Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

Targeted Killing: Collateral damage, or collateral murder?Because I believe Targeted Killing to be murder and not damage I negate the resolution, Resolved: targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.Value: National Security. Today I will be valuing that of National Security. National Security is a state's right to protection and safety within its physical limits. It should be a nation's obligation to achieve their own National Security; therefore any action that infringes upon this should be deemed immoral. Because Targeted killings involve another nation stepping over their bounds, targeted killings are immoral.Value Criterion: Cost-Benefit Analysis.This round should be judged based off of a cost-benefit analysis. The side that better argues the benefits of using or not using targeted killing outweigh the costs should win this round. Now, moving onto my contentions.Contention 1: Targeted Killing results in the loss of innocent life which is counterproductive to the goal of National Security. Without human life within a nation, there would be no nation to protect. Because every nation aims to achieve national security the human life within each nation becomes an invaluable commodity. Targeted Killing then becomes counterproductive towards the goals of national security. There are numerous sources of evidence for collateral damage caused by targeted killing, but I will spare you a debate that’s centered on multitudes of cherry-picked evidence. Regardless of the source used, the point is this: Targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life. In no cases is there a 1 to 0 combatant to civilian death rate. The fact that we blatantly disregard the lives of others for our own goals is highly immoral just as the practice of Targeted Killing is to reach these numbers. When applying this to national Security we can see how Targeted Killing is not by any means a moral solution. By killing innocent citizens and marking them as collateral damage we put a bulls-eye right on the heart of national Security. By using Targeted Killings and tearing down the purpose for making a nation secure, we undermine its very reason for existing.Contention 2: Targeted Killings allow for one judge, jury, and executioner.One person with all the power, what they say goes and there isn’t anybody else to say otherwise. This is a dictator, this is tyranny, and this is the reality of targeted killing. Checks and balances are not required, just the okay go from one man in the executive branch. The problem with one person holding this much power is the fact that immoral judgment can and will occur. Take for example the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. Anwar had potential ties to Al Qaeda and instead of detaining him per his American rights he became a VICTIM of targeted killing. This is a case of extra-judicial process and is why we have things like checks and balances. Especially in cases like Anwar’s we can see a major flaw in Targeted Killings and National Security. Targeted Killings allow you to murder your own citizens which is the opposite of securing a nation. To allow targeted Killings is to allow a nation to unleash havoc on itself.Contention 3: Targeted Killing is like skiing down a slippery slope.We can begin by killing a person who has taken the lives of 3000 innocents, but then what? 1500 innocents and you’re dead, 500 and you’re dead, 50 you’re dead, all the way until one innocent and you are the next target. With this slippery slope, targeted killing leads to further immoral and justified actions. A good example would be the Patriot Act. The government passed this act in the interest of protecting the American citizens from foreign threats. Although, only three of the 763 “Sneak-and-peak” requests for the fiscal year of 2008 involve terrorism cases. Whereas 65% involved drug cases in the U.S. [1] The Patriot Act, intended to protect is actually being used to harm U.S. citizens. These basic infringements on citizen rights deter us from achieving national Security. Targeted Killing is a slippery slope that my opponent will have you believe is a helpful tool, when really they are only Band-Aids to a festering wound, a quick fix to a snowballing problem. Targeted Killing has a greater effect on National Security than one might originally think. They have the ability to throw a nation into extreme dishevel. We want nations to be secure. National Security promotes safety and stability, but as I’ve shown, targeted Killings threaten to dismantle this very important institute. It is because of this that I strongly urge you to vote for the negative, thank you.Pro CaseValue: Kant’s Categorical Imperative.It is accurate to say that Kant is concerned with the intentions of actions as opposed to the consequences, however pro leaves out something very important to the categorical imperative; the formulations. The Categorical Imperative has several formulations, but for the purposes of this debate, the Humanity formula will be of particular importance.The Humanity Formula states: “that we should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself.” [2] (Underlines for emphasis)What this essentially means is that we should never use a human being with the intention of achieving a goal. When we engage in targeted killing, we are using the terrorists as a means to achieve an end. That end is National Security. In order for this action to be morally permissible, we must treat the targets as ends in themselves. By killing them, we are not doing this.Additionally, the humanity formulation provides a solid foundation for human rights and liberty, which is what we both want to achieve, but targeted killing is not doing that. The Categorical Imperative negates this resolution, and serves the con case better, so based on this point alone we can safely vote con.Contention 1: The rise of terror has made traditional war obsolete.This contention basically asserts that because targeted killing is an effective way to fight terrorism, it makes it morally permissible. This is not true. Just because something is effective, it does not make it morally permissible.For example, while using nuclear warheads to decimate the areas which terrorists are known to reside in may be an effective way of eradicating terrorism for good; the unnecessary loss of human life would not make it morally permissible. Furthermore, with the Categorical Imperative turned over to the con case, this contention has no connection to morally permissible at all.Contention 2: Targeted killing has had an extremely high rate of success in the war on terror.This entire contention rests on the premise that targeted killing has been the reason for the success in the war on terror. Pro cites evidence that we are succeeding in the war on terror, but there’s a problem with this claim. Correlation is not equal to causation. Unless pro provides evidence that explicitly details that targeted killings alone have been responsible for this success, then we can’t take this contention seriously. It may very well be that this success was caused by our traditional warfare, so it is up to pro to prove that it was only targeted killing that caused this.A good example of correlation not being equal to causation is Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Both were totalitarian dictators known for committing atrocities during World War II. A correlation between Hitler and Stalin is the fact that they both have mustaches. If correlation does indeed equal causation, then we can safely say that both dictators were evil because they had mustaches, and furthermore, mustaches are the cause of evil. This claim is obviously absurd, so my attack on this contention is valid.Contention 3: Under Kantian ethics, targeted killing is morally permissible.In my attack on pro’s value, I have already refuted this claim.Sources in comments.