It is morrally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other......

hmmm... I'm the "o simple minded one" huh? Well since my opponents first 2 rebuttal arguments are against himself... He must be pretty slow. Do you not realize that those 2 arguments are those that you've posted and that I was refuting? Oh well, destroy your own case, means I have more time to spend doing something productive oppose to evaluating the side of someone who can't even tell his arguments apart from mine. But anyways, l'll move to my first argument against you. When I said: "Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner" You replied by saying: "So you are basically saying screw the majority in favor of the minority. You're no better than what you're accusing me of." -But this is totally false! I'm not saying exclude the majority vote in all cases, just in instances where, with majority vote, the minority is harmed or infringed upon. Does this seem bad OR wrong to you? If so, then you are probably the one who rightly earns the title "simple minded." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ""Yes, selfish. I defined innocent of devoid of this and since you didn't counter that with your own definition you must accept that so get over it. Selfishness = Non-innocence."" -Like I said, the resolution CLEARLY DOES NOT say ANYTHING about a sacrafice. So give that argument up, I know you're running out of excuses due to your inferior debate skills, but please refrain from pointless argments that hold no weight. As far as this statement: "So what if my definition is slightly one sided. It sticks if you don't prove it incorrect. Since you didn't prove it incorrect then I guess it sticks so, again, deal with it." -You're, not surprisingly, wrong again. I DID in fact give the better definition and called you out on your one-sided fairy tale of a definition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Opponent-"Here's the point o simple minded one. Because of the ends of saving more human lives, the means of killing only one is therefor justified. You're the one who brought up the ends not justifieing the means in the first place." - Here's my point O Ignorant blind one. Because the act of selfishly taking ones innocent life due to the bad luck of others is unjust, the action iis not morrally permissable. Your stance is basically, it isn't morally permissable, but it saves more lives so "O well." But in taking this stance, you fail to realize you've conceded the most powerful point in today's debate THE FACT THAT WE'RE ARGUING MORAL PERMISSABILITY. So yes, you may seem to be obligated to do this because it saves more lives, however, it IS NOT morally permissable. Nor is it just. But it doesn't matter because your answer is, simply, DO IT ANYWAY. Resolution Negated