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

I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for presenting their case. Value Premise and Criterion: Lets start with the value premise and criterion of the negative side. He analyzes the link between these two as achieving ultimate life by using humanitarianism. He tell you, as the voters, that humanitarianism support life automatically; thus it's the "perfect criterion" as he puts it. But if we look at the actual definition of humanitarianism, we can see that humanitarians believe in maximizing the welfare of the human race without divine help. The definition does not specify that the "welfare of the human race" must be achieved my saving the most amount of lives, as he explains in his resolution analysis. We can then extend this link rejection across the flow on his side when analyzing his impacts and links. First Contention: So now we can judge the conflict between our first contentions by his second resolution analysis. It reads: "The most lives saved on a side is the winner of the round," and I completely agree. Now we can talk about this conflict in arguments. The first contention on the affirmative side says that targeted killing reduces the chance of terrorist attacks upon a people. He refutes by explaining that targeted killing worsens the situation. We can see that the negative does not attack my evidence that proves to us that terrorist groups become a less serious threat due to targeted killing. In my constructive, I thoroughly explain the implications of this evidence with real world facts. The facts being that the most notorious terrorist group, the Al Qaeda, have nearly disappeared relative to when Osama was in charge. Because he doesn't attack this evidence, we can go affirmative automatically for the first contention. The only evidence (if we can call it that) which my opponent provides in his first contention are testimonies. But in order for testimonies to work in LD debate, he must explain their implications and link to the value premise, criterion, and resolution altogether which he does not do. Thus you vote affirmative for the first contention. Second Contention: The second contention of the negative case is simply an extension of his first contention. His basis for the entire contention is a testimony and a repeat of the main line of the contention before explaining a very vague link/impact. In order to create a conflict of contention with this argument, let's put his second contention up with my third. My third contention states that targeted killing is considered armed conflict because it follows exactly what I provide as a definition of armed conflict. He does not attack this definition in his attack for my argument; thus, we must presume that he agrees with the definition. This means that he cannot attack the argument because he agrees with the fact that it follows the definition word-by-word. Again, we can vote affirmative at this point because I have proven a victory of two contention, but I'll continue. Now let's look at the base of the contention: the quote from Daniel Byman. It states that Byman is in support of his second contention, but never does it mention why this matters to the judging of the contention or the case in general. As the base for the entire contention is void, we must drop the argument in whole. Thus we prove that an affirmation is required. Third Contention: The negative has no third contention; thus, we must add this weight to the affirmative side and add a vote to the affirmative in total. Then he goes on to attack my value of morality. But the problem with his attack is that he says that we can't use my value because it changes over time. But wasn't it in the United States that blacks were considered property and not even an entire person? Wasn't it in the United States that blacks were only 2/3 of a person? They didn't have the right to actual life. But in current society, everybody is considered equal. Thus, life changes over time as well. And because of this contradiction, his attack means nothing to the judging of the case. So we must drop this attack. He then attacks my second contention by stating that the social contract is not world-wide. But what he fails to see is that he does not tell us why, how, or in what context. He just randomly creates this claim against the case without any implications or reasons why. And in defense, the social contract is world-wide because society is world-wide. We know this because society, by its very definition, includes all in organized living in the world. Thus we can drop this attack, again. For his attack on my third contention, he says it doesn't fit into the LD format. But it does in its entirety. This is because I explain in the beginning of the argument that it is both a block against the negative side and it achieves morality because it is considered armed conflict. What the negative fails to understand is that a block is predetermined; thus following LD format. The argument achieves morality because attacking those who initiate armed combat against you is just; therefore, moral, right, and good. Because of the dropping of the negative arguments and my defense and attacks, we must vote affirmative. The negative made a "convincing" case by making the list at the end which makes it SEEM like he has won. But in actuality, this is an extremely easy vote for the affirmation of the resolution. For these reasons you affirm. Thank you.