It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I think this paragraph argumentation will do fine for now Off his first paragraph - As interesting as the Spiderman analogy is, the fact of the matter still remains, some one will be KILLED to save the lives of others. The situation with Spiderman is a little different. He is not choosing to kill some one; he is choosing to save one or the other. I know I stressed this idea, but it's the crucial factor in voting in this round. Plain and simple, some one must KILL some one (who is innocent by the resolution) to save a group of people. I find that there is no justification for murder in any way shape or form. I want to also point out that the resolution does not call for a person to make an ethical decision about whom to save (i. e. allowing one person to die while others to live) this calls for the act of killing another person to save others. An example of this would be a hostage situation, where the hostages want a specific person to die otherwise they will kill everyone else. I find that there is no moral justification to murder that one person to meet the demands of the terrorists. I think Harrison Ford proclaims the strongest idea hear when he states in Air Force One "We will not negotiate with terrorists. " My interpretation of that statement is that we will not willing kill our citizens and peers to satisfy the demands of terrorists because terrorists demand unethical and immoral things in situations such as that. I am sure everyone is tired of hearing about terrorism, but the fact is that it is a realistic situation of what the resolution describes then that of what Spiderman dealt with. Ok on to 1. So now that example and argument is out of the way, lets move on to the next paragraph. Obviously there is a numerical advantage that the pro gains automatically, but the fact of the matter is, this advantage comes at a price. In order to gain this advantage, the pro must admit that the sacrifice of individual's right to choice and the right to life are taken away by other individuals without the person having any say. You have to see that the second that rights are taken away, that you can not claim that it is morally permissible. Morally, you should not be able to take rights away from an individual unless they have abused those rights (which is not the case in this debate). Off of #2. I think my opponent misinterpreted my example or I did a poor jump of explaining it (probably the latter). I agree totally that saving lives is a great deed. BUT it's the means by which you save lives. The fact that you are killing means that it no longer because a justifiable action. You can not justify murder on the simple basis that you are saving lives. I seriously doubt that if you stated in the court of law that you killed another person to save other people that it would go over very well. So keep in mind that the END is the saving people and the MEANS is the killing. The end should not justify the means otherwise, by that philosophy(that you can do anything as long it achieves good), unethical practices can be committed just by claiming "good" will come of it, such as killing off babies for the sake of using their body parts as food for the poor. Off his next paragraph, the transplant example. - My only problem with my opponent's argument is that he is justifying that because you are saving people that murder is permissible. Ultimately all our arguments come down to the same ideas. But I would like to extend this example of the transplant patients and say that all these individuals deserve a fair chance at getting a new organ to live, and that killing any one of them for the sake of the others is not morally permissible in any way. No one has the right to take another person's life if that person is innocent for that person has the right to life. I do not want to come off as overly aggressive or belligerent, but I want toe pro to come up with a viable, real-world scenario where some one, an innocent person, must be killed for the sake of saving others. The fact is, in every one of those situations, no decision is morally "permissible" in the sense that murder is not justified on a small scale or a large scale. So I strongly urge the judges to consider that every person has a right to life, especially one who is without fault. Look to the example of the hostage situation that I stated. Look to the transplant situation I stated. In neither of those situations is it ever justified morally to murder one individual for the sake of others. Judges, I strongly urge you to consider the "means" or action by which we are achieving this "good" of saving other people. Though you are achieving the "good" the means by which you are doing it is largely unethical and can never be deemed "morally permissible. "