Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

So let me begin by thanking my opponent. I have really enjoyed this debate, and I hope for a great 4th round. I also hope to debate the negative side in other debates to come. Thank you! Now let's begin. He begins his rebuttal with saying that I don't provide a source. But you as voters must see that in all of the previous rounds, he provided no source for definitions. So by saying this, he, in all essence, attacks both my and his case; thus, the attack equals out and we must drop it altogether. Then he explains that I don't attack his value of human life as a supreme good. But I explain that both morality and the concept of life change over time as a defense to his earlier attack. This proves that both of our values go hand-in-hand and can be judged as the same ground for the debate. Once again, we can drop his attack on my value and his defense on his value. This means that we have equal ground and can complete the debate uninterrupted without a conflict of values. RE: Aff's First Contention: In this refutation, the negative explains that his first contention is the reason that we should not vote for an affirmation. But why? He doesn't tell us why. He automatically assumes that his argument will outweigh the affirmative just because it is negative. But he doesn't explain the implications of this "outweigh". Because of this huge fault in the refutation, you, as voters, have no other choice but to drop the refutation and the argument as was done in my last rebuttal. But I'll continue. My contention outweighs his because I give valid evidence to prove my point. The only "proof" which he give is a testimony. Because of this lack of evidence, the argument must be dropped and an affirmation must occur. RE: Neg's First Contention: So here the negative side says that I miss his impact when I ask for the huge impact. But what the negative fails to realize is that this "impact" does not explain why the argument is valid. He doesn't explain how this links through his contentions, across his criterion, and through his value to disprove the resolution. Because of this huge flaw, we must drop yet another refutation by the negative side. Thus, we must affirm again. RE: Aff's Second Contention: Here is where the negative explains again that the social contract doesn't exist in all states. But because the state of nature, by its definition, says that we are all in a society (whether large or small), the social contract must exist in all cases. This is because the state of nature states that since we are not cavemen, we belong to society. Thus, the point goes to the affirmative because the negative had an invalid attack. RE: Neg's Second Contention: This is where the negative side says that the affirmative has "deceived you". But this is not true because I did not say that the claim is the same. Instead, I refer to the fact that they root from the same point and attempt to achieve similar if-not-the-same goals. So there we can drop his defense on my attack. Thus, we can also drop his extension across the entire flow. RE: Aff's Third Contention: The negative claims that I don't state an impact or link with this contention and my value premise/criterion. But this is false. The fact is that I explain that it links because it is a block against the negative side. This means that I present a clash for him to come into conflict with. I succeed in this attempt because he doesn't move past the block with proper analysis and defense/attack. So we have no obligation to drop the third contention. Flow Summary: So let's review. His first contention was dropped and he didn't come back to prove otherwise. Thus, we must believe that there is no reason NOT to drop the argument. This means that he has no first contention because of the drop. This leaves us with his second contention. The same problem occurred because he didn't come back and defend properly against my claim to drop the entire argument. Thus, we must drop the claim and contention. And in my earlier rounds, I explain why I win the criteria clash, and I also explain why both value premises can be used as equal judging systems. Finally: As this is my final time to present my arguments and rebuttals to you, we must use this time to pre-analyze the negative's final rebuttal. He can't present new cards. He can't present new facts. He can't rebuild the base which he failed to in his first rounds. He can only refute what I've actually said and defend points by following these guidelines. Do not be fooled by the negative side's foolish flow layout. I EXTEND ALL ARGUMENTS, REFUTATIONS, CARDS, FACTS, TESTIMONIES, INFORMATION, AND FLOW MARKS ACROSS THE FLOW. If you, as the great judges, actually flow this entire debate, you can see that the obvious victor of the debate is none other than the affirmative side. Extend all of this and we get an affirmative ballot as I urge it. Thank you negative side for taking the time to debate me in this Lincoln-Douglas style debate. And thank you voters and judges for flowing and taking the time to form a victor. End extensions after the final rebuttal of the negative. And thank you.