It is morally permissible...

This debate boils down to this syllogism: "1 1. A>B (A) 2 2. C>D (A) 3 3. C>A (A, your repeated statement) 4 4. B>~D (A, right and wrong are opposites) 5 5. C (Provisional A) 2,5 6. D (2,5 >O) 3,5 7. A (3,5 >O) 1, 3,5 8. B (1,7 >O) 1,3,4,5 9. ~D (4,8 >O) 1,2,3,4,5 10. D&~D (6,9 &I)contradiction 1,2,3,4 11 C>(D&~D), (5,10 >I), again contradiction" This is further focused on to his third premise that C>A. In this, there is a sub-debate on whether or not intentions determine morality. There is also the debate of whether the action in the resolution is an example of the principle of double effect. Finally, there is the debate over whether or not X, the known result of action Y is necessarily intended when one does action Y. I will address all points of this debate in my closing argument, and then I will show you the flow of events so far, and the reasons why you must vote Pro. The first issue is his syllogism. I agree that it is valid. If we accept all the premises as true, we do in fact get D&X~D, a contradiction. But I contend that his third premise "3 3. C>A (A, your repeated statement)" is incorrect. This is the sub-debate I mentioned. The argument he uses to show C>A stems from this quote of mine: ". .. A and C are both killing an innocent. " Now he took this mean I was conceding that C>A, which leads to a contradiction in my logic. By no means am I doing so. A and C are distinguished by their intentions. A has a bad intention, therefore it is immoral. C has a good intention, therefore it is moral. That is the subtle distinction in between the two that let's C>D and A>B. This brings us to the sub-sub-debate of whether intentions determine morality. He says this "False proof. Human life is a volitional process- no human has ever lived out a modern lifespan without the will of a rational being seeking to make it so. This is therefore something that cannot come from other causes. Further, even if it could, it would be less likely to, therefore you still need the will. Intentions are fluff, they can indicate threats, but they cannot otherwise matter in reality when not achieved. " Basically, everything in a human life comes from the will of a rational being. I would like to point out the flaw in that over-generalization. The will of a rational being is what they want to happen. When I go to Snowy Mountain, I want to ski, and have fun. That's my will or intention. If I get buried by an avalanche, that's not my will or intention. Morality based on consequences would necessarily have to hold me morally accountable for inevitable, accidental occurrences. That's irrational. Under this logic, the prospect of being moral is virtually impossible. I can try too, but I will be inevitably undermined by accidental happenings. Intentions can be controlled, thus they must determine morality. Inside of this sub-sub-debate there is another aspect of clash. He claims that in my example killing is right in both circumstances, saying "There is no God to play. Therefore no flaw. Further, if he has the right to kill himself, he implicitly is the only word in whether he dies- his word is therefore valid in granting you that right. " What I meant by playing God, was trying to take control of things out of our control. Doctor's are supposed to ease people's pain, not kill them. It is the patient's life, he can do what he wants with it. I can't. It's not my life. I can give him the means to kill himself, but I cannot actively kill him. That's the distinction. Before moving on to the next point of debate, I need to address some of my opponent's statements regarding an example of the double effect. "This contradicts your example. The death is not unavoidable. " The death is unavoidable in order for me to attain the good effect. The bad effect must be the only, or best way to achieve the good effect. In my opponent's example, the best way would be to swat the fly, or to tell him to shake it off. "How's he violating double effect? I already addressed your bit of intellectual dishonesty with 'unavoidable,' therefore, on what grounds can one death that is not the goal of the action\be irrelevant to the morality of the action, and the other relevant? " I addressed the "unavoidable" point, but the second I have not. The answer to my opponent's question is simple. In one, there is a better way to do it. In the other there is not. That makes all the difference. Now, on his next point. .. The resolution itself does not fall under double effect. What does however is the example I provided. This is an example of the resolution "It is morally permissible to use this site to non-satirically advocate that the killing of innocents is both acceptable and unacceptable in the same context. " The context is the same, the action is killing an innocent. The difference is the intention. This fits the resolution. Finally, on his last point, result X is not intended. An obvious example of this follows: If I am a soldier, working for a fascist leader, and an "enemy spy" is captured. (The "spy" is merely an innocent young girl that happened to be overheard complaining about the Great Leader). I am ordered to torture, rape, and murder this young girl. If I don't someone else, without the conscience I have will do even worse, and I will die as well. My intent is to prevent this even worse occurrence by being as merciful as possible in my atrocities. My action is only justified because I did not will or intend her to suffer pain, I willed/intended her and I to be spared from as much pain as possible. I knew the pain would occur, but I didn't want it to. Moving on to the flow. .. Points in this debate: Instigator: uses this argument (condensed into syllogistic format to support argument-- 1. Killing and not killing in the same context contradict. -refuted by double effect 2. Advocating both is violating the law of non-contradiction. -refuted because I took out premise one 3. This leads to one breaking their word. -refuted because I took out premise one and two 4. That's immoral. -refuted because out all the premises Contender attacks: 1. Principle of double effect shows that killing and not kill can be both acceptable actions. (Euthanasia example)-refuted by points that DE is ridiculous, and that intentions do not determine morality 2. No, because I have shown they don't contradict. -refuted, restored premise one 3. They don't break the law, so the law still stands, and thus, I do not break my word. -refuted, restored premises one and two 4. I didn't break my word, therefore it is not immoral. -refuted, restored premises Instigator rebuttals: 1. a) The Principle of Double Effect is ridiculous-refuted, showed argument to be based off flawed interpretation of DE b) Morality is not determined by our intentions. -Refuted, showed intentions do determine morality 2. They do contradict, so the law is violated. -refuted, took out premise one 3. The law is violated, so you do break your word. -refuted because I took out premise one and two 4. You do break your word, so you are immoral. -refuted because out all the premises Contender Rebuttal: 1. a) argument was based of misinterpretation. There were better solutions- refuted, argued that it was not a misinterpretation b) Immanuel Kant card showed intentions do determine morality-refuted, showed that human life is volitional 2-4. Same as before. .. Instigator Rebuttal: 1. a) It is not a misinterpretation, in my example the death is not unavoidable. -refuted, showed that he misinterpreted my statement b) Human life **is** controlled by the will of a rational being-refuted, showed that there are consequences out of our control. 2-4. Same as before. .. Contender Rebuttals. 1. a) The intended good effect requires that I do this b) Things are often out of our control, but we can control our intentions 2-4. Same as before. .. The voter must make his/her decision based on the validity of my refutations.