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

"Thus what I must prove in this debate is that killing is not always immoral." --> I believe that is a fair enough burden on my opponent. Furthermore, moral normality should be extended, as she did agree to the definition. "Moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles" --> I my opponent wishes this to be the definition, I consent. However, normality ought to be the implied basis. "Con notes, "Killing must be proved moral rather then necessary to affirm the resolution." All I must prove is that killing is not ALWAYS immoral in ANY situation to negate Con's entire point." --> I'm sorry, I will be clearer with my Ob. 2. I was saying that the action of killing one innocent is indeed an action that is necessary on behalf of the killing agent, however necessity does not make something automatically morally permissible. The negative does not have the prove that the agent cannot kill under necessity, rather he will receive a moral stain for doing so. "The resolution implies a situation in which a choice must be made: let one die or let a few die (we'll continue to use 3 people in this example). Whether or not one actually makes the choice of sacrificing one to save three, the situation still exists in which a choice must be made. Thus one can choose to do nothing about it, but by choosing inaction, that person will be responsible for all three deaths. Now Con's stance on normative morality indicates that KILLING IS ALWAYS WRONG. If you believe him, then you agree that allowing three people to die is morally impermissible." --> This is where my opponent fails. My opponent assumes that since one option will lead to deaths, this makes the other action automatically moral. The negative is not saying that letting people die is moral either. The negative is saying that essentially BOTH outcomes are immoral. Killing one innocent, is inherently immoral. Letting people die, is immoral as well. But to negate, all I have to prove is that killing one is immoral. My opponent makes a logical fallacy when she says that oh, since more people will die, that automatically makes the other option morally permissible. E.g. I know some classmates have cheated on a test. If I tell the teacher, who has asked me if I knew, I will get the kids who have cheated and the innocent kid who was cheated off of in trouble. (In my school both get in trouble, don't ask me why, I have no idea). If I lie, I will help the innocent kid, but if I tell the truth I will get him in trouble. What ought I to do? Lying is an immoral action, because it is the privation of truth. However, getting someone innocent in trouble is not moral either. See, both actions are immoral, however I choose to lie to save the innocent. But BOTH actions were immoral. Saving did not make my action of lying moral, just because I was in a moral dilemma. I was necessary, rather then moral. Tie this to the resolution. It is necessary to save more, however that doesn't make the action of killing moral. Both outcomes are immoral. That is the negative's side. To negate the resolution I need to prove killing immoral, which I have done through my 4 sub points, which were dropped. Extend these. My oppoent then brings up Self-Defense. --> Again it is necessity vs. morality. My opponent even said killing in self-defense is necessary. Necessity does not equate morality. Killing your attacker is not moral, because you killed him. However killing him was necessary. "I argue that human worth (in terms of morality) is unquantifiable" says Con. I agree, and was in fact including numerical value in this debate to prove a point and make my argument cohesive" --> My opponent has agreed that morality cannot be quantified. She jsut said it made her point cohesive. Regardless, the debate is on morality. Morality is unquantifiable. Extend my attack. "No, turn Con's point against HIM. If every life is worth 100% then three lives together would = 300% ...not in terms of each's individual value, but rather their value combined." --> you don't add them. They are 3 separate 100%'s. By killing one, you have diminished a 100% human worth ratio. Thus, you are not upholding human worth, because you have taken away 100% of it. Drop her Sub-B. "Con argues this point by posing a hypothetical: Would it be moral to kill every person with AID's in that it will not spread? More people would probably be saved, but that doesn't make it moral. This analogy is unacceptable. First, it does not relate to the resolution of one life vs. a few lives. Instead, it aims to kill MILLIONS of people. Two, it does not prove that millions more would be SAVED. It suggests it, but it is not absolutely certain, whereas the choice posed in the resolution is more matter-of-fact. Con cannot back-up this flawed example." --> It is not flawed, it is actually very valid. By killing everyone with AID's at this time, you have saved millions of people in the future, from dieing and contracting it. Also, the resolution says more. More is an infinite amount more then the 1 specified. According to your logic, killing the people with AIDS which would end up saving more people, is morally permissible. Extend my point. "3. Responsibility." --> I agree, they have a necessary responsibility to save the 3 people. That doesn't negate the immoral nature of killing. If I was in this implied situation, I would save the 3 people. however I would know that I have killed, which is an act that can never be morally permissible. Again, it comes down to necessity vs. morality. ============================================================================== [Extensions] 1. "If human life had no value, killing in general would not be wrong or immoral." This statement right here calls for an automatic negation. As you can see from my case presented, I argue that the reason for a negation is because killing can never be moral, as is both of our VC's. Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it. My opponent has agreed that the act of killing is "wrong and immoral." --> My opponent did not even respond to this in her last round. I have already claimed this as an automatic negation. Since she dropped it, it is necessary to negate. By dropping, she has agreed to my statement. 2. All Sub Points in my case. all have been dropped, thus extending my contention for the remaining rounds. 3. Logical Flalacy. At the end of my rebuttal in my last round I quote: "My opponent wishes to maximize life, and preserve it. But how do we know it will be preserved. E.g. what if Hitler was in the larger group before his rise to power? He would have killed 10 million people. Therefore, killing the larger group would be a reason for the holocaust. So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell." Extend this overview argument. *As LD debaters know, extensions/drops cannot be brought up since they were dropped for a round. Therefore, my opponent has agreed to them, and they last till the end. No attack from this point forward refutes them. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.