrorists are only defending their culture, so we should either ignore them or give them concessions. Saddam was only doing what he thought was right, so we should never have invaded Iraq. Hitler only had intentions for Greater Germany, so we should assume he is a peaceful man. If you want to defend these guys, there is something wrong with your judgement. You can also extend my Rosen explanation of morality in the context of conflict and Babic. So yes, I did provide definitions and lots of explanations of morality. And even if I didn't (which I did), we are talking about morally permissible actions, not necessarily morally good ones. Remember my analogy? (Zaradi: Please refrain from rude or sarcastic comments in your next speech. I'm honestly offended.) Thank you. Please vote pro :) (If nothing else, please vote pro because someone so inconsiderate really doesn't deserve to be rewarded, this isn't what debate.org or really anything is about)