Targeted killing is a morally permissable foreign policy tool.

Opening statement. This will be Lincoln Douglas format. Only serious debaters please. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Cassidy Steedley Hello, my name is Cassidy Steedley and today I will be debating on this fine topic. Before my debate I want to thank Mrs. Sanders once again for giving me the opportunity to debate on this topic. This IS also called the assassination policy! As Steven from Intlaw.com states: Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. This is one reason we should not do this, because it's unlawful killing. Definitions: Targeted Killing: Targeted killings are used by governments to eliminate individuals they view as a threat. Morally 1. in a moral manner. 2. from a moral point of view: morally reprehensible. 3. virtuously. 4. virtually; practically. Permissible: that can be permitted; allowable: Foreign: 1.of, pertaining to, or derived from another country or nation; not native Since the resolution is targeting killing is right, I am against. THESIS: My thesis is that Targeted killing is NOT a morally permissible foreign policy tool. Value: My Value is keeping the Peace not just in our nation but in other nations as well. And if we are out killing people that are targeted, how will peace be kept and maintained? If we are looked upon as the strongest, educated country, we are supposed to show that in our actions. My First Contention: is to look at the Bible. It states "thou shall not kill" Warrant: This is not about what is in the Bible or what you practice at your home, but this states world peace. If we do not kill, there are other endings we can come to, such as jail, facilities where we can keep an eye on these people. Death is not the answer. If it was, in that case half of America would be dead because we are killers too! If we killed every murder on this earth, it would cut out a lot of our population. "If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does--to kill people anywhere, anytime--the result would be chaos." --Philip Alston, former UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions states. Impact: This will impact civilians and the world to make it a better place. My Second Contention: Is it up to only us as Americans who can target kill? Warrant: As my last quote above stated that if every one were to follow America and start target killing it would be chaos. Proving that other countries look up to us and try to do what we do and follow in our footsteps, we should be setting an example of WORLD PEACE. Maybe that's why the government feels so obligated to target killing in the first place because we can't even keep peace ourselves. That's the pot calling the kettle black don't you think? http://www.enotes.com... Calls it an extrajudicial killing that lacks due process, and which leads to more violence. This is true because if we keep killing, people are going to know there are not any consequences and will just keep doing as they want. If others are threatening to kill us and we turn around and kill them, were punishing them with the same thing we don't want to happen. We don't want to be targeted or killed but we as a country feel the need to go and kill other people for trying to kill us. There are different ways to go about this. Killing is not the answer and I believe we need to change! Impact: This will impact our government, hopefully for the better. If we do not target kill, it will show that the US has more respect for human life!