You are on page 1of 2

I affirm value morality Prefer reasonable aff framework because of structure skews, ODonnel, AFC preserves the value

of the first affirmative constructive speech. This speech is the starting


point for the debate. It is a function of necessity. The debate must begin somewhere if it is to begin at all. ailure to grant ! " is a denial of the service rendered by the affirmative teams labor when they crafted this speech. urther ,

if the affirmative does not get to pick the starting point, the opening speech act is essentially rendered meaningless while the rest of the debate becomes a debate about what we should be debating about. #istory is instructive here. The brief and undistinguished life of both counter warrants and plan$plan have
amply demonstrated the chaos that results when the negative refuses to engage the affirmative on its chosen starting point. ! " ensures competitive e%uity. &eaving the framework open to debate puts the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. 'hen

This skews aff because neg will have a ( minute time advantage as the entire ac is rendered pointless. Thus, force neg to concede to reasonable aff resolutional interpretations. )e*t prefer affs ethical theory. AEC should also result in fairer debates. There has been much discussion lately of the +negative side bias, and the huge barriers to affirming. I have no doubt that one of those barriers has been the ethics debate. When the negative gets to provide an alternative system of ethics off-case and then move on to construct offense under the affirmative s system on-case or with additional off-case argumentation, then the affirmative is always forced to !ump through the ethics debate hoop before accessing any of their offense, and then still must deal with the negative strategy under that system. Of course, the affirmative can concede the ethics debate and try to construct offense under the negative framework, but a " minute #A$ makes that task nearly impossible, especially with the % minutes of the #AC being mooted. What is more, the negative s ability to collapse in the &$ means that the affirmative will always be facing an &$ that gets to capitali'e on whatever strategic choice the #A$ makes. AEC has the immediate benefit of guaranteeing that the #AC offense will be functional in the #A$ and beyond. Targeted killing is defined by -uiora. as # Targeted killing reflects a deliberate decision to order the death of a (alestinian terrorist. -uiora/ establishes the criterion for permissible targeted killing. an individual will only be targeted if he presents a serious threat to public order and safety based on criminal evidence and )or reliable, corroborated intelligence information clearly implicating him. Intelligence information is corroborated when it is confirmed by at least two separate, unrelated sources. *here also must be no reasonable alternative to the targeted killing, meaning that the international law re+uirement of
It is important to emphasi0e that

See !rieh O1ullivan, IDF Kills two Key Hamas Terrorists, 2erusalem Post, )ov. ., /33., at ., available at &45I1, )ews &ibrary, 2erusalem Post ile.

seeking another reasonable method of incapacitating the terrorist has proved fruitless., Permissibility is defined as +permitted or allowed., 67y the free online dictionary8 Thus, if something is not morally permissible, it must be prohibited, so neg has the burden of proof to 9ustify a moral prohibition on targeted killing. 1kepticism affirms because neg must uphold morality in order to 9ustify a moral prohibition. oreign policy is defined as the diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.

:obert . Teplit0, Taking Assassination Attempts Seriously: Did the United States Violate International Law in For e!ully "esponding to the Ira#i $lot to Kill %eorge &ush', /; "O:)4&& I)T& &.2. <(=, (.3$ (.>.