Experts' Debate Competition R2: Just Societies and War

I really want to take a moment to thank phantom for a truly fabulous and intense round. In this round I'll address the framework and the contentions, and then I shall explain why you should vote PRO today.FRAMEWORKLet me first return to my R3 summary of my definition, which was not challenged by Pro: "Never means 'as a rule.' I provided this specific example to illustrate this term: "I never drink soda, but maybe this one time." When we talk about doing things 'as a rule,' we accept that there may be rare exceptions to the rule in which case it is permissible to act outside of the rule; however, in the vast majority of cases, conformity to the rule is ideal. This can be evidenced by such statements as 'I don't lie, as a rule, but if it will spare her feelings, maybe I should.'" I must show that as a rule, i.e. in the large majority of cases, a J.S. should not initiate war. Con then returns to his argument that the statement "if killing is wrong, it is almost always wrong" is false. Yet, Con DROPPED my response to this argument, and so my point stands. I pointed out: "The first clause, 'killing is wrong' is a generalization--a rule of thumb. From this generalization, we can extrapolate that killing is usually wrong." Con has, throughout this debate, dropped points only to challenge them again at his convenience. I responded to his attack, and he failed to counter.Con focuses on a single word "should" which, in context, I was using to express what a rational choice would be. Rationality is not the same thing as morality. The rational course of action if X and Y are you only options is to choose the less harmful of the two. However, there is no moral option because both would require immoral actions. It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Both options are evil, aka immoral, but choosing the less immoral action is logical.Next, Con says that he is not denying broad general rules, but rather "broad general rules with obvious exceptions." Human rights are broad general rules with obvious exceptions. Consider, the right to vote, the idea that every person should be able to vote, is a broad general rule, but it has obvious exceptions. Criminals, the young, the mentally ill, etc. all should not have that right. At this point, Con is contradicting himself. He says human rights are important, but rejects the logic behind them at the exact same time.Lastly, Pro sort of dodges the attack I offered against his standard, rather than tackling it head on. Firstly, it is unique to his standard because counting lives is objective, whereas comparing the worth of values like freedom and fairness is highly subjective. If two options of similar importance arise, one that promotes fairness, and the other that promote freedom, which do we take? Con's standard gives us no direction. This is highly relevant to the debate because a standard is a means of deciding which of two options is better--but Con's has serious issues in doing this because it lacks clarity.ARGUMENTSC1: DeontologyCon says, "Pro has clearly accepted the legitimacy of participating in wars that have already started despite the fact that this leads to the killing of innocents no less than actually initiating the war." Yet, as I have mentioned before, and which Con DROPPED, once a war has already begun, the death of innocents is inevitable. If a J.S. can help to bring the war to a close faster by intervening, it may. However, it is better to not initiate war at all, so no civilians die, than to engage in war.Ultimately, when we consider that killing innocents is immoral, as just--or morally right--society, would not willfully initiate the deaths of innocents.Con also says that if war is already on the horizon, it is futile to try to protect innocents by not initiating war. Yet, how does one know that war is a certainty. There are many wars that nearly happened, including a near U.S. war with Mexico, that was avoided when Pres. Wilson did not react to foreign provocation. Another example is the Berlin Airlift, avoiding outright war with the U.S.S.R. There are other examples as well. [1] War may loom, but that does not mean that it is inevitable. A J.S. should defend itself, but that does not mean it should strike preemptively, and set off a war that could have been otherwise avoided.C2: UtilitySACon DROPS my point about the Japanese invasion as being an initiation of war. Con DROPS that Japan is the best example for this topic--the reason that Japan is the best example is that its constitution prohibits it from initiating war, and so the ideal case study for a J.S. that would not initiate war. This Japanese example shows that pacifist nations require few offensive weapons, but are able to use defense capacities to remain safe. Con concedes that some delineation between offensive and defensive weapons is possible.If the Jews resisted