Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

I have to mention that due to the mysteriousness of this issue, I urge that all possible accusations and justifications should be based on the fact of whether it is more likely that not. Nobody can know for certain about the nature of this issue. Therefore, we must presume the most likely argument to be correct. Now onto my rebuttal. "I contend that only C1 is relevant for this argument. What the rebels were fighting for, and whether or not there was a purpose in killing Gaddafi, have no bearing on whether or not his death was in violation of, or allowed by, any sort of international doctrine. " Whether or not there was a purpose, or in your case a justification, matters greatly as it can make the execution justified. However, my opponent merely stated some weak reasons as to why in can be justified. I have rebutted all of these, as it is clear that there was no valid or substantial reason for the justification of his execution. What I meant by my C2, is that they broke Universal Human Rights Laws which are accepted by international doctrine. Universal Human rights are accepted by the UN and therefore considered international. As a result, and I cannot stress this enough, Gaddafi's death was not justified by international doctrine due to the fact that international doctrine accepts human rights such as the right to life, which was obviously violated in the case of Gadaffi. "As such, the only point of matter brought up by my opponent is that everybody has a right to a fair trial, which I agree. However, I agree with it based upon the stipulations I made in my argument (specifically, point #2 - that deaths during armed conflict are justified, which my opponent agrees). "I agree that deaths during an armed conflict are justified, but this was not an armed conflict. According to the video (which I will address later), we can observe and therefore infer that there was no substantial physical threat. A psychological threat is also very unlikely. My opponent has claimed that he has made several premises in his arguments for the possible justification of the execution. They have been very weak so far, and I have rebutted them. From this, we can only logically deduce, that there was no substantial justification for Gaddafi's execution by rebel forces. Point by point rebuttal of opponent's Round 3 case Point #1: No disagreement here. Point #2: My opponent agrees with me and I with him. Armed conflict deaths are justified, but Gaddafi's death was not an armed conflict case. Point #3.1: There is no doubt that the death may have had a motive, but the motive doesn't make the murder of Gadaffi justified. Is it justified to kill somebody just to gain fame? No it's not. Gaddafi's death was most likely not accidental. We can clearly see from the above mentioned videos and further videos. Refer to above videos. . http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Gaddafi was helplessly dragged out of a tunnel, beaten by a group of rebels, and then finally executed. And even if the death was accidental, that doesn't necessarily make it justified. International doctrine and countries that have adopted it often prosecute people who killed other people by accident. Not necessarily as harshly, but still prosecute. My main point from this is that there is no valid or substantial justification for the murder of Gadaffi. Point #3.2: My opponent conceded to my point for a lack of justification for that point. Point #3.3: Yes, nothing has been necessarily verified. However, there is overwhelming evidence for the fact that it most likely occurred as the videos depict. I have previously linked many video that depict the violent ordeal of the of Gaddafi's murder. My opponent's case for this point is based upon the fact that nothing has been verified. But as I stated before,we must assume the most likely position. By the overwhelming amount of evidence, we must assume, for the purpose of this debate, that the evidence is correct. Point #4-6: Nothing to debate herePoint #7: This is the part of my opponent's argument that I have the most problem with. Lets address it carefully:1. My opponent has stated that "If Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable and without justification, then his death would have been criminal. " He goes on to say that "His death was not criminal". I already addressed both of these points. Gaddafi's death was clearly avoidable. There is no question about it. The rebels could have avoided the death by taking him into custody. Gaddafi's death was clearly without valid justification. My opponent has presented various "plausible" justifications for his death. None of these are valid as I already rebutted them. Therefore, we can safely infer that his death was avoidable and without justification. Therefore, his death was not criminal.2. "I am not saying that a crime should be assumed justified, but that, given an ambiguous situation, we should not presume that what happened was necessarily a crime to begin with. That is, to say it is a crime is an unfounded presumption. " Neither my opponent nor I have defined the term "crime". I will do it right now. Crime- "An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. (1)"From this, we can safely assume that the murder of Gadaffi was a crime. It was a crime under Libyan law, and international doctrine. A crime is an action that breaks the law. My opponent seems to imply that for something to be a crime, there has to be an official prosecution and a criminal. This is false. A crime can exist as a separate entity, not affiliated with the fact of whether or not there is an official persecution. A murder is a crime, regardless of whether there is a suspect or killer. 3. "My point is that, to declare an event a crime, or to declare a death a criminal death, is an official declaration that must be based on some sort of clear evidence. "There is clearly enough evidence to declare this as a criminal event. We know, that most likely, the rebels killed Gadaffi as was depicted in the previous videos. Conclusion In conclusion, we can safely assume, that according to all presented evidence, there was no substantial justification or lack of avoidability in the execution of Gadaffi. My opponent has completely dropped the point that human rights and the right to life are part of international doctrine. A crime can exist as a separate entity from a criminal. Just because there is no convicted criminal, does not mean that there is no crime. Criminals are sought after and convicted because of the fact that they have committed a crime. It is considered a crime, way before a suspect is sought after. Therefore, the execution of Gaddafi was not justified by international doctrine. (1). http://goo.gl...