In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

My opponent has left me at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, there is nothing for me to respond to nor defend. Whether or not this was intentional, my opponent's forfeit deprives me of a chance to uphold my affirmative stance. For this reason, I strongly urge you to vote PRO. I have upheld my burden of proof throughout the resolution which has yet to be refuted by my opponent. If my opponent makes any new responses or arguments it would be unfair, as I wouldn't have a chance to respond. MOST IMPORTANLY: "If you opponent drops important arguements... that means he has agreed to them." http://www.angelfire.com... My opponent agrees with me, thus I win. ________________________ I ask my opponent to only crystallize what has gone on so far within this round, by crystallization I mean reviewing what has occurred during this debate without presenting any new arguments. I'll will lead by example. The following is simply crystallization of what has occurred during the round, in order to not be hypocritical, I will try my hardest to NOT bring up new arguments, though I should, as I do reserve that right. ________________________ In order to determine the victor of this debate, we must evaluate the arguments present within through a 'veil of ignorance'. Furthermore, it is clearly an affirmative win. As I will explain throughout the following analysis: I initiated an affirmative stance that was established upon three avenues of avocation. Those avenues consisted of the following: "I believe in matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means because: 1. The importance of national security out ways the means used to achieve the end of national safety. 2. The resolution is justified by Utilitarianism. 3. In order to achieve good ends you must have good means. Therefore, whenever the end is good, the means are inherently good as well." Though, each of these points were refuted during round one, the attacks have been proven illegitimate within my responses that I made during my round two. My case still stands because he has not proven how national security shouldn't be the utmost priority of the military. He has also failed to prove how Utilitarianism is a foul theory and/or not relevant. Lastly, his only response to my third case point consisted of the fact that it really frustrated him, to which I countered through a weighing scale analysis. The debate will now be broken down in the following manner. My opponent's attack ---> My response ---> Winner ________________________ Opponent writes, "I would assume we are talking about the United States inherently in the resolution and I would hope my opponent would agree with me on this." I respond, "CON begins his case by assuming that I would accept his actor for the resolution. But I must contest. The actor for this debate is a JUST nation... the reason it needs to be just is because the intent behind the resolution is the inquisition of moral justifications. And a nation's acts can be morally justified if and only if it the actions are coming from a just nation. A just nation is a nation that adheres to the philosophical concept of justice in its most pure form... The second reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because there is no context available within the resolution to assume that we are to evaluate the United States. Nor does my opponent warrant his reasoning. The third reason for as to why the United States cannot be the actor is because we cannot evaluate empirics through a clearly philosophical resolution. (ends vs. means)" I win this argument because I have given you 3 reason for as to why the United States is not a suitable actor for this resolution. The impact this makes is that whatever analysis that my opponent offers is illogical because they all inherently assume that the United States is the actor, when infact it is not. _________________________ Opponent writes, "... the resolution states, as long as the ends are good, then its worth it to do whatever it takes to get military intelligence. So that implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc......just as long as they get the information, because....hey....the ends were good at least." I respond, "If the military of a particular nation undergoes unethical or immoral means, it is undermining its own priority. The priority of any military, assuming it's not corrupt, is to protect its nation, in this case, through matters of collecting military intelligence. Moreover, my opponent's way of evaluating means and ends is flawed throughout his entire case. This is because he undermines the importance of how moral theory is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good. My opponent states that PRO "implies the military would be allowed to torture people, cause them pain, make them suffer, and etc..." This is not fully true. The only way that torture and suffering would be applicable, is if the ends... justify such means. For example, if one person is trying to take over the world, the military has the right to undergo almost anything in order to save the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. This is understandable on a weighing scale, meaning it's one life versus 6.5 billion others...This is why utilitarianism is inherently the justification for nearly ALL his examples." PRO wins this contention because I offer insight upon the role of a nation, whenever I show how this action of unnecessary torture is "undermining [the nation's] own priority". I also offer a way to evaluate moral theory, which is evaluated upon a weighing scale. Meaning, you must compare the two in order to determine whether or not the end is indeed good. With this analysis I offered a relevant example. The impact this makes is that whenever my opponent evaluates theory, like utilitarianism, his thought process is flawed because it ignores the "weighing scale". Meaning ALL of his exampled are invalid, due to his lack of understanding moral theory. For this reason you must default PRO, to say the least. ________________________ The rest of my responses would follow in the same manner, but most of his arguments were difficult to refute because they relied upon an "I believe that is not right, not just, so therefore, not justified" type argument, which is hard to understand, and even harder to refute. I asked my opponent for clarification, in order for him to have maintained atleast some ground, unfortunately he forfeited this opportunity. I have gone through ALL of the necessary steps in order to win this round, I will reiterate the fact that you MUST vote PRO. Thank you for your time. -Alexander