Mar./Apr. LD topic

I'll defend first, then refute his case.Let it just go down for the record that he concedes to my first and second observation. Thus, if I can prove that targeted killing is either a) normatively good or b) has no normative qualities, then it's an automatic pro vote. I don't have to do both, either one is sufficient to win."I actually don't know what this means,..."Allow me to explain then. Transcendental empricism is talking about how our world is constantly evolving and constantly changing, and how as the days pass and time moves on, we as human beings need to re-evaluate standards and redefine our world. We are always creating and we will always be experiencing new things. This applies nicely to your standard, but I'll get to that later."he's advocating that everything is permissible...which is fundamentally untrue...but he doesn't warrant this anyway..."Notice two things from this statement:1. He doesn't actually challenge the warrants for this statement that I present in my contentional arguments.2. He doesn't actually warrant why everything isn't permissible, just asserts that it is with no supporting evidence.He concedes my first sub-point as the warrant for transcendental empiricism, which consists of Bryant and Bryant 2. You can extend that across the flow. This is a game-over error on my opponent's part. My first sub-point says that our traditional ethics make assumptions that we must call into question and redefine so that we can continue to re-create different experiences and encounters. Conceding this means that we CAN re-create and redefine things in our lives, which absolutely demolishes his standard, as we can then simply redefine the value we place in a human life so that we can continue to encounter new experiences. Don't let him come back in the next round and try to refute this, as he already conceded it. He should've at least attempted to refute it, but since he didn't, it's game over for his case."a morally relative idea is insufficient due to the right to life..."Cross apply my first contention, which he conceded in his last round, which nullifies this argument, as we can and ought to simply redefine the value we place in a human life as to encounter new experiences."not all people value killing at all, so we don't know where he's affirming or negating."This argument literally makes no sense. My case isn't saying "people value this" or that "we have value in that". My case talks about the way in which we perceive our interactions with the outside world, and how we must redefine concepts in order to constantly encounter new experiences. Drop this argument and extend my second sub-point warrant for transcendental empiricism.He also drops the third sub-point warrant for transcendental empiricism. Extend that. This is also going to mean that I'm best achieving the value of morality, as it talks about how metaphysics is the starting point for all ethical thinking. This means that if transcendental empiricism is true, then I have the best link into the value of morality, which is a place where you can easily affirm.From here, he literally drops every contentional argument. So you can extend both my first and second contention, which do a few things for me and ultimately spell doom for my opponent:1. They provide the warrants as to why everything is permissible. As he concedes this, I'm meeting the burden that my opponent and I agreed upon of proving that everything is permissible. This is a prima-facie affirmative vote.2. It's prevents the negative from actually being able to prove a prohibition, as he agreed to do by conceding to the second observation (this is coming specifically from my first contentional argument). This means that even if he's winning 100% of his case, you still can't negate, as it would then preclude the possibility of ethics and prevent him from achieving his value of morality.I'll concede the B-point and C-point of the underview, as they will have little impact on the debate (as an underview are argument specifically adressed to counter common points brought up by an opponent). However, I will talk about the A-point, as it will matter a great deal in this debate."No warrants for the doctrine of doube effect..."Yet you don't even adress the McIntyre evidence, which IS the warrant for the doctrine of double effect."the tool itself isn't allowed because we harm the innocent in the process."This is specifically what the DoDE speaks to. As long as we aren't intending the harming of innocents (i.e. if we don't intend to blow up innocent civilians while taking out a terrorist leader) then the action is still permissible. Thus, targeted killing would still be justified under the doctrine of double effect.So you can extend the A-point out. This links into my opponent's contention arguments, since as long as we don't intend the negative effects, then the action is still permissible. This means that the "rise in international tensions" and "innocent deaths" my opponent talks about still don't prevent it from being permissible, as it's not our intention to cause those ends, but rather unwanted side-effects of the good outcome (that being the death of a terrorist/High Value Target).So since I'm starting to get low on characters, let's go to my opponent's case.There's a few problems with his framework (or rather lack of one). He has no ethical system under which to achieve his value of morality. Since I'm the only one providing an ethical system, evaluate the round under transcendental empiricism. This means that a) the value in "innocent" civilians is something that can be adjusted and changed, making it not that important and b) gives you reason to prefer my standard of maintaining consistency with transcendental empiricism.His contention follows the same route. Cross apply my framework (we must re-evaluate the concepts in our life) as well as the A-point in the underview (as long as we don't intend the bad effects, the action is still permissible). This means his contention proves nothing, and you can drop it thusly.So with that all being said, my opponent is still really far behind in the debate. This is how the round broke down:1. He conceded over 2/3 of my framework and I refuted his arguments against the other 1/3. 2. He entirely dropped my contention arguments, which support my burden. If everything is permissible, then the action is thusly normatively good, which means I fulfill my burdens. This is an instant affirmative vote. 3. The DoDE still applies well in this situation and refutes his contention.4. His framework is refuted via conceding to key points in my framework.Again, don't let my opponent come back in the next round and put arguments against the parts of my case he conceded. He should've refuted them, but it's his fault that he didn't.Overall, I urge a very simple, easy affirmative vote.