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

I'll just jump right into the debate. Value: My value is actually not dropped, since my definition of morality just clarifies my value. It does not contradict it. My value says that this debate is about morality. I defined morality as a social standard of right and wrong. That is not a contradiction. Contention 1: That is what my opponent advocates. He advocates killing, an immoral act, to save others. So therefore, my opponent should indeed be judged on this, since if he's not judged on this, there is nothing for him to be judged on, since that is the crux of the affirmative case. < To be morally permissible, it is the intention that should be judged. Because the act of killing one in order to save many is noble, it is morally permissible.> I agree, the intention should be judged. However, it should not override the actual action itself. In this case, the intention would most likely be a good one. However, that does not eclipse the fact that he is still killing. Killing is an immoral act. So in other words, you advocate killing an INNOCENT PERSON! Let me make this clear. The victim has not done anything wrong. The victim has done nothing to deserve this fate. It is not a noble act because you are killing. You are devaluing one person's life, in favor of other lives. You are saying that we can kill an innocent person, just because we have good intentions. That is not noble. It is wrong to think that we can justify killing. I never provided a value criterion. I provided a criterion for this debate. I agree, a value criterion would support the value. However, I never provided a value criterion. Instead, I jumped into supplying a criterion for the debate itself. Again, the criteria of the debate is thus: If my opponent shows that killing a person is not forbidden, then he wins. If he does not do so, either because his points are insufficient, or I am able to refute his points with better arguments, then I win this debate. Therefore, my criterion is not dropped. Rather, it can be extended to the rest of the debate. Because my opponent never took the chance to refute it, and he can't bring up a new argument to refute my criterion in the last speech(according to the rules of debate). I'll just go in the order of my opponent, and extend my case at the end. Contention 1: I agree. However, even if we have a duty to protect humanity, you have not shown why doing so is a morally correct action. You have just shown that that is what most people would do. Just because the majority of people do it does not make it right. No, that is your opinion of what makes something right and wrong. I happen to think that morality exists beyond humans. Morality is there, and humans do not effect it. Because you have not warrant to this claim, it must be disregarded. You cannot prove this claim, so it should be thrown out from the debate. < Therefore, why is it not moral to save more lives?> I do not think it is immoral to save more lives. I think that it is immoral to kill one innocent person, to save more lives. But that still doesn't justify killing a person. You are saying that we would save more people, but does that really justify killing an innocent person? Contention 2: You misunderstand my argument. My argument was that if we can justify killing one person to save many, there would have a ripple effect. We could justify killing all sorts of innocent people by saying that it would save many more people. My argument is that this mentality of justifying killing is wrong. A. Can you prove why it is right? You have the burden of proof. I am not saying that we must not kill. In reality, many of us would kill that one innocent person. However, we are talking about morality. When faced with that situation, both choices are immoral. Any way we go, we are being immoral. In the situation provided to us by the topic, either situation is bad. My opponent has to show why one of the options is right. I agree. However, the intention should not override the actual action, which is of killing. Yes it is. I'll prove it later in my case. B. So you are placing the needs of more people in front of one person. Logical, but not moral. By doing so, you are devaluing human life. You are saying to one person, 'You aren't worth as much. We are going to save these other people with your death.' How is that right? C. I don't quite understand what you are saying. Feel free to clarify this in your third speech. Otherwise, we can assume it not to matter. Now, I will go on to my own case: My main framework of my debate lies upon the moral fact that killing is wrong. It is an immoral act, and can never be justified. Now I'm going to explain why. We do not have the right to kill someone. Nothing in the world gives us the right to kill. To deprive someone of life. Last time I checked, we all contain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My opponent strives to prove that all 3 of those rights actually don't belong to us. He argues that we have the right to take life. Taking life, we deprive liberty. And if you are dead, you can't pursue happiness. My opponent advocates violating these three essential rights that every person is entitled to. Also, nothing we say can justify killing. Even if my opponent argues that more people are to be saved, he has not shown that depriving a person of their basic rights is right. Therefore, he loses the debate. Throughout both of his speeches, he takes a utilitarianist view. He claims that because more people are saved, that justifies killing. But does the lives of more people really justify killing one innocent person? My opponent advocates that killing one person, depriving that person of his/her basic rights as a human being, is right. Only because is saves more people. So my opponent advocates lowering the value of human life. I think that goes against his own value criterion, which he chose to take time to explain to me. So in reality, my opponent is contradicting himself. The way I see the topic, either choice you make, you are making a bad choice. Killing that one innocent person is immoral. Not killing that person is immoral. Therefore, anyway you look at it, I win the debate. Either choice is immoral, so I win. You notice that I have said I win a lot. My reason is that my opponent has brought up arguments. I have refuted all of them. I just strengthened my case just now. My opponent will be unable to provide arguments against them. That would be against the rules of debate. So all my opponent can do is try to refute my points and extend his case. Thank you Also, my side of the case does not require me to prove anything. It only requires me to disprove my opponent. I have done so. However, I have also proved my side of the debate, so it just gives you more reason to vote for me.