Before I start catching grief from the LD'ers for not giving them any attention, I'll offer my pedestrian opinion on this month's topic:
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.
You would have to assume that the death of Osama bin Laden last spring was the impetus for this resolution being put on the ballot last year, but in reading about this topic I've come across some interesting and important facts:
1. Up until 9/11, the U.S., along with the rest of the world, condemned the tactic of targeted killing.
2. Israel was the one exception, using targeted killing (or assassination) as a way of protecting their country from Hamas.
3. Since 9/11, the U.S. has relaxed its targeted killing policy (obviously) in order to effectively wage war on terror.
What is targeted killing?
One issue up for debate is whether or not targeted killing is synonymous with assassination. "Assassination" carries a negative connotation, after all a few of our Presidents were assassinated. The distinction is made in two ways: 1. Targeted killing is condoned by a govt. whereas assassinations are often carried out by crazy gunmen. 2. Targeted killing in the context of this topic is used as a foreign policy tool.
Strategy for the Affirmative
The affirmative in this debate needs to frame this debate around the war on terror. As it's been discussed and debated over many times before, the war on terror is not a traditional war, therefore traditional methods are useless. Targeted killing does have a place in fighting the war on terror and fits the criteria as a foreign policy tool (as long as we're not talking about domestic terrorism). Values for the affirmative could be
safety or
justice. If we use Osama bin Laden (OBL) as the prime example, then we can say the world is safer now that he is gone. Of course that's up for debate. His death has likely inspired many jihadists, but the goal of targeted killing as a foreign policy tool is to weaken not just those who pose a danger to any given country, but those who pose a danger to the international community.
Whichever value you choose for the affirmative, one possible criteria is Just-War Theory. To use it in this debate goes something like this. In a war, one soldier can kill another because both are agents acting at the behest of their respective states. Civil laws don't apply to them and you can't arrest one for murdering the other. Targeted killing, according to the affirmative, should not be treated or viewed any differently. The whole idea of targeted killing is to avoid civilian deaths and collateral damage. The target in most cases is someone who has entered into to the rules of engagement. While skeptics might wonder if the death off OBL puts us on a slippery slope towards killing anyone we see as a threat, let's remember that OBL made himself a target long before 9/11/01. So Just War Theory should be a good starting point for most affirmative cases.
Strategies for the Negative
The strategies for the negative on this topic would be similar to the arguments one might make against capital punishment. In both scenarios, you have a state deciding that death is the appropriate consequence for a person who has most likely caused the death of many. In other words, you could reword this "targeted killing" resolution to be "Resolved: (insert name of genocidal maniac here) should receive the death penalty." So imagine that you are a public defender assigned to defend OBL. To make it more fair, the trial is taking place in the ICC in The Hague. On a side note, he seemed like the kind of guy who would rant and rave so as his lawyer you would have to try and shut him up. Anyway, you have a few options as the negative. First, you can try the "slippery slope" argument that I mentioned earlier. In this argument, you will criticize targeted killings by claiming that the criteria for who should be killed are too subjective and can be applied to too many individuals. I'm not saying this is your best argument, it's just one option you have. Second, you can argue that targeted killing is a fancy word for state-sponsored murder and that if your country is developed enough to spell foreign policy, they should have something better to resort to than murder. Let's call this the "taking the moral high ground" argument. Your last option is to argue that all life is important, even the lives of people like OBL.
The negative could share the affirmative values of justice or morality. One value that I feel is unique to the negative is due process. You could even value life, which might be tricky because the object of the targeted killing most likely didn't value life, but that's where your "moral high ground" argument could come in handy.
Lincoln-Douglas debate is not my milieu. But hopefully some of you will find this useful. But be warned: The more helpful you found this, the less you know about LD.
