President Duterte's plans for the Philippines are justified.

Uh... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. When drug users are brought to trial, they receive due justice? Is that what you're saying? Either that or you're making the point that certain criminals involved in drug empires deserve a death sentence. The way you phrased your argument is quite hard to interpret, so please clarify, Pro. Anyways, throughout this debate, I will illustrate why Duterte's plans for the Philippines are ineffective, immoral and unjustified. So, let's start off with a study of the actual drug use in the Philippines. UNODC; the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime studied this, and concluded that the Philippines had a low prevalence rate of drug users compared to the global average. Hence, we can debunk the idea that the Philippines has outlandishly high drug rates. Therefore, my opponent is limited to 2 broad arguments. He must either make the case that all drug users in nations above a certain average of drug usage ought to be killed, or that all drug users ought to be killed. My opponent cannot also make the case that only particular drug users ought to be killed, as Duterte himself did not specify as such. He non-specifically called for the killing of any and all drug users. "Of course, in the due process of law, legal and capital punishments are allowed for certain drug offenses (mostly practiced in several countries) which includes DEATH." Due process of law, eh? Alright, for the sake of this argument, let's pretend that it is now objectively moral to kill people we know use drugs. So, anyone that uses cannabis or crack or any other illegal drug are now moral to kill. Well, even if we assume this, my opponent's argument still holds no water. Duterte called for the killings of all 'Suspected' drug users and criminals as well. In what sense is this a due process of the law, Pro? A due process suggests a comprehensive study of a crime scene, a court case, trial etc. According to my opponent, going out with a gun and shooting someone who you think is probably a drug user is now a due process. Not only is no actual evidence required to carry out a killing, but cops receive monetary incentives to do so. "According to the interviews and an unpublished report an intelligence officer shared with Reuters, the police are paid about 10,000 pesos ($200) for each killing of a drug suspect as well as other accused criminals. The monetary awards for each killing are alleged to rise to 20,000 pesos ($400) for a street pusher, 50,000 pesos ($990) for a member of a neighborhood council, one million pesos ($20,000) for distributors, retailers, and wholesalers, and five million ($100,000) for 'drug lords.'" This means that the police are rewarded for taking part in these murders. Let's create a scenario, where a poor, low-income police officer gets an idea. This officer is struggling to put food on the table. But what's this? Now they can kill a drug user and earn some money in the process. Unfortunately, in this situation, this officer simply goes to a shady area, shoots someone and makes a claim that they were smoking an illegal substance. Now, he/she is $200 richer. If said officer shoots five people a day, they can be making $1,000. This is supposedly all justified in an attempt to stop drug violence: By creating more violence than there ever was in the first place. To make the situation even worse, cops are not the only ones who have permission to do this. Everyday people, self-appointed vigilantes, have authority to kill, without any evidence of the victim having been a drug user. This is not a just and due process of the law; this is indefensible. There should never be a situation where a citizen should have an obligation to another citizen. Filipino authorities confirm that 3,968 people have been killed by the police, while the Human Rights Watch has claimed that a total 13,000 people have been killed under the guise of the war on drugs policy. This is a frightening amount of people, and is absolutely unjustifiable. Even if this policy was 100% accurate, the killing of individuals for the use of drugs is ethically wrong. Who is Duterte, or anyone else, to declare that drug users deserve to die? Hence, due to this belief, it is up to my opponent to justify the killing of drug users and addicts. Hopefully, this argument convinces readers why Duterte's actions are completely wrong on many, many levels. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.brookings.edu...