In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

Well seeing that I have been busy lately and if you read the comments below you'll see that, I'm going to finish up this debate by quite simply telling you why inherently the con does win the round, and how I proved that in my first speech and despite the fact I was unable to post a second speech I should still win the round. By the way.....In the past I've seen debates where the Pro will post comments after the Con has given their last speech, and by doing this the Pro takes away the right the Con has at the beginning of the round which is the right to go last. The Pro has the right to go first but not to go last. So i would hope my opponent....who has been very rude in his comments as you may see below.....would refrain from posting any more comments after the round. I think if he does this he is taking away my right to speak last, and that would be viewed as very unsportsmanlike, dirty, and underhanded. Anyways.... The Crystalization of why I win the round. Justified - This is the main definition that has to be proven one way or the other in the round. And seeing as though I am the only who offers a definition in the round and he never actually disproves the fact that he is being unjust, I win right there. His main arguments that he stated at the beginning and refrences throughout his entire case were...... 1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety. 2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism. 3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well. And by disproving those by applying my definition of justified and arguments in my case then by debate guidelines the Con has done what is necessary to win the round. Why his arguments dont hold up. He's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is achieved in the end, but that is not just or right which is the definiton of justified. So that does not fulfill what he is supposed to meet in the resolution. Pull through my arguments i made in the 1st speech about the AIDS/Africa. Just because I achieved an end that has no AIDS, doesn't mean that killing everyone with AIDS was right or just, all it means is that you ended up with good ends, but by very unjust and unright means, and once again that does not fulfill the obligation of justified. He makes essentially similiar points in his 2nd and 3rd arguments. In his 2nd he says that the greatest good for the most amount of people is justified. But again how is doing whatever it takes to get good ends, just or right? It's not....once again the Africa thing, 20 million people with AIDS are killed to stop the rest of the world from getting AIDS, you stopped AIDS from spreading any further, it has a good ends, but the means are no way just or right. And once again on the 3rd, means are not inherently good if the ends are good. And since he discusses national security that means he only cares about whatever country that he resides in....so pretty much lets say we lived in Country X and the entire world was trying to take parts of our land, so we kill everyone in the entire world expect for our people, that is not just or right. You got the end result you wanted which was, no one will bother trying to take over your land again, but the means of killing everyone so that wouldn't happen is not right, it is not just, and that is why it is not justified and that is why my opponent loses because he never proves he is either one of those, all he proves is that he gets good ends, but you see the definiton of justified does not ask for that and that is why i win the round. When voting at the end of round judges I hope you take this into mind. 1) That in order to oficially forfeit a round I have to not post for two rounds. I missed a post for one round, but that was because I was not able to find good enough time to do so why'll I was in the twin cities. Please read the posts below to see why. 2) I have proven the bare essential thing I have to prove in order to win this debate round. Which is that it is not justified to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence as long as the ends are good. Because of the definitons I have shown, the examples that shine light on it, and everything I have proven in my case. 3) So because I have not forfeited the round according to the rules, and because I have proven what I need to in this round, and because I believe I've presented my way in the most professional manner in this round and decided to take the high road whereas my opponent has been very rude and underhanded thus far with his comments you can see below, I think you must vote Con. Reasons I win: 1) In accordance with rules. 2) I have proven what I need to in order to win the round. 3) I presented and have maintained more professionalism. When judging those are the factors I believe must be taken into hand, and I think I have accomplished those three the best. Thanks for judging and reading through this debate, I realize that sometimes people are really busy and might other plans. That is what happened to me in the 2nd round, I would hope you wouldn't punish me for, and I hope you read through this crystalization with an open mind and will make a good determination of who won ther round, I think you will see that was the Con. Thank You.