Those are not
moral arguments! They're political and strategic and utilitarian ones. It is impossible to argue this was a guy who made the world a better place and who should be walking around a free man. Which is why you don't try.
Yeah, they are that too.
And nowhere did I say they should argue this is a guy that makes the world a better place. But prefacing your arguments by conceding the moral, political, and strategic justifications of the war mongers is not benefiting your oppositional argument. It simply aides the war mongers in pointing to you, and having the media as well, that their narrative justification is agreed upon while the only thing needing to be debated is your contention, which will be continually poisoned and massaged by the propaganda arms. As is already happening.
It's the same broken logic that has had Democrats unable to gain rhetorical traction on pretty much any of their domestic agenda for decades because they wrongfully keep thinking that conceding core framings and arguments to their opposition will give them cover when it really just muddies, unfocuses, and eventually is used to under cut their own arguments. Directly by their opposition and indirectly by the way the MSM defaults the Overton window in covering and framing the conversations.
Except in this case, the stakes are literally life and death.