Official Tier Tournament Upper Tier Finale - Targeted Killing

To begin his debate my opponent questions my reference to him endorsing a 'social contract'. He may not have used that exact term, but the framework he has laid out clearly relies upon one. My opponent refers to the concept of the "Other", which he declares is a "social narrative defined and created by interaction and openness to the other" and "prescribes morality and the value of human life", while the social contract is defined as "the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live".[1] Essentially, the core of both terms is that people have obligations to the society they are involved in - this is something my opponent clearly bases his framework around, in fact. My opponent may not have explicitly used the term 'social contract', but his argument falls well into that.My opponent agrees that he will "defend that violence and/or killing is never acceptable" as part of his framework. I agree with this, which is why I have said that what my opponent now has to defend is that all defensive violence is unacceptable, rather than just targeted killing. Is his case strong enough to prove that, say, it would be immoral to aid a woman who is being raped on the streets by pulling her attacker off? I don't think so.My opponent also rejects my assertion that the relationship between a targeted killing target and the killer is not one between two persons, but between a state and the killer. My opponent claims that "the actor is irrelevant insofar as a) some actor is planning on committing 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". This argument fails here. Why? My opponent has not shown any real reasoning as to why a state should be equated with a person. Sure, he's said it does, but what logic has he used to back it up? Strictly speaking, people don't perform targeted killings, states do through drone strikes, and hypothetically speaking, in the future, drones might not even need to be controlled by a person, but might just seek out and destroy. Who is the killer there - a person? A robot? The state? My opponent's 'Other' argument fails here because it simply isn't applicable to a state-person relationship, but rather a person-person relationship. His framework isn't equipped to handle the morality of a state targeting and killing someone, in other words.My opponent literally laughs off my assertion that his source was taken out of context. Why? Because he says so. This is a convenient way to ignore the meat of my argument. When I said it was taken out of context, that wasn't my opinion - I backed up my claim that it was taken out of context with a book that critically examines the entirety of his source's work. According to the book I cited:"But it is critical to remember that Butler is not advocating for an ethical absolute that would force us to say, for example, that Himmler or Goring is undeserving of judgement. She agrees that such judgements are certainly called for (GA, 45). What concerns her is the possibility that the identities of the victim and persecutor can become fixed and essential, regardless of changes in circumstances".[2]That citation the author of the examination of Butler's work goes to Butler's own book, Giving an Account of Oneself, the same one my opponent cites. It actually comes from the start of the same passage from the book, "Against Ethical Violence". Beyond that, he ignores my distinction between "justice" and "revenge" and my arguments on the social contract. I extend all of my third-objection arguments (misused source, justice vs. revenge and social contract) as my opponent has not actually responded to any of them.My opponent doesn't even mention my response to his second contention, where I give another example of a scholar contradicting my opponent's interpretation of Butler's piece. I extend this argument as well.My opponent also again questions how I am arguing affirmatively for the resolution. He claims I'm not arguing a moral framework, I'm not trying to answer the question, and efficacy is irrelevant. He also says the following:"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."I find this to be incredibly rude. My opponent, knowingly or not, violated the debate structure, and I asked why. He gave an answer, and I accepted it, and said that I would not demand the debate be forfeited over it. I think that's incredibly nice of me to do, especially given the circumstances (this being the Finals of the Tier Tournament) and yet my opponent, of all things, accuses me of "rule-sharking" and then proceeds to demand that I not violate the debate structure, as it would be unfair to him, because there is no way he could "adequately cover new arguments in the final round". I would argue it was incredibly unfair that I had to devote precious time and space to both respond to my opponent's premature rebuttal and point out that he did so.Regardless, responding to these claims would not be a 'new argument' unless I were making a constructive - which I am not. Rebuttals are not new arguments, and are explicitly allowed in the rules. I am simply rebutting a claim he has made. First, I am indeed arguing a moral framework, just not an explicitly written one like my opponent. I have focused on self-evident moral claims - that is, ones that are fairly equal across all moral spectrums. Self-defense, for instance, is almost universally accepted as a moral thing. Similarly, arguing targeted killings cause less damage than traditional warfare and are effective are utilitarian arguments - utilitarianism is an ethical (moral) concept as well.[3] I think this covers both all three of his assertions. Of course, it is far easier to suggest I'm not arguing the resolution than it is to rebut self-defense or utilitarianism. In fact, he's ignored the crux of my social contract argument - that it is accepted that rights can be taken away as punishment for a crime. His lack of focus on my actual arguments is astounding.On the issue of homo sacer, my opponent claims I dismissed it as a silly Roman law. Once again, he ignores the crux of my argument (that targeted killing isn't a blank-slate justification for killing, but rather a specific foreign policy tool only to be used when arrest is impossible). One was a Roman punishment for oath-breakers, the other is a military action against war criminals who are nearly impossible to arrest. The two aren't even remotely similar, which is why I rejected the comparison out of hand.Finally, on the issue of efficacy, my opponent offers some arguments this time. His first source asserts that targeted killings have the risk of resulting in a stronger leader taking charge, rob the targeted state of possible intel if capture were possible instead of killing, and when used recklessly can cause civilian deaths. I actually agree with both of these risks, which is what the format for targeted killings I have laid out is for. Targeted killings aren't to be used willy-nilly, but in very specific, defined cases - like the al-Awlaki case, which my opponent has never responded to). In fact, this is exactly what my opponent's own source says - they state targeted killings are moral under the state's right of self-defense, and propose, like I do, a narrow window of acceptable targeted killings.[4] Similarly, my opponent's arguments on Al-Qaeda are outdated - the Hunter source, for instance, was written in 2009, well before the killing of Osama bin Laden "crippled" the organization.[5] In short, my arguments cover and account for all of the claims that they aren't effective.In short, I've established both self-defense and utilitarian frameworks for reasonable targeted killings of militants, when arrest isn't possible and on-ground military action would be impractical or risk lives. I've used the social contract to show the basis of why targeted killing is an ethical response, and demonstrated an example of an ethical targeted killing (that of Anwar al-Awlaki). I've also refuted my opponent by demonstrating his main moral frameworks come from a work he is taking dramatically out of context. In contrast, my opponent has barely responded to my key moral points, and has mostly focused on attacking me. In short, I've adequately affirmed the Pro side, and adequately refuted Con's arguments. Thus, a vote for PRO is warranted.References:1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...2. http://books.google.com...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://harvardnsj.org...5. http://www.theatlantic.com...