Resolved: Consequentialism should trump deontology in the matter of national defense.

First, value definition debate He defines Justice as "giving each their due." This definition only harms his case, it is a deontological definition: John Rawls, who defined justice in this way was extremely critical of consequential, and based a system of ethics around this definition of justice in order to provide an alternative to consequentialism. So, if we take this definition, my opponent cannot win this debate. Secondly, this definition is one definition, it is not what justice is used to commonly mean. Justice as it is commonly used is "the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action" (Merriam-Webster) I use this definition because dictionaries determine the meaning of a word by determining how the word is used, so, justice means doing what is right. Morality is "conforming to a standard of right behavior" (Merriam-Webster) so it is conforming to what is right. Pretty similar, huh? VC debate: Touche. But, my opponent's VC is not warranted, he simply provides a VC and does not show how it successfully links back to justice. I, on the other hand warrant my VC and link it to my value, so my value criterion is superior. Also, the point on the death penalty is a good one, but the point is that the criminal is not being treated as a mean, he is being treated as an end, albeit a bad one. Secondly, if you can get current military strategies to work under the CI your side fails because you show that consequentialism doesn't have to trump deontology. Self-defense is not necessarily prohibited, it just must be done justly. I could not shoot a burglar, but I could take actions such as calling the police or temporarily disabling him (taser?) Opponent's case: 1. He never brings up any new information to rebut my point, and as I said, using the CI does not prevent the government from upholding its promise, the government can do so, it just must be just in doing so. If one could shirk justice in order to uphold a promise, killing people in order to uphold a promise would be okay, simply because I fulfilled my promise. 2. Bombing al-Qaeda kills people as well, which is wrong, because it is using people as a means to an end. It is not punitive killing, which is just, as you point out, but it is using killing to perform what one feels is a more just action. 3. The CI is not just a theory, the CI is supported using clear logic, the JWT is supported using "intuition." CI logic: 1. Moral laws must be objective in order to be laws 2. In order to determine if an action is in accordance with moral law, one must only check the objectivity of said action. 3. The CI determines objectivity. 4. First, if extracting information isn't torture, than it is fine under the CI and your scenario fails to uphold your point. If it isn't torture, it is perfectly acceptable to act. If it is torture, consequentialist actions would a) be unjust because as I said, the terrorist is being treated as a mean not a man. Secondly, he has no motivation to tell the truth, so the actions will likely fail. Consequentialism fails in that we cannot predict accurately all the consequences of our actions, so we have no way to know if we are being just or not. Kantianism faces the metaphysical challenges that consequentialism fails to overcome. The loss of millions of lives is intuitively bad, but it is intuitive, not necessarily logical. My opponent is appealing to emotions rather than logic. We must look at the logic of both positions, and a position that uses men as means is logically wrong. Rawls points out that consequentialism should not be accepted because we may turn out to be the one left behind. 5. I again say this: We must adhere to justice in performing our actions. Actions are not just, regardless of the consequences unless they are performed justly. If one became an assassin in order to raise money for charity, one would hardly call him just. In short, the means matter. My case: A. Treating men as means is fundamentally wrong, immoral, and unjust. Simply because one deems it the most effective means of achieving an end does not mean it is the most just means of achieving the end. Deontological positions are still effective in achieving an end. B. Military action is usually not punitive, it is usually preemptive, kill him before he kills me. Punitive action would be fine. As for the atom bomb example, the United States is faced with two options a) destroying two cities, which will definitely result in the loss of life, or land invasion, which may carry a high risk of casualties. Although at first glance, atom bombs seem better, one must look at the original intent of the war. US involvement in WWII was in response to Pearl Harbor, it was punitive. Our job was to punish the Japanese government. Atom bombs punished the Japanese people, who were innocent. Land invasion would have avoided many civilian casualties and would have been the just means to win the war. Voters: You vote Neg, because a) my VC is superior, b) consequentialist actions often treat men as means, rather than as men, and c) consequentialism does not give each there due. Side note: Are we going to try to be realistic and not have me post for R3, or are we going to break from LD format? I don't care either way.