Zombie apocalypse- THW shoot your best freind who has been bitten by a zombie

In response to your contradiction. No. Opposition believes that in this case the two items are not mutually exclusive. The most moral action is the one with the most benefits and in order to prove this i will be refuting all of side gov's points. 1. The idea of a zombie eating you is one that surely by this time in the apocalypse is nothing new to you. We believe that since your group has survived at all you must have dealt with zombies at some time or another. Also given the fact that it is an apocalypse, we believe that there are millions of zombies out there and do not believe that a million plus one is that much more deadly. Also you can do things such as tie down the friend or form a firing squad around him or even simply run away, We simply object to the idea of killing your friend while he's not yet a zombie. Also we can use the time while hes turning into a zombie to learn about things such as how long it takes someone to turn into a zombie. In response to this idea that convenience and necessity, we feel that the distinction you've brought up is invalid. In both cases, the group is faced with a very real chance of extinction, and that in both cases people will kill each other. Moreover, we feel that when a small group is faced with a situation such as a scarcity with good, people's paranoia and fears begin to kick in sapping them of their rationality. Their interest in preserving their own lives causes them to mistrust others, and as such will believe that in times of scarcity due to their own interests and lack of rationality in this case, kill others to try and save themselves and/or the group. I think that my opponents 2nd and 3rd points can be amalgamated into one point about the last will of your dying friend. we believe that on there are two cases and on hour side of the house we have the best solution to both of these. Case A. Our friend does not want to die. Under our side of the house we respect your friends last wishes and are willing to uphold his human rights and are willing to wait until he turns into a zombie first before shooting him. We don't think that there are any risks associate with this as i have already addressed it in my first point. On our side of the house we have both the upholding of moral principles as well as the safety that is present on the government side of this case. We also feel that this is your friend someone who has survived the apocalypse with you up until now. We feel that you should treasure his memories and last moments and not spend it pointing a gun at him, threatening him while he is on the verge of death. Case B. Our friend wants to die. In this case then we feel that it is a decision that your friend is making and that he has the ability to hoour his decision. We feel that if your friend was truly in such a state that he wanted to die, he should have the freedom to do so. However, this doesn't mean that we should shoot him. We have no right to be deciding the fate of our friend for him and that it is within his realm of control to pick how and when he wants to go. To reiterate, as we have no right to be choosing for our friend, the decision, if it is to kill him, should rest in his hands.