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

The judge(s) 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". General Args: A) Con should NOT have the burden to prove the resolution wrong in EVERY SINGLE instance – especially if Pro only has to defend one instance. Obviously this would be completely abusive. B) I have proven time and time again why his examples are not permissible. C) If the individual's "morality" is not "being judged" in the instances that my opponent has set forth – he is NOT proving that their actions are morally permissible: Simply that we shouldn't judge their actions, which is exactly what we are doing in this debate: judging peoples' actions… D) It does not matter if the action is "permissible" but whether it is morally permissible. If something is never permissible – then no one would ever end up in a situation were it would be permissible to do such an act… E) My case explains the harms of accepting death in society: even if his actions are justified that does not mean the rest of society should view it as morally permissible… Value: Morality. My opponent still has NOT offered a value for you to evaluate the round through. As this debate is to emulate LD debate – a value debate – I would assume we should evaluate the round through who provides the best value and who accesses that value the best. Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution. My criterion upholds morality because it allows individuals "[to be] in accord with standards of right or good conduct," because they are not forced to be part of massive genocides or other evil acts that ensure the self preservation of the people with power. Again – my opponent does not present a Criterion, or way to "be moral". My opponent does not allow people to have power over their own lives because they must be sacrificed for the "greater good" and he is reinstating a higher power over the lives of individuals. Observation 1: Extended the agent of action in the resolution ends the life of an individual because they believe it is necessary for the protection of others. Observation 2: Morals are derived from society as a whole – what each society deems is acceptable or right and what they believe is wrong. A higher power, not exclusively limited to the government, allows those actions that society accepts and punishes the actions that people believe are wrong. For example – I may believe that it is right to use my fingers when eating my food, my mother (the higher power at the table) does not agree. Only a higher power can determine what is allowed and what is not; an individual cannot. However, evaluating the resolution based on this interpretation is a terrible idea: 1) "permissible" prevents this interpretation. 2) Evaluating the resolution under the value of morality is impossible if the judge must determine if the resolution is moral to an individual. A) The judge could vote on their own opinions – making debate pointless B) The affirmative would always win because they have found an individual that believes it is morally permissible C) Both sides would win the debate because two different individuals could believe that each side is moral; if both sides win there would be no way to vote in the round Observation 3: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from – my opponent only implies death. Extend the agent of action will use this as a loop hole. As long as I win there is the possibility for the resolution to be interpreted under my interpretation, a higher power will be able to use this to rationalize their actions, meaning my contention of mass death will happen His interpretation is abusive because it forces a death vs. more death debate which will end with Pro winning because ‘almost anyone would agree that' less death is better then more death Contention 1: My contention is based off of the theory of the resolution being implemented: if the killing in my contention is unnecessary then so is the death Pro advocates. According to his interpretation there is no reason to vote Pro because no death is need! Extend the agent of action (even if it is not a "higher power" but the person in position to make this decision) targets a person that has to die based on some qualifications Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok as long as we can justify it Extend the majority does not have to win – more people can die then are saved because of Pro's rationalization on each individual stance. The word permissible means the resolution can be repeated as many times as "necessary" AT: C1: RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY 1) My observation 2 states the resolution deals with a higher power – not internal autonomy 2) You didn't like my contention being linked to the resolution. Even if your contention does link – you have to explain/prove a link: you cannot just assume other people to do your work for you 3) Pro has the burden of proof – he can't simply say they will respect people's rights because it does not say they won't. If you look at my contention I explain how individual rights will be violated through use of the resolution. The resolution never states people will be asked about whether or not they want to die: the judge cannot weigh this entire contention without a clear reason why the agent of action will care 5) How can we tell if they give us their consent – or if the agent of action just assumes it? 6) Extend my evidence; people may not agree with the consequences. With death there are no ‘take backs'. Look to my contention… 7) AGREE: what is "permissible" is not based on individual's consent – but on what society as a whole. It is completely irrelevant if the person consents to their death… 8) He concedes his interpretation destroys Con ground 9) Exceptions to legality are not based on consent 10) READ my contention – voting Pro causes more deaths then Con… I've already explain why his framework that I have to defend more death is abusive – I simply have to prove the resolution false/wrong AT: C2: Right to life 1) He concedes this entire contention is only defensive – meaning he has no offense in this ENTIRE contention 2) C/A my contention 3) "Rationalizes that it is necessary": forces others to believe it is the only option when in fact it is not. 4) The resolution only deals with innocent individuals – not evil doers 5) Respect for human life is link to morality (6) so the leader would be doing an immoral action of threatening an individual's life. This means you must choose the side that has the possibility to have the least death – CON 7) Choking/eating something poisonous threatens our lives – action 8) The resolution is not talking about those that have ‘forfeited their right to live' by not being innocent AT: C3: ANOTHER 9/11 1) The terrorist are not innocent – the example you give is not about killing an innocent individual but killing a terrorist whose death may accompany more innocent individuals. Adding non-innocent individuals infinitely distorts the resolution 2) The awareness of the passengers is irrelevant – my point: DEATH IS NOT CERTAIN. He concedes this, proving my contention that ‘we rationalize death as the only possibility when it is not.' 3) Cross-apply my O3 4) Repercussions following the decision will happen no matter what – defensive… 5) "We all have choice – my friend Harry taught me that…" There is no way for you to know the "best choice". My contention proves a negative affect to weigh against the harms of the plane running into the building – which is the worst case scenario but definitely not certain to happen 6) The most moral path is to prevent such a scenario from occurring… forcing death is immoral