Targeted Killing Essay

971 Words4 Pages
Lincoln Douglas Debate Case Outline Negative “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.” It is because I agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy that I feel compelled to negate today’s resolution, Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. For clarification of today’s round, I offer the following definitions : First, I would like to define foreign policy. Foreign policy is defined by as a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. Targeted killing is defined as the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield. The highest value in today's debate is that of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). Utilitarianism is most important in today’s round because targeted killing causes more violence. An individual high enough up to be targeted with a drone will most likely have followers. Those followers will only try to gain retribution for their leader. In negating the resolution, I offer the following contentions: Contention 1: Targeted killing results in the loss of innocent lives. Contention II: Targeted killing raises constitutional issues Contention III: The U.S. Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict zones. Contention 1: Targeted killing results in the loss of innocent lives. Targeted killing inevitably leads to the death of innocent people. It is nearly impossible to eliminate all
Open Document