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

I think it will be very fun, and I find this topic to be very interesting. I have spent much time on preparing my case, and i’m sure this debate won’t disappoint! ========================================================= I must reject the proposition that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. CONTENTION 1: THE RESOLUTION INDICATES FOUR DISTINCT HUMAN ENTITIES The resolution explicitly mentions one innocent person and it mentions a separate innocent group of people. Also understood is a third person who is faced with the choice of killing the one person or the allowing the group of people to die. Finally, a fourth human element is present threatening the innocent group of people. 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. Additionally, the killing of a human would not stop a natural disaster. Human sacrifice was long ago abandoned as a means of controlling nature. Thus the only conclusion is that there is a fourth agent that poses the threat to the many and the killing of the many is the responsibility of that fourth agent. CONTENTION 2: AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION OPERATES UNDER A FALSE ASSUMPTION A. The affirmative wants us to believe that the understood person in the resolution is responsible for both the one and the many. This is false. The understood person is only responsible for the one person he or she kills. B. Implicit in the resolution is a fourth party that is endangering the R13;many innocent. This is obvious from the fact that the understood person has the power of life and death over the many. If it were a natural disaster that threatened the many, the understood person could not be certain of saving the many. C. Since it is a separate human agent which poses the threat to the many innocent people, the responsibility for their death or salvation rest with that person who poses the threat. The understood person is only responsible for the life of the one innocent he or she would kill. Therefore, it can not be morally permissible to kill one innocent person because Affirmative can not be certain that this fourth party would actually cease the threat. The understood person could be the victim of a warped mind. Thus the resolution is false. CONTENTION 3: THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION IS THE BETTER INTERPRETATION A. Negative interpretation accounts for all parties to the actions inherent in the resolution. Affirmative disregards or fails to recognize the existence of the fourth human agent which presents the initial threat to the many innocent people. Negative recognizes this threat. B. Since Negative recognizes the existence of the fourth threatening human agent, the negative interpretation of the situation is the more logical interpretation. The understood person who affirmative asserts must make a decision is actually only responsible for his or her actions against the one innocent person. The fourth human agent is responsible for the threat to the many innocents. C. Since the understood person is responsible only for the one person, killing that one innocent person would be immoral. The deaths of the many innocents and the morality of those deaths are the responsibility of the fourth human agent. CONCLUSION The decision in this debate is clear. The responsibility of the actors in the resolution is clear. 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. Thus, killing the one innocent person violates the responsibility each person has to every other person – to respect their right to live. The resolution is based on a faulty warrant and so is false. ===================================================================Look forward to my opponent's arguments=)