the Germans, the Jews would be exercising self-defense, and not initiating war. The Germans used the military and police forces to forcibly capture Jews, the Jews may resist. These are small clashes, that the Germans would no doubt retaliate against with large forces, thus initiating the civil war. The Jews must merely resist with small, isolated clashes.Moreover, Con DROPS: "Secondly, there are other ways to work to control genocidaires besides war--humanitarian intervention is not always war, for example. Evacuations, sanctions, political pressure, etc. could also assist." This would have helped saved the Jews regardless of whether they resisted.Con concedes that weapons help deter. This matters because: "that these weapons will deter and prevent war, rather than cause it to escalate. At this point, this argument is moot."SBAgain, Pro DROPS: "straying from a rule of strict self-defense will increase cycles of violence."Con says that war is sometimes the best course to combat immoral drives for power, yet this does not address my concerns that "if Hitler had been attacked first, it may have seemed that the allies were the unjustified aggressors, badgering the axis powers. The U.S. attack on Iraq, for instance, has legitimized a whole new era wherein sovereignty's meaning is...downgraded."C2: PreemptionCon again changes the goal posts. My last round argument sums this up well: "Con then backtracks. He stated, in R2: 'Tension alone is not at all justification for preemptive action. In fact preemptive war is, 'an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.' Con even took time to underline 'incontrovertible.' Con now says that "even if this definition is correct, [he] would amend [his] contention.' Basically, he acknowledges that he cannot meet the burden he set up for himself, and is now trying to escape that burden. He set the burden, now he should be forced to meet it."Pro admits he did not contest the examples of poor intelligence, but then backtracks on the UN. He lauds it at one moment, and distances himself from it at another.The 6-Day war is a single instance of success, which does not disprove the resolution. It constitutes a "rare" exception, inasmuch as it is the only example Con can point to back his position. Offering any new examples would be against the new argument rule, and would be unfair to me in that I could not respond to any such examples.Once Japanese fighter crossed the border, the U.S. could have responded. This would have been an "isolated border skirmish" and not a war. Pro DROPPED during this whole debate: "The problem with the doctrine of preemptive war...is that it is simply too open-ended. Virtually any rival or power can be deemed to be a threat needing to be preempted." Thus, preemption can lead to unnecessary violence, death, and conflict. C2: RightsThe colonies did not begin the revolution. The colonies expelled British official from the U.S. and from power, which does not constitute war. The British took the step of sending in troops to reassert British control. This was the first act of war, as it was the first significant mobilization of forces leading to widespread arms clash. [2] With the Rwanda example, peacekeepers might be able to solve the issue. They don't fire unless fired upon, and would serves to create safe zones within the countries. VOTING ISSUESLet's return to my BOP this round. I must show that, in a vast majority of cases, a J.S. should not initiate war. That means that, in isolated cases, wars could occur, so long as in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't. Furthermore, border skirmishes and isolated clashes don't count as war. Therefore, a J.S. is not defenseless. It can still use precision, small strikes, and can defend itself against direct attack. Humanitarian intervention can also be used as a tool to respond to a variety of crises, while still avoiding war. Moreover, we have a case study in Japan, which shows how a pacifist nation can survive without needing to go to war. Furthermore, preemption is extremely risky. Pro hasn't shown that preemption usually works. There is also a risk of poor intel. Ultimately, if we use Con's standard of incontrovertible proof, preemption would be used very rarely, if at all. In other words, in the vast majority of cases, a J.S. would not initiate war. If you accept nothing else I say in this debate, regardless of the framework, these two paragraph show that a J.S., in the vast majority of case, should not initiate war. There are alternatives like humanitarian intervention and precision skirmishes and there are reasons to avoid war altogether like spurring cycles of violence and unnecessary conflict.Finally, Con cannot respond to dropped points, as that would be a new argument and I'd have no chance to respond. Thanks! VOTE PRO!SOURCES1 - http://www.cracked.com...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...