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

"My opponent unfortunately assumes that I think the innocent people being saved are the ones who killed the individual. In one example I elude that the innocent knowingly killing the other innocent would negate his or her own innocence, thus arguing impossibility. This was one example when arguing the impossibility. I simply have established that the individual doing the killing cannot be one of the innocent. I never assume that it could not be someone else, in fact my other arguments assume the opposite, so as to cover all basis." My Response: So essentially my opponents attack neither affirms or negates. It is a mute point in this round. The only important matter is that the people remain innocent. Drop this point. "his makes no since as the Hijacker is not innocent, as defined by my opponent. In order for my opponent to offer examples or refute the assertation made in my rebuttal one must remain with in the confines of the Debate. A hijacker is not innocent. I doubt my opponent or anyone else can offer an example without flaw." My Response: I was only offering an example showing how it is sometimes necessary. "1. The person doing the killing cannot be one of the innocent." My Response: This is a mute point. "2. Determining worth of each individual involved is not possible. The quantity of life is not equivalent to quality, thus making the assumption that "saving more lives is better than saving less lives" a flawed statement. One could argue that the Presidents' life is worth more than 10 average people." My Response: When determining a morally permissible action in a moral dilemma, the action which saves more people is the permissible action. Letting the group die is acting immorally. Thus, the agent must choose the action which saves the most amount of people. E.g. 2 groups are drowining, 1 with 2 people, another with 50 people. If you had to save one group in its entirety, isn't it better to choose the 50, instead of the 2 or not choosing at all. In a moral dilemma sacrifices must be made. "3. It is impossible to know future events, which may negate moral permissibility. Even assuming that not only is the quantity of life to be saved more but also the quality of the individual to be saved more, future events may negate moral permissibility. Lets suppose one average person is killed to save 10 influential leaders, but moments later all 10 influential leaders are killed by another circumstance which would not have affected the one average person. You have ended up with more death, thus making the prior action morally not permissible." My Response: According to consequentialism, the outcome is the one that can be seen. you cannot be moral if you let a group of 50 die. You would be acting morally by saving them. Thus, it is morally permissible. Future events are mute, when deciding between the morality of the action or the near future of saving them or letting them die. [Voting Issues] 1. My opponent has agreed with all my extensions (all my contentions) and he has agreed with not having a value structure. For this reason alone, it should be an automatic affirmation.