Res: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

The judge of this round has a moral responsibility to vote against the resolution. Accepting death in our society as necessary has the potential to lead to massacres of humans that will be unstoppable because it has become "morally permissible." My opponent's only arguments are attacks on my interpretation of the resolution, which – even if he wins his internal morality argument (which allows vigilantes) – they do not prevent society (or an individual) from killing as many people as they want in the search for morality and the "greater good". Value: Morality Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution. Extend my criterion upholds morality because individuals have the choice to live their lives themselves; they do not have to do something immoral because a higher institution demands it. I do not contradict myself because I, as Con, do not uphold the agent of action because when you vote Con the action is not done. A higher power is composed –in most cases – of many individual's – just like society. Thus my criterion is preserving the freedom of many people on the individual level – hints the word "our". Extend (Dropped) without my Criterion his argument of individual morality is impossible because people will be at the will of a higher power. Obviously this means my criterion upholds both sides of the largest issue in the round. "I don't only use logic to prove mine." Ok, you use examples and logic to prove that your criterion is abusive. He also claims pro is "always solving for the greatest good" which, if we are evaluating the criterions based on division of ground, this criterion bites. Con provides the greatest good – if you look at my contention more people will die from affirming the resolution, this argument goes conceded in the round. Observation 1: Extend (Agrees/Dropped) the agent of action has the immoral power to kill. Thus, it is impossible for Pro to uphold morality if the agent of action is inherently immoral. Observation II: Extend morally permissible – allowed due to standards of right behavior [Random House Unabridged Dictionary] Standard: Something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison. (Just thought to define standards) Thus a higher power -authority or general consent- is the one that allows the right behavior – which is the definition of morality. Morality is defined by a general consensus between individuals in a society – this is why murder is immoral: a general consensus says so. This debate does get confusing BUT this should make it easy to VOTE ON: a collective morality is better because more individuals believe something to be right vs. only one or two individuals. The vigilante argument is short circuited once I win my definition; he has to win his interpretation is better before he can gain any offense on this point which he doesn't have. Vigilantes are not allowed because they define right without regard to society. Extend this is key to PRO ground. Individual Morality Bad: 1) Look at my definition of permissible and standard; his interpretation is not allowed 2) Ok – so if you believe the resolution is moral, you win the round? (I don't think so!) What if I (or someone else) believe the resolution is immoral – should you loose the round? a) Right, the judge should vote on the best argumentation, But you NEVER define whose morality we should evaluate the round on, at the point where it can be anyone's, extend, the judge can vote on their own sense of morality. b) There isn't a fair division of ground – if only one person has to support pro then how many people have to believe it is immoral? Extend Pro will always win c) If only one person had to believe it was moral, then one person could believe each side. Extend both sides should win the debate. And the judge can vote "tie"… Observation III: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from. Extend (Dropped) Spiderman example, he found a way to have everyone live – death isn't certain! Extend (Dropped) one death vs. more death is abusive for the Con to defend Extend (Dropped) I don't have to win my interpretation – only that it is a possible interpretation Voting Con is the only way to avoid the immoral action of killing an individual. Contention One: Extend the agent of action chooses a person that must die based on some qualifications Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok if we can justify it Extend the majority does not have to win – more people can die then are saved because the agent of action will protect its self He concedes his entire case: thus, he has no offense in the round and no way to access his criterion/value. Thus, you have no reason to vote pro, only against me. This is a shame because he is a very good opponent and has made good points. I thank you for taking time to debate!