Resolved: It is morally justifiable to take one person's life in order to save that of more lives.

Good luck in the following rounds. Foremost, allow me to address the inquiry regarding my Value of Utilitarianism. It is based on the defin ition presented by John Stuart Mill, a disciple of the inventor of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham. Rebuttal: Value- Human Rights. While I concede to that human rights is an important value to undertake I disagree as to its importance in the debate at hand seeing as how today's debate is not focused on the individual as my opponent would like to imply and without the need to focus on the individual as opposed to the majority of society, human rights would be nullified because human rights only exist as the byproduct of society's existence. Criterion-Categorical Imperative. As I have said in the preceding point regarding the value of Human Rights the debate at hand isn't catering to human rights because a value of greater importance was introduced in the affirmative. Likewise, the criterion of categorical imperative is also voided. Contention 1- Because of the previously stated arguments the affirmative's passage of the test of human rights is unneccessary to the upholding of the value of Utilitarianism so it is irrelevant if it passes the categorical imperative or not seeing as how preserving society is of greater moral effect. Defense: Value- Utilitariansim. utilitarianism is a perfectly valid value to uphold despite that it can be majoritarian. To say it is impossible is assonine because of it's inherent majoritarian nature. In fact Utilitarianism is the only means by which a society's benefit can be judged because it is, after all and quite frankly, impossible to act in the benefit of everyone. no matter what is done a minority will be ignored. Criterion-Societal Benefit. I had assumed the definiton to societal benefit was implied in the name as well as resolutional context but allow me to elaborate upon its meaning. Whatever is done in the best interest of society as a whole whether it be for society's preservation or for progress is societal benefit. Contention 1- The deeming of human life as being immeasurable is not a contradiction to the affirmative because it simply proves that individual equality is non existent so we must look at mankind as a whole. Furthermore, the debate requires a logical perspective in regards to society's existence. As i had said in my case, morality is a man made concept and can only be judged in accordance to mankind's everchanging defintion of it. B ut because it is a man made concept applicable to man we must assume (naturally) that whatever is in the best interest of mankind is the "moral" thing to do. Contention 2- This contention may have seemed like a repeating of the first but only because it was basically meant to be an extension upon the first contention rather than repetition. The negation has misdefined morality as doing what is right or wrong. He failed to include that this is in relation to its criterion of society's judgement. Ethics is what's right and wrong inherently but the affirmation is also being ethical anyway seeing as how theoretically the recognition iof right and wrong inherently is based in the regards of proceeding consequences. we as humans, realize the implication of the negative which would be for more lives to be lost and this renders the negation unethical. But that's irrelevent. The negation is immoral because it is counter progressive to society. To negate this resolution as a result of only considering pathos in this debate would only be the same as to justify mankind's eventual end in exchage for the consideration of the individual life regardless of the value of that particular individual. Yes human rights are important, but without humans to perpetuate those rights they can't exist. For these reasons, the affirmative has won this debate and I urge the audience to vote accordingly.