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

In the world we live in, any country could be annihilated in less than an hour. Nuclear warfare, along with terrorism, are becoming quite problematic. Without the knowledge of where and when these attacks take place, innocent people will die. The government needs to actively seek this information no matter the route taken. This is why military espionage should be used, no matter the means taken.

I await your response...

Because of my opponent's forfeit, I extend all of my arguments from round 1.

Again, I await your response...

I would like to begin by apologizing for forfeiting the last round. I was on a camping trip, and was unable to post.

This debate is one of ethics. PRO states that it is an irrevocable principle that just so long as the cause is noble, anything is justified in getting military information. As CON, I simply must prove that at least one scenario does not follow this principle, and I will win.

For this debate we will assume that there is such a thing as "benignity". Also, making it trickier for me, we must only stick with scenarios in which the cause is benign.

In order to maintain any sense of Humanity; of morality; of good and bad, we must follow a doctrine of Human rights. I am not here asserting what these Human may be, or even that it is fundamental what they may be. I am only saying that theoretically there have to be some Human rights that we accept.

These rights are meaningless if we make exceptions. For them to be Human rights in the first place, they must be considered to be fundamental and unbreakable; not even in warfare; not even to mortal enemies. It is supposed to transcend this nation of people vs. this nation of people…it applies to all HUMANS, hence: "Human rights". They lose all meaning when we start thinking of them as conditional.

…And so I assert that it is unethical for the military to break said theoretical human rights, no matter the cause; no matter how noble. We can not let fundamental, natural human rights be clouded by idealism.

Your argument largely revolves around the concept that the wellbeing of the masses trumps any possible argument against a military action.

To this I reply: we can not measure ethics in statistics. By this I mean, when discussing ethics, numbers and statistics are, in essence, meaningless. It is shameful to decide whether something was ethical or not based on numbers; numbers of casualties; number of wounded; number of survivors. To kill one to save the many is not moral because of numbers. The mere instance of killing innocent humans –no matter how many- make the whole act immoral, no matter the intentions. Morals must be treated as basic and fundamental, regardless of numbers and statistics. For a moral code that can be overridden by numbers is not a moral code at all; it has too many holes; too many exceptions; it becomes meaningless.

Though it may seem cliché, very appropriate to summarize this is the well known saying: "two wrongs do not make a right".

So to prevent an immoral act by doing something immoral does not make any of it moral.

We live in an ugly world, but we must remember our humanity and morality.

-King Harlan the great

Well, I guess that makes us even. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you were incapable of rebuttal. I will by default assume you were to busy, or something of the likes. If it is confirmed that my opponent did not forfiet out of lack of rebuttal, I should ask voters to not let this affect thier voting process.