Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Joy, another person misunderstanding a) my case and b) LD in general. I guess that's what I get for running philosophy.Before I go to her rebuttals, I'd like for you to look at the Joyce evidence that my opponent entirely conceded in her last round and extend it cleanly across the flow. This means that as long as I'm winning on skepticism, then nothing can be morally permissible. If nothing can be morally permissible, then targeted killing can, thusly, not be morally permissible, and you negate the resolution before you even look to the affirmative side of the flow. "I specifically said no rebuttals in round one."I never put a rebuttal in round one, or round two for that matter. I'd love for you to point out where I did."A government has to act legitimately. This doesn't make morality "constantly change." "I never said that beacuse of governmental legitimacy that morality is constantly changing (it is, but not because of that). Nice straw-man."this is an LD debate."Really? I never knew that!/end sarcasm"He never provides a value or criterion."That's because my case functions outside of a value/criterion by using a burden system. I gave you one clear burden to prove, and if you can prove that, you win. My arguments are centered around preventing your from proving that burden.Also, I'm really dissapointed in the idea that has become prevalent amoungst LDers on this site that LD cases MUST ALWAYS HAVE some sort of value and criterion, which just isn't true. Otherwise, cases like disads and kritiks and theory would not be able to function at all, and those are some of the most commonly run cases on the local, state, and international circuit. Cases can function without a value/criterion. As long as they have some sort of weighing mechanism (such as the burden system my case clearly has), then it is okay."he is saying that morality doesn't exist"False, I'm saying that OBJECTIVE MORALITY doesn't exist. Completely different. Can you read my case next time?"a mother were to beat her baby because it wouldn't stop crying, he would not call it immoral"Why would my concept of morality change her views on a situation? Even if I think that beating her child is wrong, she may view it as okay, and thus morally acceptable, regardless of how I view things. You can turn this example as further evidence of subjective morality in the real world, thus only further proving skepticism." It is important to recognize what are and what are not moral actions in our society, or we lose part of what makes us humans. Emotional holding humans!"And this is clearly a fallacious appeal to emotions without the slightest bit of warrant. "I provided definitions of morality."No you didn't. You provided evidence to moral permissibility, not morality. Even if you did, the findings of academic philosophers would outweigh dictionary definitions, as they are more closely in line with the truth than a dictionary."Or use your common sense."Or, y'know, actually back up assertions with warrants. It's a thought."Note how the resolution says morally permissible."Duly noted. Thank you for further pointing out where my case applies to the resolution."Even if we buy his argument (which we really shouldn't) that morality is subject to change, the pro side still wins!"False. If skepticism is true, then we look to the Joyce evidence which says that nothing can be morally permissible. Thus, the resolution would be negated, not affirmed. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you didn't read any bit of my case except for where I said that morality was subjective, and then you just got mad or something."slavery was never moral."Slavery was considered moral by the South and some middle colonies and states. Why do you think we had the Civil War? Slavery. Derp. Since now the US doesn't consider slavery moral anymore, there was clearly some sort of change that had to go from "Slavery being morally permissible" to "Slavery being morally impermissible". If morality were objective, we wouldn't have had any sort of change. It would've been "slavery is morally impermissible" or "morally permissible" and stayed that way. "If people called it moral, they were wrong."As per your opinion. But since people called it moral and thought people like you were idiots, then there clearly has to be some sort of subjectivity to morality, no? Thank you for helping me prove skepticism."What we have to understand here is that morality... is guided by a few universal principles."And those principles would be....? And in before she just says "Read the article!". Make your own argument, not copy/paste websites and act like you made the most bulletproof argument on the planet."Humans clearly contain some sort of moral judgement capabilities,"Sure, but we all have DIFFERENT moral judgement capabilities. Thus, morality would be subjective. "Slavery was never moral, regardless of human perception."Ah, but you see, perception is how morality comes into existence in the first place. How we perceive somethign is how it gains definition and value. Why is helping an old lady across the street considered morally good by most people? Because they perceive it as such, not because "well it just is!". Same thing goes with things like murder and rape; it's considered morally bad by most people because they perceive it as such, not because "well it's just wrong!". "2. Morality is guided by universal principles."Not only were these 'principles' never named, but there's no warrant for why those principles guide morality. She just said that they do, with nothing to back it up."3. He never talks about why Targeted killing is immoral, but rather how it isn't moral."-sigh-Yep, you clearly didn't read my case. My case specifically talks about how if morality is subjective, then NOTHING CAN BE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. This comes straight out of the Joyce evidence in the overview above my case. I haven't said a word about targeted killing, but rather about moral permissibilty. With her rebuttals gone through, I just want to point out a few quick things:1. She conceded the Joyce evidence.2. She conceded, well, the rest of my case after the Joyce evidence. She didn't respond to the Koons evidence, or any of the Nietzsche evidence.3. Her case lacks a sort of moral framework that proves MORAL permissibility. All her case does is proves that targeted killing is a) LEGALLY permissible (not morally permissible), and b) effective (which doesn't prove moral permissibility either. I could say that under her logic, throwing all the people I hate into gas showers and poisoning them to death Nazi Germany style is effective, and thus morally permissible). Since she HAS TO PROVE that targeted killing is MORALLY permissible, not LEGALLY permissible, to win the debate, you cannot vote off of her case until she proves that.The round is structured in a few different layers.1st layer - Koons. If she cannot disprove Koons, then morality is subjective, thus proving that nothing can be morally permissible, as per the Joyce evidence.2nd layer - Nietzsche 1. Even if she disproves Koons, if I'm winning off of Nietzsche 1, then you negate as per Joyce.3rd layer - Nietzsche 2. Even if she disproves Koons and Nietzsche 1, if I'm winning Nietzsche 2, then you negate as per Joyce.4th layer - The affirmative case. She must prove that a) morality is objective and that b) her case provides some method for proving moral permissibility, not legal permissibility, to gain offense off of her case, as well as having refuted the entirety of my case, since it comes before the affirmative case.Since she's not winning on any layer of the debate, I urge a con vote.