Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

"A government acts morally when it protects the safety of its citizens."Again, this only proves LEGAL permissibility, not MORAL permissibility. You have no system under which we can proove MORAL permissibility (i.e. consequentialism, deontology, naturalism, etc.). Without that, you're affirming the wrong resolution."First of all, I read your case several times."It wasn't obvious. Still isn't, as a matter of fact."said in his last speech that morality exists (I think?, I'm confused..)"Let me clarify (since you apparently dislike reading philosophical cases):In order to prove moral permissibility, you need some sort of objective moral system to warrant what is permissible and what is not permissible. The problem with that, as my case points out in three different ways (Koons, Nietzsche 1 and 2), is that objective morality does not exist, but rather that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, as per my Joyce evidence that you have conceded multiple times, then nothing can be morally permissible. Thus, the resolution is negated. Better?"I already said, morality is a universal thing."You're right, you did say that. I also can say that you're a fifty foot giant with a sore toenail. I could also say that flying, pink, firebreathing unicorns exist. That doesn't make it right. For that you need WARRANTS, which you lack in many different places."Just because perceptions change, doesn't make anyone right in saying that an action is moral when it isn't."Never responded to the point that I brought up that says that perception is the birthing ground of morality. If perception changes, morality changes. Thus, morality is subjective, and thus skep is true, and thus yatta yatta yatta the resolution is negated. "To this he would say: but there's still no objectional morality!"1. Objectional? Wut?2. Actually, no. That's not what I said at all. Nice try, though!"Notice how this is his only objection "Except it isn't.... xDYou still have yet to prove that morality is objective. You have merely asserted that it is, with no evidence to warrant your claim. I have multiple examples, some spun off of what you yourself have said, as well as my entire case filled with noteworthy philosophers, that say otherwise. Yeah...." the govt legitimacy thing is very objectional."1. Objective. Not objectional. 2. Governments do change, correct? We do hold elections every four years, correct? New people are put in charge and policies change, correct? How is our government objective?3. Even if you prove our government is objective, you're still only proving LEGAL permissibility which, again, is not the same thing as MORAL permissibility. "Well, i could spend characters and characters explaining, but it isn't really necessary."Translated: She doesn't know and she pulled it out of her back pocket when she realized she needed something to at least look like she tried. "Rarely do we ever have to ask if something is moral."Except we do it all the time...." Even 8 year olds have a general understanding of what is and isn't acceptable."Do eight year olds have different concepts of right and wrong? Unless you're prepared to argue that all eight year olds are the same, then I would go ahead and drop this point."And if you would like to see what is really universal, check out the link I put up last round"Translated: I would copy/paste, but he would probably catch me doing it. And since I can't make the argument myself, I'll just let someone else make it for me.No, I'm not going to refute a website that you're too lazy to summarize into points on here. Do work, son."find me at least 10% of people who would think its morally impermissible for a govt to uphold national security and safety of its own people. "Loaded question.I could easily find you people who think TARGETED KILLING is impermissible and people who think TARGETED KILLING is permissible. But this would only prove my subjective morality point further, so you probably don't want me to do that."And even where it doesn't, an individual doesn't necessarily constitute morality."Individuals exactly constitute morality. Unless you're prepared to argue that we're all one in the same, that NO ONE holds different beliefs and hold different, contradictory ideas to one another, I'd drop this point as well. We all hold different beliefs, and different concepts of what is right and wrong. If objective morality existed, we would all think the same thing, all have the same beliefs of right and wrong. That doesn't happen. Thus, morality is subjective. Thus, the Joyce evidence comes into play. Thus, nothing can be morally permissible. Thus, you negate the resolution. Bingo!"I'm talking about what a govt should and shouldn't do."A.K.A. Legal permissibility. Thank you for clarifying."Joyce constantly reiterates that such theories have failed."LOL!That's not what Joyce is saying at all. What Joyce says is that if skepticism (a.k.a. subjective morality) is true, then x, y, and z. He doesn't say that moral theories have failed. Certain moral theories work for certain people. " Here Joyce is guilty of stereotypical, emotivist rhetoric."Kind of like this?Please, please, please, PLEASE read the card. Actually, don't. You were actually doing better when you didn't try and read the evidence. "He may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism."I'm beginning to notice a pattern. You're not actually saying anything CLOSE to what any of my evidence is saying."everyone knows murder is wrong. Hitler knew it."Just nit-picking here. Hitler believed that murdering the Jewish population was justified (a.k.a. permissible) in order to reconstruct an Aryan race, or another form of Super race. I'm not going to waste characters debating WWII. Challenge me to a different debate if you want to talk about that."just because perception of something may change ... it doesn't change the morality of an action"It doesn't change YOUR perception. But their perception is different from your perception. What they view as permissible is different from what you view as permissible. They would perceive, in your example, that raping and shooting is okay. That doesn't change YOUR perception, but their perception differs from yours. But this only proves subjective morality further, so I'd imagine you want me to shut up now."I put up a pretty basic framework on how to evaluate moral permissibility from a government actor. An objective one."How many times have I refuted this? I swear it must be up in the triple digets by this point."Morals guide our life, and it is important to understand morality."Never contested this. But what you're failing to understand, and I'm running out of ways to try and explain it to you, is that because people have different perceptions of what is moral, then morality is not objective, but subjective. And if it's subjective, then we get Joyce and a negated resolution."ah, so you admit that there IS a truth and not just tons of subjectivity?".......wut?Gimme a second so I can laugh my a** off.Okay, let's try to take this slow.When we are trying to define morality, which would you rather trust to be correct: a philosopher or Webster's dictionary? I'm saying that philosophers are more CLOSE to the truth than dictionaries, thus why my points would be preferred to your non-existant ones. Why are we even arguing this? You didn't provide any definitions of morality in the first place xD500 characters. She's still not winning on any layer, and has repeatedly misinterpreted what my case is saying. It's painfully obvious she hasn't read my case, and she still has yet to show how her case proves moral permissibility instead of legal permissibility. She's not winning on any of the four layers. Extend them all as reasons to negate.Now excuse me while I go pound my head against the wall.