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

.. .In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means. I would assume we are talking about the United States inherently in the resolution and I would hope my opponent would agree with me on this. So with that let's move to my first contention. .. I: Defintions and Analysis of Definitions in the Resolution A: Military Intelligence It is defined as trying to fnd understanding or reasoning behind things that pertain to military establishments. The information is not specified in the resolution, but it could be the location of something or someone or something like that. But continuing analysis, the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence. So that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc. .. .. .just as long as they get the information, because. .. .hey. .. .the ends were good at least. I believe that is wrong and that can't even be justified which brings me to my next point. B: Justified Is defined as to show to be just or right. The definitions I use in this debate are on dictionary. com and the funk dictionary. Anyways, so by doing whatever it takes to get good ends is what the resolution wants. But as you can see the definition of justified, which is listed as the first definition on dictionary. com shows that it is not right to do whatever it takes as long as the ends justify the means. Because have to show that you are being just or right, and doing whatever it takes to get good ends, does not always mean you used just or right means to get to that end. II: Doing whatever it takes as long as it results in good ends is not right and not just. I will use two examples, one pertaining to the resolution and another that is commonly used on my debate circuit. A: Let's say there is a middle eastern man that you captured and he knows the location of a terrorist in the area. So you want to find out where the terroist is, so you are willing to do whatever it takes to find out where he's at, because with the Pro's thinking, you have to do whatever it takes to get good ends and find that military intelligence. .. like finding a terrorist. So you torture the man, you hurt him, you even go as far to threaten his family and his friend's lives to find the information you want. And he still won't give in. .. .. so you start killing his family and friends until he tells you. After a few people are killed, the man eventually gives in and tells the military the intelligence they want, the find the terrorist and it resulted in good ends. But you see, even though it might have stopped a bigger disaster, it still was not right and not just and that it is not justified, becaus you killed people unjustly and unrightoeously to get the military intelligence and the good ends. That is not right, and that is why you should vote Con. B: Let's say the government wanted to get rid of AIDS in Africa. That would bring a great end, right? Of course it would, so the government kills every single last person that has AIDS in Africa. So now AIDS are gone, and the good end of getting rid of AIDS is achieved. But you see, the government just killed over 20 million people, the means were unjust and unright, therefore by definition it is unjustified. Once again, that is why Con wins the round. III: Two Wrongs Don't Make it Right There is a logical fallacy called two wrongs make it right. That means if you committ that fallacy then you are being illogical and not right. So for exapmple, if you prevent a terrorist attack in a country by exploding a building with the suspected terrorist in it, and some other people, then you are doing something wrong to prevent something wrong. That does not make it right. All it makes the situation is that something else was wrong other than the terrorist attack which would have been wrong. IV: Observation The Pro of this resolution inherently believes in doing whatever it takes to collect millitary intelligence and that is wrong. And if the pro claims that they are not willing to do whatever it takes as long as they get good ends, then they are not upholding there side of the resolution, and they lose there as well. So the pro has two choices, to accept that they are wrong in doing whatever it takes to get good ends, or they can try to say that they aren't doing whatever it takes, but then they would lose automatically because they don't accept there side of the resolution that they are supposed to debate. Moving on to the Pro's case. I: So right here he says he's willing to do whatever it takes as long as national security is preseved. I will take this in two directions. .. . 1: Doing whatever it takes as long as end. .. such as national security is achieved, doesn't make it just or right so then it is not justified. I explained throughout my case above as you can see. 2: He uses national secutiry and national safety. So that implies he only cares about the country he is in. So that means he would be willing to let the entire world come crashing around him just as long as his country's own good ends are achieved, and I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified. II: So he wants to do the greatest good for the most amount of people. But that doesnt make something justified. Because to be justified you have to be just or right. And if you cross-apply my argument about two wrongs don't make it right, you'll see that just because you prevent some bigger wrong from happening doesn't make your smaller wrong right. III: The means are not inherently good if they ends are. This argument truly upsets me. Look to my second contention and my examples about how if you use bad means, and get good ends, it doesn't mean the means suddenly become good. Like my AIDS in Africa example. 20 million people get killed, it results in the good end of getting rid of AIDS, but it doesnt make the act of killing everyone with AIDS good. You will see that the Con will be the winner at the end of this debate round. Because the Pro trys to advocate that as long as you get good ends, everything is good and justified. But it is not, because once again the definition of justified is to show to be just or right. And by doing whatever it takes to get military intelligene doesnt provide and just or right things to happen. That is why the Con should win this round. I look forward to the rest of this debate and I thank my judges for taking your time to read through the arguments. Thank You.