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

"This scenario is a little absurd to me. It doesn't make any logical sense."Rebuttal 1) The entire argument that is presented by Con can be simplified into these two sentences. In Con's resolution, it was never explicitly stated that a scenario must make sense. It may not be practical, but the scenario can technically happen. Pro argues that there must be a fourth party in the situation.His explanation that there must be a fourth party is "this threat must be human because if the threat were a natural threat such as an earthquake or tornado, then there could be no certainty that the many could have been saved"What if the threat is an animal? You and ten people could be running from a pack of wolves. You have two options, trip your friend so the wolves swarm/eat him, or risk the death of everyone when the wolves catch up. Rebuttal 2) "There can be no certainty that the fourth human agent will allow the many innocent people to live even if the understood person kills the one innocent person."This voids the resolution. The resolution says nothing about uncertainty. Con's resolution states "It is ok to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people." There is no uncertainty in this moral dilemma. It is either: kill one person and save at least two, or save one person and kill at least two. Rebuttal 3) Even if there is uncertainty, it is still worth killing the person. Imagine you are told that you must go out onto the street and kill one person. The repercussion for not complying is that 200,000,000 people will be tortured to death. If there is a possibility that 200,000,000 people could be saved, it is okay to kill that one person.If you do not kill that person, you are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions. If you do kill the person, it is not your fault that the people died.Rebuttal 4) The organ donor analogy voids the resolution.This is not about suicide, this is about murder. On a side note, I sincerely doubt that a person in that hospital would just happen to be a perfect donor for all five people. Rebuttal 5) "Now this leads to another interesting argument that my opponent may make in a future round, which I will address right now, and prove the problems withit to get it out of the way. The argument that mmy opponent would give is: 'It is permissible to kill oneself to save many.'"Don't attempt to write my arguments for me, and then strike them down. I will now explain why Con's preemptive strike was a swing and a miss. "The affirmative's own resolution says that one who dies must be innocent. If this person is threatening the many with death, then that person can not be innocent. If the person is forced to kill himself, then the responsibility is on the one who forced the death. Either way, in this situation, the justification or permission for the death does not exist."This sentence right here voids the resolution: "If the person is forced to kill himself, then the responsibility is on the one who forced the death."Forced suicide is not the action in question here. If I put a gun to his head and fire, that is completely different than asking him to kill himself. As I stated in my opening argument 1=1, 1<2. It may feel weird to kill somebody for the greater good, but logically, whichever action gives the most people the best chance of survival is the right choice. Remember, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."In conclusion, it is ok to kill a person in order to save a larger amount of people.