Current U.S. foreign policy undermines our national security.

A – Interpretation: In a debate with limited characters available, debaters should condense arguments to fit the character limit. B – Violation: My opponent’s case well exceeds the character limit. C – Standards: 1) Character Skew: Whenever we allow a debater to break the character limit, it infinitely skews the amount of characters one side has access to as the glitch prevents the character limit from cutting off their arguments and preventing them from posting the excessive argument. This harms debate because with the excess characters it allows the abusing side to cover infinitely more ground and make infinitely more refutations than I can abiding by the character limit, which skews the debate massively. 2) Ground Skew: Having access to unlimited characters means that they can make infinite more arguments and make infinite more attacks against my case than I can, which skews the debate since it allows them to just shotgun hundreds of possible arguments out into the round and extend out the ones I am unable to cover with the limited character space, which is insanely abusive. 3) Predictability: My opponent’s abuse of the character glitch is unpredictable on two levels: a) it’s unpredictable since I came into the debate expecting my opponent to abide by the character limit and not infinitely skew the debate and b) they’re not being predictable by using the character glitch to throw thousands of extra characters at me to use hundreds of different arguments against me. And predictability is important to debate because a debate is more educational and more valuable outside of the actual round if we have a general idea of what the other person is going to do so that we can prepare for it and give our best effort to convince the other of our side. D – Implications: Vote them down because:1. Fairness is a voter because competitive debate mandates equal burdens. The function of the ballot is to vote for the better debater but that’s fundamentally impossible if one side is skewed.2. Education is a voter since it gives the debate out-of-round value.3. Prefer competing interpretations since a) reasonability has an arbitrary brightline and thus invites arbitrary judge intervention and b) competing interps incentives fairer positions, promoting the integrity of the activity. Reject the debater a) since I had to spend time and characters checking the abuse, so the round can never be evaluated fairly and b) to disincentive bad debate, since debaters know they can just kick abusive arguments and exploit the time and character trade-off.And, I'm allowed to run theory since my opponent a) has put me in a horrible position, and running an unfamiliar argument is the only possible way to try and level it out and b) specifically brought up LD when he brought up the analysis about the March-April LD topic, opening the door for LD-ish cases. Now, go to his contentional arguments:Turn my opponent's contentions. my opponent's case criticizes Obama's foreign policies as being too hard line and too soft line at the same time. This is going to be a game-over mistake for my opponent for a number of reasons: a) It excludes me from having any ground in this debate because any position I could defend is inherently refuted. If I defend a more laid back approach as good for our nation, it's already too soft line and vice versa. This excludes me from having any argument. And having ground is important to debate since debating fairly mandates equal burdens but one side having not debatable ground is inherently unfair.b) This also puts my opponent in a double bind because either a) Obama's hardcore policies would be better solved by the more softcore policies my opponent criticizes or b) the softcore policies would be better solved by the hardcore policies my opponent criticizes. This means that if we prefer one contention, it automatically refutes the other since that contention would be beneficfial and would solve back for the harms of the pro case. c) Even if you buy my opponent's case 100%, you still have to negate because if softcore policies and hardcore policies are harmful, then there is no other alternative action. This means that so long as I prove a marginal benefit to a policy, that's enough to vote con because there's no way out of the harms of the pro case, meaning he links in as well. So I currently have three ways for voters to vote con: a) off of the theory shell, b) vote off of the double bind, or c) you can vote off of me proving a marginal benefit. But since I have yet to prove a marginal benefit, let's go to doing that. I will advocate that our targeted killing policies have been effective and beneficial to stopping terrorism in the Middle East. First, Targeted killing doesn’t cause recruitment. It’s hard to recruit people by saying in our organization once you become important you die. Thomas Hunter explains: Hunter, Thomas Byron. 2009. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism. Journal of Strategic Security, 2 (2): 1-52. “According to one former British SaSveteran with experience in northern ireland and in other conflicts, the killing of group members, particularly leaders, had a decisively negative impact on future recruiting efforts. It is also possible that such elements that may be present among secular terrorists, such as the quite understandable fear of being killed, may also prove a strong disincentive in the face of a (either overt or covert) targeted killing campaign.” Second, Targeted killings impede the effectiveness of terrorist organizations because the skilled workers and charismatic leaders are lost. Israel’s 80% success rate proves this true. Steven R. David explains: “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. September 2002. “Targeted killings have impeded the effectiveness of Palestinian terrorist organizationsThere are a limited number of people who have the technical ability to make bombs and plan attacks. If these people are eliminated, the ability to mount attacks is degraded. The large number of intercepted suicide bombers estimate[d] 80 percent of attempts) and poorly planned attacks indicates that there are problems either with the organization of the operations or those available to carry them out. There are individual leaders whose charisma and organizational skills keep a group together. If they are eliminated, they are not easily replaced. Shikaki of the Islamic Jihad falls into this category.”Third, Targeted killing deters terrorist forces, as most of them are concerned about their own lives and not mere martyrdoms. Israel empirically proves this. Steven R. David continues: “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing.” The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. September 2002. Behind every suicide bomber are others not ready for martyrdom. The large number of Palestinian commanders who surrendered meekly to Israeli forces during the large-scale military incursions in the spring of 2002 [shows] that many senior officials do not wish to die for their cause. There are skilled, capable Palestinians who do not engage in terrorist operations for fear of Israeli reprisals. Targeted killing hurts Palestinian organizations to the extent to which they are willing to alter their behavior. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with three Palestinian leaders on January 30, 2002. When Sharon asked the Palestinians what they wanted from him, first on their list was an end to targeted killings. Islamic Jihad and Hamas agreed to refrain from launching attacks in pre-1967 Israel in December 2001 so long as Israel refrained from killing its leaders.Their willingness to abide by the cease-fire, indicates the deterrent power of targeted killing.This means that there are obvious benefits to using targeted killing, making it an effective piece of foreign policy that reduces terrorism, making it better for national security. Thus, the resolution is negated.