Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

In order to conserve character space, since my argument takes up too many characters to post, my case will go in a google document provided below. . https://docs.google.com... # Now, I will refute my opponent's position. As an overview to my opponent's position: there's one massive problem with my opponent's case with linking into the resolution. The specific wording of it states that "Targeted killing is a MORALLY PERMISSIBLE foreign policy tool". My opponent's case doesn't prove in any way why targeted killing is morally permissible. At best, all he shows is why targeted killing can, in some situations, be justified. But that doesn't make it morally permissible. In order for my opponent to be able to affirm the resolution, he has to have this link, and it's missing in his case. In response to Guiora 1:Guiora isn't actually advocating for a form of self-defense. Self-defense implies that we have already been attacked first, while this card supports us seeking out terrorists before they attack and pre-emptively killing them off. That's not self-defense. That's murder. So if my opponent wishes to advocate that murder is morally permissible, then let him do so. Pre-emptively killing suspected terrorists would be like shooting a suspected serial killer before he actually hurt someone. If they haven't actually done anything, then why is pre-emptive murder justified? In response to Wijze: All Wijze is saying is that targeted killing is a duty for those in office to use, not that it is necessary to protect the citizens. He's completely strawmanning the card. In response to Guiora 2:1. There's no warrant as for why terrorists are considered combatants. This is just an assertion with no evidence to back it up.2. If anyone who owns a gun and ill will against the people in current political power are defined as combatants, then if I owned a gun and didn't like Barack Obama, would it be permissible to send a Predator Drone to my house and bomb me into submission? My opponent would probably say no, but this is exactly what his card is saying. In response to Guiora 3: 1. There's no corrolation between economic and social hardships and moral permissibility. There's a missing link between this card and the resolution.2. According to the card, "the U. S. was never at any risk of collapsing. .. the continued existence of the State has neven been an issue". This contradicts the entire premise of his Wijze card, which says that targeted killing is necessary to protect ourselves. But if we were never in any real threat, then how is it necessary? This is going to put him in a double bind because either a) Wijze is true and there isn't any harms against us from terrorism or b) Guiora 3 is true and targeted killing is unecessary. In response to Patterson: 1. No warrant as to why war or targeted killing is ethical or moral. All it does is asserts this claim with no actual evidence to back it up. Thusly, it has no link into the resolution as to why targeted killing is morally permissible. So the round breaks down in a few ways:1. My opponent isn't actually affirming the resolution. He's saying why targeted killing should be justified under international law, but this doesn't entail moral permissibility. He must specifically prove why targeted killing is morally permissible in order to win. This link is entirely missing in his case; it's just flat-out not there. Since he's failing to provide this, he can't affirm the resolution, and you default to con. 2. Even if his case DOES have a link to moral permissibility, my case is specifically disproving moral permissibility, due to the subjective nature of morality. So as long as I'm winning on my case, it's impossible for the pro to win, since I'm disproving the concept of moral permissibility.3. His case, for the most part, is entirely unwarranted assertions with no actual evidence to back up the claims made in his cards. Thus, my case is to be preferred over his.