Resolved: Consequentialism should trump deontology in the matter of national defense.

Lol, I'm glad there is another LD debater here =) I will attack/rebut my opponent's case then move on to crystallize and defend my own. Opponents case Value Structure: Value: Justice --> We both agree on Value Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative First off, my opponent says that my value criterion of consequentialism does not stand because its circular logic. I have 2 responses: 1) I am only using a direct VC as stated in the resolution, Aff. only VC, nothing wrong with that, and its allowed. 2) However if you agree with what my opponent is saying, then you must drop his VC because its a sub-section of deontology, i. e. a negative only VC. So, judges you must pick 1 outa the 2 choices I gave, either accept both of ours, or drop both, meaning that only the value of justice remains. My opponent says that justice and morality are the same. This is false, something can be just and immoral, or vice versa. The definition of justice is giving each their due, morality is good/right conduct. There is a difference, so you must drop her correlation link. Justice, is being looked at, not morality. My opponents VC, since we are debating justice can be dropped right now, because Kant's Categorical Imperative is a moral only categorical. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. " From Kant. Ok lets look at this maxim. What my opponent failed to see is that this can work both ways. In this case, the Department of National Security and an enemy. Both must universalize their actions. Take death penalty for instance; Kant was pro-death penalty because he looked at the actions of the criminal, not the state department. He wasn't anti-death penalty because he said the state should universalize it's actions. He says the criminal must universalize his action, i. e. killing. So on this basis lets look my case. On my side I am keeping with the "universal actions" in that I am holding to the enemy, who wants to hurt our citizens, to their own universalized action. Also, since this maxim is unconditional, then self-defense is seen as unjust and immoral. What type of society would we live in where aggressors kill and terrorize at will without remorse because the fair-minded people cannot defend themselves because they are being held to the universal action maxim. So essentially, you either drop this maxim totally or use it as a con-affirmation point. I. e. his point helps me in the long run. Contentions: I. Most military strategies violate the CI. A) "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. " Ok, first off, this maxim cannot be held to matters of national security. Yes, must military actions do violate this specific maxim. However, look at it in this way. Consequentialism does uphold this. How? ? Simple, the maxim asks to treat humanity as a means, not an end. What about the US society, how are you treating them in their own right person by letting an attack happen, because it violates "morality". (Remember, the resolve is Justice). This is exactly why the CI is so confusing. To truly uphold Justice, everything must be looked at. And consequentialism does so, for the majority of the time. This specific maxim cannot be held totally on either the Aff. or the Neg's side. But my side holds it more, because I'm also looking at the future ramifications of a specific action. B) The CI tells us to act as if our actions were to become a universal law, military strategy often relies on the fact that it can't become a universal imperative. Of first, look to my above explanation of universality + Kant and the DP. However, my opponent uses the example of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the US did not do this, there was 1 other option. A land invasion. Which would have resulted in 2 million+ dead. The US had to make a choice to end the war, and they decided to do the one which would have resulted in less dead. My oppoent is using a flawed reasoning to justify no action. This maxim cannot be held at all, in the fact it is unconditional. I. e. never can be changed to fit circumstances. If the US did this, what would the US be like today? We would probably be speaking Japanese, or German, or Russian. I'll give a historic account as my opponent did. Take the Holocaust for instance. According to the CI it would have been immoral to kill the Nazis who were doing this. One of the most tragic events in history would not have been stopped because the CI says we have to universalize our actions. This is a flawed maxim, and I believe the debating community can see that. Now ill defend my own case: I. The United States government must provide for the common defense. His response: yes. But its actions in doing so cannot trump the CI, and many consequentialist actions do. My defense: In order for the US government to remain a legitimate government then we must hold to the main promise to our people. Also, protecting innocent live definitely trumps the CI. II. The outcome of an action needs to be the primary focus of the US defense department His response: In this you are using circular reasoning. You are saying that because bombing al-Qaeda saves lives, it is just. Consequentialism is just that, you never say why saving lives is more just, you seem to think it just is. Also, as I pointed out in Subpoint B, actions done to save more lives end up causing more harm than good if the CI is applied. My Defense: Saving lives is a fundamental just action. The primary right is the right to life. It is an inalienable and inherent right. And talking about making assumptions, you never actually prove why consequentialism would lead to more harm. You only use the idea of universality, which I have already proven is contradictory and flawed. III. Just War Theory His response: Warrant the Just War Theory, it is just a theory, you can't state it as truth, you need to warrant its legitimacy. My Defense: I will indeed concede this point, however if the judges look at my concession then they must drop your whole entire CI case, in that you failed warrant it either. It is as you say, "just a theory. " IV. "The Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario. " His response: Again, consequentialist actions are warranted by consequentialism, circular reasoning. Also, "extracting" the information, ie torture, is treating the terrorist as a mean, not as a man. This is not just. My Defense: As I said previously Im using it as a Aff. inherent VC. And I never said that extracting information was torture. However, lets look at this for a second, in my ticking-time bomb senario, you, on the Neg, would be refusing to take action therefore leading to a nuclear explosion killing millions of people. Lets look at the CI's universality maxim: Essentially we would not a negative universal action by not taking action because inaction leads to negative results. Therefore, universalizing non-action, then you are creating a negative universal action. Again, the CI is contradictory. V. Deontology cannot be used when determining matters of national security. His response: This assumes that that primary objective of national defense is in fact just. You are begging the question. Your job is to show that consequentialism upholds justice, not the primary objective of national defense. My Defense: First understanding the flaws of deontology in the case of national security will lead to the conclusion that consequentialism is necesary for this. Remember the resolve sates not just consequentialism vs. deontolgy, its in the matters of national security.