Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

I don't really know where my opponent is getting I'm arguing social contract, because I make no mention of it or anything even close to it anywhere.And right around here ("that face-to-face contact with another person") is where I think my opponent is failing to understand my case. So let me be perfectly clear with what the Other is talking about. When I'm talking about the Other, I'm not talking about other in a literal sense, like talking to some other person. Rather the Other is a concept, a description for the social narrative that prescribes morality and the value of human life. (Keep up kids, this responds to his first objection to my framework). And yes, I do defend that violence and/or killing is never acceptable since it a) violates the framework I set up in my case and it violates the alt in the K I read. That's two different levels responding to what he says I need to prove.To respond to his second objection, the actor is irrelevant insofar as a) some actor is planning on commiting violence, which violates the Other, and b) insofar as that person being commited violence against is still a person, therefore still valuable according to the K. And his third objection? He cites the wrong book to say my quote is out of context. LOL Prefer my interpretation of the card because I'm actually citing the correct source, therefore have better access to the true context and meaning. This means from here ("Accordingly, what) to here ("have explicitly accepted.") is kinda irrelevant since it's a) misinterpreting the Butler evidence, and b) arguing that I argue for the social contract which I make no effort to do so.And on my previous rebuttals, read my first statement carefully. I never said he wasn't arguing for the resolution. Rather, my argument is that his case fails to affirm it. In order to show that something is morally permissible, you need to deliniate where you're drawing morality from and what is actually permissible and impermissible. If he doesn't then that means his arguments just beg the question of if he's actually being moral. Right now since he's not providing any kind of moral framework to evaluate what is moral and what isn't moral, this has three implications on the debate at hand, both of which mean you instantly negate.First, since he's not providing any kind of framework to evaluate what is moral under, you default to the one I provide in my case. This means you pretty much instantly negate since killing will always be a violation of the Other. Second, it means that even if you don't like my framework, you'll still presume neg because I'm the only one trying to answer the question of morality posited by the resolution. Third, it means you literally cannot vote aff because even if he's showing that targeted killing is a generally good idea or that it's effective or anything else, that doesn't make it morally permissible. Otherwise I'm sure all of that grueling slave labor that produced lots of beneficial production results were perfectly moral!Don't let him make responses to these in the last round, or to posit his own framework in the last round because a) it's inherently unfair to expect me to be able to adequately cover new arguments made in the final round, and b) the very round structure that he's trying to rule-shark me on says that he can't. He chose not to run any kind of ethical framework and chose not to come up with one in the one round he had the ability to, and it's a game-over mistake, so punish him for it.In response to the K, all my opponent does is laugh it off as a silly obscure Roman law, but never responds to any of the warrants explaining how self-defense cedes life into Homo Sacer, which makes their life effectively a gray zone where their killing is immoral but permissible. He doesn't respond to the impact coming off of Homo Sacer, which turns his case both on a framework level and on a contentional level. Like, I don't get why my opponent isn't taking this debate seriously. It's like he's not even trying. Extend out the K that he just tries to laugh off. It functions in two ways:First, it's a direct refutation to his first contention talking about self-defense.Second, it functions as a reason to negate since the alt is showing us why all lives are grievable, therefore killing them is always impermissible. Then extend out the first response I made against targeted killing effectiveness that it's irrelevant how effective it is. Refer back to the shooting someone in the head example I gave last round, as well as the slavery example I provided this round. So even if he's winning on how effective it is, that's still not sufficient to win the debate. And, even if my stats are talking about the short term, and he's talking about the long term, it still doesn't make sense because killing off their leaders just replaces them with new, potentially more ruthless leaders. Look to Hezbollah to see this in action. Blum et. al(1): "eliminating leaders of terrorist organizations ... may ... effect, the rise of more—and more resolute—leaders to replace them. The decapitating of the organization may also invite retaliation by the other members and followers of the organization. ... when Israel assassinated ... Mussawi ... a more charismatic and successful leader, Hassan Nassrallah, succeeded ... The armed group then avenged the assassination of its former leader in two separate attacks, blowing up Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires ..." Hunter affirms this very point(2): "the preponderance of information leads to the conclusion that the targeted killing of senior leaders or individuals does not lead to the dissolution or usually even a severe degradation of that group’s capabilities or intentions. This is particularly true in the case of those groups with long, established histories and large or highly motivated memberships, or a wide support base (e.g., al Qaeda, the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, or Spain’s eta). targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on terrorism these include terrorist groups, for example, that are seeking national identity. ... Hunter 2 shows this empirically through al Qaeda: "attempting to reduce a group’s operational capabilities through targeted killing is of limited utility when posed against groups practicing advanced security measures. ... to ensure al Qaeda’s operational effectiveness, the group stresses the need to maintain internal security, dividing its operatives into overt and covert members functioning under a single leader…al Qaeda’s global network has survived by its members strictly adhering to the principles of operational security. the continued “success” of al Qaeda (measured in its ability to conduct major terrorist attacks worldwide despite international efforts to eradicate it) is a testament to its members’ adherence to operational security. ... this ongoing viability is evidence of the ineffectiveness of targeted killing (as practiced by the U.S. in this case) ..." And, targeted killing cripples our ability to gather intelligence on terrorist operations, which hurst our ability to fight terrorism long-term. Blum et. al continues: "Targeted killing may also interfere with important gathering of critical intel ... The threat of being targeted will drive current leaders into hiding, making the monitoring of their ... activities ... difficult. ... if these leaders are found and killed, instead of captured, ... counterterrorism forces lose the ability to interrogate them to obtain potentially valuable information ..." Hunter 3 confirms: "in those cases in which a terrorist or terrorists are monitored for long periods of time and do not appear to be involved in a near-term attack, their killing may not only be unnecessary but might also eliminate a potentially valuable source of intelligence. A good example of this was the arrest of senior al Qaeda planner ... Sheikh Mohammad (aka KSM) ... It is clear from the evidence that these forces could easily have killed KSM, ... Instead, recognizing the potentially vast amount of intelligence they could gather from him regarding previous and future planning for terrorist attacks, they opted to arrest rather than kill him. the resulting interrogations revealed valuable insight into al Qaeda and their global network ..." Not to mention that trying to drone strike someone is iffy as hell. If you're trying to tell me that drone striking someone is effective and works without problems, I'll see your bluff and raise you sixteen tries and 321 innocent lives lost for one bad guy. Spiegel Online(3): "What is the cost of rendering a terrorist harmless once and for all by killing him? During the course of 14 months, the CIA used unmanned and heavily armed small aircraft known as drones to stage 15 strikes against the presumed locations of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. On Aug. 5, 2009, on the 16th try, the drones finally managed to kill Baitullah Mehsud. ... and 11 others were killed. ... But the hunt for Mehsud cost the lives of far more than 11 people. According to estimates, ... 321 people died in the course of the 16 attempts to eliminate Mehsud -- and it is certain that not all of them were Taliban fighters." Sources:(1) - Blum, Gabriella and Heymann, Phillip B., Law and Policy of Targeted Killing (June 27, 2010). Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 1, No. 145, 2010(2) - Hunter, Thomas Byron. 2009. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism. Journal of Strategic Security, 2 (2): 1-52.(3) - Drones Are Lynchpin of Obama's War on Terror By SPIEGEL ONLINE Staff 03/12/2010 SPIEGEL ONLINE correspondents have investigated this new method of warfare and conducted research in the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Germany. Read about Obama's drone campaign against terrorism in the following articles. http://www.spiegel.de...