Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

I'll go through my opponent's last speech briefly before giving a summary of how the judges ought to vote on the round with the given layer structure that we both agreed to and explaining how I'm still winning on every layer."Do we really want someone that rude to win?"Thankfully debates aren't a popularity contest, and arguments are what drives a win and a loss (or at least should be what drives a win and a loss)." I wouldn't vote for him on any level as an outsider."Obvious bias is obvious."This doesn't change from whoever is holding power. It is not objective."I'll ignore the fact that this is a totally contradictory statement and just adress your desired message.Government desires and actions change from person to person as a new person is put in office and an old person is taken out of office. Do you think that Barack Obama wanted to do the same things that George Bush did? You would have to answer yes in order to not contradict yourself (again). And if you want to defend that, challenge me to another debate over it."National security/safety upheld=morally permissible for a government."Under what sort of ethical/moral framework or system? Oh that's right, you don't have one. This is exactly the crux of why your case fails to prove MORAL permissibiltiy, but instead it proves LEGAL permissibility as it talks about a government actor instead of justifying the action under some ethical or moral system (and no, the government is NOT a moral system. A moral system would be things like consequentialism, deontology, naturalism, etc.). "It's not just legal permissibility"False. That's exactly what it just is."At the point where you believe any morality exists, you can give me the win."False. If morality is subjective, then skepticism is true. If skepticism is true, then we get Joyce. If we get Joyce, then the resolution is prima facie negated. Regardless of what targeted killing does or doesn't do, if morality is subjective, you vote con, as nothing can be considered morally permissible if morality is subjective."And I did provide why morality is a universal thing."I'd like to remind those reading this of WHAT she did to prove why morality is objective: nothing. Just a bland assertion with no evidence to back it up. I, on the other hand, gave numerous examples as well as cited evidence from leading philosophers that stated that morality was not objective (or universal, as she wants to put it), but rather subjective. "We as humans do not determine what is and isn't moral."That's exactly what we do. Our perceptions consider what is moral and what isn't moral. Tell me: if we lived back in the 1400's, with all the knowledge that existed in the 1400's, would you consider embryonic stem cell research morally permissible or impermissible? Wait, you wouldn't know? Why is that? You would have no perception of it, and thus would not be able to describe it as morally permissible or impermissible! So does this mean that our perceptions are what really spawns our moral thought?!Another thing I'd like to point out is that all targeted killing is is murder. A choice murder that eliminates a threat to a society, sure, but a murder nonetheless. All throughout this debate she has said that murder was prima facie wrong, but has instead spouted that targeted killing, which is essentially the same thing, is a-okay! Why is this? Is it because she's just confused and doesn't know what she's talking about?! A likely answer, but I don't think it's necessarily correct. I believe that the correct answer is that she views targeted killing, or perceives targeted killing, in a different light than she does a cold-blooded murder from Freddy Krueger down the street. So does this add more proof to perceptions being the spawning point of morality?!"You can also extend my Rosen explanation of morality in the context of conflict and Babic."1. Nice extension of something that you've left untouched since round two. I thought this round was for summaries only, and not new arguments. 2. These only describe moral PERMISSIBILITY, which is a seperate concept from morality. "we are talking about morally permissible actions, not necessarily morally good ones."Which is exactly where your case goes wrong and my case is proven right. Thank you for reminding everyone."(Zaradi: Please refrain from rude or sarcastic comments in your next speech."Whoops. Too late."I'm honestly offended.)"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.I'd also comment on her last little parenthesized comment at the bottom of her round five, but it's not worth wasting more of my remaining characters on pointing out how dumb it is. Instead, I'll dive into the debate layering and how she's still losing on every tier.When you as the judge are going to evaluate this round, you first have to start with the negative case. As per the uncontested Joyce evidence, if morality is subjective, then the resolution is prima facie false, and thus negated. My case holds three different independent reasons why morality is subjective. In order to refute my case, she would need to refute each of the three reasons. She has failed to refute Koons (reason one), she has failed to refute Nietzsche 1 (reason two), and she has failed to refute Nietzsche 2 (reason three). All three reasons can be cleanly extended across the flow, which gives you as the voter three easy ways to vote con. But even if you buy her misquoted refutations that don't even adress the arguments I make, the last layer is her framework. She has to prove how her method of proving permissibility, justifying it under government action, is not LEGAL permissibility, but rather MORAL permissibility. She has offered no other reasoning for this being true other than saying how her criterion links to her value, which doesn't warrant anything other than a criterion linking to it's value. The problem with her case is she possesses no moral or ethical system under which we can weigh if an act is permissible or impermissible. This may just be a lack of understanding on her part or just an oversight (not likely), but it still counts against her. Since her case fails to prove moral permissibility, then you cannot affirm off of her case, and thusly have to negate on a risk of offense coming off of the negative case.In summary, the round breaks down easily this way:1. If skepticism is true, then nothing can be permissible, and the resolution is instantly negated (coming from Joyce, which went uncontested).2. She conceded three independent reasons for why skepticism is true (Koons, Nietzsche 1, Nietzsche 2)3. Thus, the resolution is instantly false, and you vote con.4. Even if you don't buy skepticism, her case fails to prove the resolution, rather proves an alternately worded resolution, so it is impossible for her to win.And since I have 1000+ characters left, I guess I will touch on that last bit."(If nothing else, please vote pro because someone so inconsiderate really doesn't deserve to be rewarded"If this is true, and all debates are are popularity contests, then you still don't vote for her, but rather for me. A vote for me guarentees free cookies of any kind for life for free. Who doesn't want that?"this isn't what debate.org or really anything is about)"1. Says the person who joined the site no more than two weeks ago. Unless you're suggesting you're a multi-account, in which case I'm going to call over innomen.2. Lolz. So debating isn't what debate.org is about? Wtf is it about then?