It is ok to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people

In this round I will defend my own arguments, and try to prove why my arguments still stand despite my opponent's attempt to knock them off. ===================================================================Rebuttal 1: My opponent starts off by saying that it wasn't stated in the resolution that things had to be practical. Either way it doesn't matter, because I presented another scenario, and I guess he had no problems with it because he didn't say anything about it. Rebuttal 2: Then, my opponent brings up another scenario about a pack of wolves. Once again, there can never be 100% certainty that the pack of wolves will actually swarm/eat him. Perhaps if one person is tripped, then 5 wolves will surround him and eat him, but another 5 wolves will go on to chase the group. You can never be 100% certain with Affirmitive's point of view. Rebuttal 3: My opponent goes on to say that if you are presented with a situation in which you have to kill 1 person, and if you don't kill that person, there is a chance that 200,000,000 people will die. An interesting argument, so I will take some time to explain:1. First of all it's important to note that Affirmitive has an absolute statement that he must defend. The resolution doesn't say, "it is morally permissible in some instances, or in the case of a particular event. " It says It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person if we can save many. 2. My opponent states that even if you are not responsible for the killing of the one person you are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. This doesn't make any sense. It's not the person that's faced with the decision of killing the innocent person that is responsible for their deaths. It is the person/people that are going to torture the millions that are responsible4. Then my opponent says, "If you do kill the person, it is not your fault the people died. " Once again, no matter what situation we are talking about here, it is never the person faced with the decision that has the responsibilty. The responsibility will always fall under the people that are actually torturing those 200 million people.5. If there is never 100% certainty then you can't affirm the resolution. Remember, resolution is an absolute statement, as I have said earlier. It doesn't say in some cases, or in some instances, it says it is-period. So, if there is not a 100 percent chance, then you can't affirm. Rebuttal 4: The organ donor analogy1. My opponent says it's not about suicide. Ok, that's fine. I just thought I would bring the idea up just in case he would use it. But if he doesn't think suicide is in the resolution, then ok. I'll agree that suicide isn't in the resolution as will. Rebuttal 5. Next, my opponent talks about the fact that forced suicide is not the reslution. Understood. I think we can take my idea of a suicide and throw it out the door. Once again, I only brought it up because I had a feeling that he would bring it up in his case. ======================================================================I would find it to be a cheap shot if my opponent rebuts to anything I said in this round, as I will not be able to address his arguments.