Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

As this is my final focus, I will only provide evidence for what I didn't have the chance to refute based on my opponent's statements in the last round, and I won't argue anything before that or provide arguments for my case, as pertaining to the rules of LD with a slight edit since we can't uphold LD structure exactly. Brief Roadmap: As the only thing I have to do is leave my affirmative case standing to affirm the round, I will begin by adressing my opponents claims last round starting at the Pro case and moving to the Con case, then move on to dropped arguments if there are any, then post voters for the round. PRO CASE: On the definition of TK: My opponent believes that my definition of TK is that anyone can be killed indiscriminately, however as he dropped in the last round and as it states in the definition, it shows that the target has to be one who has broken international law, and to show they need international law they need a trial. And so, it does not back up his second or third contentions. On Social Contract: My opponent states that because the you can't sign the social contract, it doesn't exist. However, he does this by first providing a definition of Social Contract. However, as I did provide my definition at the beginning of the round and my opponent did not, mine is the accepted definition. Simply because you don't sign the social contract, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Despite what the Con's quote states, all citizens of America of rational mind (meaning excluding the mentally disabled and those to young to know such things) know their laws, and it is the same throughout the world. By staying citizens under the law, they know that these laws are in effect, and they adhere to them, this is the social contract, gaining of protection for the loss of freedom. If at any point citizens don't believe the protection or the laws are worth the loss of freedom, they have the freedom to immigrate to another nation. So just because not every citizens knows the definition of "social contract", it does not mean they don't know the denotation. After all, nobody here can see or touch oxygen, but we all know it exists. Because the Social contract is in fact in effect even though you can't see or touch it, my VP and VC stand. On my VC: My opponent's only argument against this is the one against my VP, and that rebuttal is stated above. As he completely dropped the case that we need a moral medium to judge governments, and he did not negate social contract, then this social contract is a valid Value Criterion. On my C1: Not only is this contention proof of the Social Contract (and as such is evidence that it is a valid contract), the Con does not properly refute it. His first argument was "targeted killing is counter productive to the security the affirmative case is trying to provide. More on this later.", but never proves it, he then goes on to say "targeted killing would undermine the Social Contract between the U.S. government and it's people. Looking back to my contention 2, targeted killing would undermine due process and the rights of all 310 million American citizens.". This argument is flawed because 1.) Because the use of TK against operatives of Al Qaeda in no way affects the US citizens other than increased protection from those who are sworn to kill them, so Social Contract is upheld and 2.) As I've stated, TK is used as an object of international law after a trial to prove he person in question broke international law. So not only does the use of it against Al Qaeda not affect the US citizen's right to a trial, it doesn't even affect Al Qaeda's right to a trial. As this was his only argument against my C1, and the argument was refuted, my C1 stands. C2: My opponent provides two arguments against this contention, first: "The question is, protection for whom? As I've said before, targeted killing results in the loss of innocent life, period". I've answered this in my first contention. A government provides security FOR IT'S OWN CITIZENS, and so that is who they're protecting by killing others, so the loss of of innocent life in Pakistan does not affect the protection of the life of someone in France. Secondly: "Additionally, undermining the rights and privileges of 310 million American citizens is hardly moral.", but he cannot prove that this happens in any way. All he tries to prove is that it undermines the right to a free trial, but this free trial isn't for an American citizen, and I've proven it doesn't even strip that freedom from terrorists. CON CASE: VP: My opponent has not and can not refute the social contract, and as that was his only defense the attack stands. VC: Although I appreciate that the Con is trying to adjust his argument, according to the rules of LD and pretty much every civilized debate style, you cannot change what you're arguing for halfway through the round when you find out it lost. C1: 1.) My opponent says I misunderstand, but he goes on to say that he values the security of al nations indiscrimantely, but that's precisely what Global Security is. The protection of every Nation in the world, while National Security is the proection of one nation. As he goes on to define Global Security rather than national security, my statement that he does not benefit his own Value Premise still stands. However, even if he did, that VP is absorbed into my VP, so that point actually benefits my case. 2.) My opponent just now provided evidence, so I'll be able to break this up into 2 arguments 2a.) As a nation engaging in its own security does not have to bother with the security of other nations, this evidence is meaningless as long as these losses are not caused by the same nation as the losses occured in. And as the evidence proves it did not, it doesn't affect National Security. 2b.) As this is my first chance to provide evidence on the topic, here's a bit of evidence: "Civilians and other noncombatants who are within or in close proximity to a military objective assume a certain riskthrough their presence in or proximity to such targets; this is not something over which an attacking military force normally would have knowledge or over which it would have control."[1], so a government cannot be held accountable for civilian damage. C2: My bad, that should be the definition of TK, not the definition of NS. C3: My opponent's only justification for this is the Patriot Act, but he drops that it cannot be used for killing. He also brings already refuted arguments at the end of the paragraph. Voters: -Every point made for my opponent's VP is made for my own -My oponents VC is not valid and cannot be substituted -As my VP and VC are superior vote Pro -My opponent's C1 doesn't even benefit his VP, and instead advocated Global Security which neither side is arguing. -All of my contentions stand as my opponents arguments are fallacious. -A target must be confirmed by an international law trial.