Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

First lets look to the negative case: Lincoln Douglas debate is, first and foremost, a values debate. Look anywhere in my opponents case for the word "value" and you will see that he doesn't provide either a premise or criterion. If for no other reason, then you must affirm because of that fact. But lets look to the moral skepticism argument: the card claims that "one who claims that moral [skepticism] implies that everything is permissible must intend to denote some kind of permissibility other than moral." The one bringing up moral skepticism in the first place is the negative debater, meaning that he is the one who "must denote some kind of permissibility other than moral." Now we turn to neg's point of the relativity and change of morality. The negative claims that it is "impossible to come to a morality that works so that we can even call something morally permissible." However, the very subject of the resolution concerns a variation of a very basic act: the taking of another human's life. It is the burden of the negative to prove that killing in self-defense, even in defense of a nation, is immoral. The negative bases the rest of his case on morality but never attempts to attack killing in the name of self-defense as immoral, and thus, this falls as well. Lets move to the negative case: Addressing my C2, my opponent misjudges the intentions of this contention, which was to prove that targeted killings are an effective tool for use in foreign policy. Thus, the argument provided is completely off target and can be happily ignored. His first attack basically says, "if he can't refute my case, I win." I have refuted my opponents case successfully, and so that argument falls. His second attack is based on the idea that my framework will cause nuclear war. This is what is called a slippery slope logical fallacy, which is basically that the opponent made an argument saying that a small step was taken, which in turn caused a huge effect. So, in context, I took the small step of affirming with the set framework, which in turn causes the huge effect of nuclear war. Thus his argument against my framework is false and can safely be ignored. Addressing my C1, my opponent states that I am not upholding my definition of a targeted killing, and he cites my example of a sniper killing an enemy general. However, look back to my analyses of the example: "That is a targeted killing because it fits all of our criteria. There is an armed conflict in progress, the target is a specific individual, the individual is beyond possibility of arrest, the killing was authorized by a senior military officer, and the individual was taking part in the hostilities." It is clear that the example fit all of the criteria. His second attack on my C1 is that there is no way to determine if someone is beyond arrest. Let me ask you, if you're in the midst of a battle, is there really any way that you could arrest the general in the situation. Or on a domestic front: if there is an armed criminal in a building, with hostages, and there is no way to get in and arrest him without endangering the lives of the hostages, then he is beyond the possibility of arrest. Through the negative logic in this point: it would be impossible to determine whether someone was at risk of heart disease because we couldn't see the future to see whether they would actually get heart disease. But, in reality, we actually can. This argument falls. My opponent makes the claim that there is no way to determine other possible alternatives to targeted killing. Again look to the situation with the dangerous criminal and his hostages. If you can't arrest him without endangering the lives of the hostages, then the only two alternatives are to risk the lives of the hostages or kill him. That argument also falls. The Negative argument against the Affirmative case have fallen wholly and completely. Even more so, the Negative's own case has fallen wholly and completely. He does not provide any type of definitions to counteract the ones i provide and so we use mine. He also does not provide any type of value structure for us to judge the negative side by, so that is very good reason to vote Affirmative. In addition, my case achieves the greatest good for the greatest amount through a Utilitarian Consequentalism, which is the most important value, and the only one that can be used to judge the round, because it is the only one provided. Vote in AFFIRMATION!