It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people

CV/VC/AFF/NEG CV: My opponent attacks my core value by saying it is unfair to his case. However, If you look to the resolution it states" It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" Because the resolution is asking the Morality of an action we MUST evaluated off of morality. VC: My opponent attacks My criterion of the categorical imperative by saying we cannot use universal law to evaluate this debate. First in a case such as this we cannot prove that sometimes yes and sometimes No, If we do we must negate, because the resolution implies, Is it or is it not, nto whether is it sometimes or is it not sometimes. Therefore The ONLY way is to evaluate off of the Universal law. Second my opponent contends that the Means to the end argument is invalid as it provides for both sides. Is is just not true. Look once again to the resolution "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives or more innocent people" it does not say we would kill 5 to save one but merely should we kill one, to save save the former is a false assumption and has no place in this debate. Also Kant is not ALL about autonomy as my opponent would claim. He looks at morality of action alone and the means and ends principle and the Maxim. So therefore any attacks on my Criterion are seen to be invalidated. Etzioni's golden rule as my opponent has explained is all about autonomy, now while autonomy is important we must also look to morality which is not achievement fully by autonomy. Therefore we cannot judge this debate on a criterion that looks at only one thing to evaluate a issue such as this. Aff Case As I said I agree that we must respect consent I have already stated this. Now for the second contention when my opponent assumes that "NO RATIONAL PERSON WILL SAY NO TO ALLOWING TO KILL HIM/HER" This is obviously a fallacy as it is making a False assumption that cannot be backed up. The idea that everybody will consent to their deaths is not valid as it cannot be assumed as it is making a choice for a rational being with their OWN ideas. Saying otherwise is a Logical Fallacy and does not belong in this debate. Also My opponent claims the reason for them sacrificing their lives for the betterment of society, which is assuming that all human are automatons and have no free choice of their own and not doing as dictated is not being rational, this plainly is not Moral, not just and does not help society. So this claim made by my opponent is not only fallacious but is disrespecting the humanity of every individual so must be discarded. So as I have proved that the consent idea is Immoral and disrespectful for humanity a negative ballot is in order. NEG 1st: Again the assumptions made by my opponent are incorrect. Accoriding the the resolution the action is either killing one and saving more or not killing one and allowing the more to die. the choice is not between saving 1 and killing five or Killing one and saving five. If we negate we would kill nobody and save a Human from being used as a tool. By Affirming we are using Life as a means to an end which is immoral and does not promote for the good of society. Negating is not using life as a means because we would be treating the life as an ends by not using for the ends of others. So there is a Link as can be seen therefore this contention MUST stand for the Negative because the Aff is indeed using Human life as a means. Also the idea that Kant was All about life, I have stated this but remember, since life is sacred, he cannot use it as a means to an end as we would by Affirming the resolution. B. I do not see why this should be discarded because it seems to be an irrefutable argument. It is not abusive it is simply a fact stated by my case so it has essentially been allowed to flow through. Also the affirmative is trying to prove that it is ALWAYS morally permissible to kill one to save more so SOMETIMES it is morally permissible. So saying universal laws don't matter would be directly contradicting the Affirmative ground. 2nd: first My opponent misquotes me, I say we SHOULD look at the Morality of the ACTION so because my opponent has essentially AGREED to This it must be considered as true. Because we must look to Morality of action first and the action is killing one, that is immoral. Also my opponent contend we can predict the outcome. My opponent missed the point of this, we know the DIRECT consequence but not the indirect consequences. So we do not know the overall societal impact of the action. Also saying Deontology is abusive once again is an appeal to emotion. By Deontological Ethics, specifically Kant's we are evaluating the Morality of an action, which is what this debate is asking us to do. Because of those stated reason I can see no other than a negative ballot.