'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

One would be hard-pressed to grant this round to Pro for a plethora of reasons. First, I'll address the rebuttal in order of how Pro listed points in Round 3. The first paragraph is difficult to interpret. Pro's extending arguments that he never made. Pro merely alluded before to the notion that it is in fact ok to kill for certain reasons, including self-defense & defense of others, yet, as I stated last round, there is absolutely no warrant for this notion. To prove that there is a moral difference, Pro would need a moral framework assessing the value of a human life and differentiating between killing arbitrarily and killing for a purpose, but no such attempt has been made. Because Pro literally does no work to refute my point on killing as categorically wrong, I win the round right here.I bring up the killing/letting die argument for good reason. Killing Bob is morally reprehensible, more so than letting another die. This is imperative to my offense against Pro, as the round is framed as a question of "morality". Bob "should" be killed. Yet if what I say is true (and it is by concession), it is not morally permissible to kill Bob to save the life of another. One more reason to vote Con.I advance the argument that, if you must, killing might be justified in cases of self-defense, as Hobbes would've argued. But the defense of another, I argue, does not warrant the same justification. No response here. Another reason to vote Con, as no attempt to prove that it is permissible to kill to save another's life is advanced by Pro.Nowhere in the hypo was certainty mentioned. It just says "you see him by chance at a state park". Because uncertainty is necessarily a part of the human condition, it was Pro's duty to include certainty as a premise to the equation. I argue in MULTIPLE ways that killing Bob is inherently immoral. Besides the fact that it is immoral to kill altogether, I add points about a moral duty to obey the law, a duty to respect the right to a trial and the principle that only the government may decide to strip you of rights. I compare immanency with Pro's morality using my own hypo. I advanced various and sundry points against Pro. Ignoring them isn't a valid defense. Neither is denouncing them as "practical". All of my points, even the ones about government monopoly and right to trial are grounded in political morality. Pro states that a courtroom is no different that probability. However, we can clearly see that a controlled setting in which both sides present evidence and argumentation followed by a verdict is different than shooting on sight. The right to life and a trial shouldn't be, as I've argued, subject to the judgment of one park-going vigilante. Pro makes an argument that we merely extend immanency in this case. I argued in my 2nd point that immanency should only be extended to matters where one can, in a sensory manner, be certain that their actions will prevent blatant harm to someone. No response.I do in fact show that the government has the sole right to make decisions regarding the rights of the citizenry by arguing that, under social contract theory, we give up certain liberties to gain security in our rights, and the only way to consistently apply laws and protect external rights is if A. We unequivocally respect the rights of other unless our own are at stake, and B. we grant the government a MONOPOLY ON COERCIVE FORCE. We cannot say that coercive force belongs to the US government and also Jim from Oklahoma. That would be nonsensical and would nullify the concept of a state. Why you should vote ConRemember, this debate is about whether or not Bob should be killed from a moral standpoint. 1. Pro loses the debate on the categorical nature of moralityNo differentiation between killing arbitrarily and killing Bob was established by Pro. This is an clear voting issue, and the mere appeals to popular morality and bald assertions regarding how obvious Pro thinks this point should be ought to be seen by voters as a concession. 2. Pro loses the debate because no effort is made to prove that killing is preferable to letting dieWe are presented with a situation in which people may die if we do not kill. I asked why killing is preferable to letting die in this situation when, according to most ethicists (I warranted this earlier as well), letting die is preferable. Pro offers NO circumstantial evidence to prove that we ought to override this system of morality to save lives by ending Bob's. 3. Pro loses because no effort is made to prove that principles warranting killing for self-defense extend to defense of othersEven if we take the notion that, to protect our own rights, we may bring harm to others, as valid, we have no reason to believe that this extends to protection of others. Even if it is law that we may do so when immanent danger is present, this round is normative, not descriptive, and immanency is not a factor here. 4. YOU COULD JUST SHOOT BOB IN THE LEGI know this seems like a copout, but PRO CONCEDES THIS! The resolution states that Bob should be killed, yet it is OBVIOUSLY preferable that he be incapacitated/wounded, solving the issue of future victims without killing. 5. Without certainty, we cannot justify killing BobI established lack of certainty, and the unrealistic addition of certainty post facto by Pro should not be permitted. As I argued under a Dworkinian framework as well, we cannot deny Bob his tangible rights to defend the speculative rights of people whom we don't even know to exist at the moment. 6. We have a moral duty to respect the external rights of othersWe not only view it as socially optimal, but morally imperative that each citizen be tried for his/her crimes by a judge/jury. This right is foundational. Foundational rights cannot be stripped away speculatively, no matter how certain we think we are of the impending detriments of allowing them to stand. This right, as well as the general knowledge of the populace that, unless you are in the process of harming another, you may not justifiably be KILLED is foundational as well to the general security and peace-of-mind necessary to a rights-based democracy. 7. Extrapolation based upon a past mental state is not a logical extension of immanent danger.We cannot say that, because when someone is pointing a gun at our heads we have the rights to defend ourselves, we also have a moral duty to extrapolate based upon past actions of a criminal and utilize this knowledge to predict future actions and act upon them with LETHAL FORCE. This point is huge, and no response is even attempted by Pro. Death is infinite, as I've stated many times. We cannot justify death through extrapolation.8. The govt. has a monopoly on coercive forceAddressed above. It is not our right as citizens to become the arbiters of life and death when our own lives aren't at stake.9. General moral obligation to be lawfulNot even the semblance of a response to this point. Conceded, meaning that voters can accept without question the notion that a moral duty to obey codified law exists. It would be morally wrong to kill Bob when, legally speaking, Bob is not creating a clear and present danger to those around him.There you have it folks. 9 fantastic reasons to vote Con. Almost all can stand alone as voting issues, yet here they are, all stacked together against Pro. I find it troubling that so many points were dropped, as Pro certainly had ample characters remaining to address them. Whether by the categorical nature of morality and the moral permissibility of killing, the general principles underlying our democracy, the moral duty of each citizen to respect the rights of others, or a simple yet effective copout (shoot Bob in the leg!), no reason is provided to vote Pro. In fact, Pro doesn't provide any offense whatsoever. Visceral reactions to unsubstantiated claims that beg the question "Should we kill Bob" paired with appeals to majority further stack the ballot in favor of Con.