19. It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

I will tackle my opponent's argument in chunks for clarity. I will give the beginning and ending statements of each chunk in quotations and capital letters before my responses. Please reference my opponent's Round 1 speech in order to understand all argumentation. "R.A: REBUTTAL…CANNOT BE TRUE." 1. When I wrote that the one and the many are "equally innocent," I only meant that the CON position could not be justified simply by making an argument like "maybe the many innocent people aren't AS innocent." Since such an argument didn't come up in the first CON speech, I don't think it will matter greatly in the judges' decisions. 2. What the CON mentions here is an attempt at advocating Moral Relativism – the idea that what's right for me may not be right, or even be wrong, for you – and vice versa. However, this implies that a certain action (i.e. adultery) would be wrong and OK at the same time, or two different degrees of wrongness simultaneously. The point that I am trying to make here is that, regardless of the varying interpretations that different people/cultures have on morality, morality DOES exist. Everything is either right, wrong, or neutral – and just because not all of the specific maxims regarding behavior have been (or ever will be) identified does not mean that they do not exist. 3. Moral Absolutism is necessary, and there are some moral constants. In the words of philosopher Zachary Walters, "Relativism assumes that cultures can coincide and exist without any commonalities. The relativist…would say that no morals exist outside specific culture or regions. Unfortunately many morals are static and essential to culture existence, specifically child development. A society wanting not to rear children will soon die out to a loss of numbers." "THINK OF…BEING ASKED." 4. This is an issue of personal preference and familiarity, and does nothing to advance the CON's position. Regardless of whether I would prefer to kill my opponent rather than my mother, the moral statement I propose on the PRO still stands unless the CON can dispute it on moral grounds. "PRO HAS…FAMILIAL DISDAIN" 5. Another example that doesn't really advance the CON. Yes, people might disagree about whether we should kill George, but that doesn't change the moral principle, if it is proven. If my opponent believes that euthanasia should be legal and I believe it should be illegal, that has NO BEARING on whether it should actually be legal or illegal. The only justification that the CON gives for killing Bush in this scenario is that "his death would have world-wide repercussions in addition to familial disdain." I am not sure what she means by "familial disdain," but the world-wide repercussions might not be so bad. In past assassinations, we have sometimes found ourselves with Johnsons (who have bad reps), but we have also found ourselves with Arthur (who massively reformed civil service) or Teddy Roosevelt (who did a bunch of awesome things). At best this point is ambiguous. "MY POINT...IS FLAWED." 6. Look to the Resolution Analysis point 2 for conclusive proof here: "innocent" means not warranting death as punishment – and, as a general maxim (which is what a resolution is all about), the PRO side ought to be upheld here. The people in question are equally innocent in terms of life or death. "CONTENTIONS: REBUTTAL…FOR HER INACTION." 7. Here we have exactly what I was talking about. It is easier to blame Raymond than Jocelyne because of the visibility of his ACTION. But, truly, they have committed the same crime. BOTH choices contributed to Thomas's death, and if BOTH had made the opposite choice Thomas would be alive in BOTH cases. Thomas's death is a DIRECT result of the choice that Raymond/Jocelyne makes. The CON attempts to refute this with a drunk driving example. Yes, the law would blame Jeff more than Nancy, and yes, Jeff deserves some of the blame. But the reason that Nancy would not be held accountable by the law is that the law is UNABLE to determine this conclusively. But the resolution (and, up until now, this entire debate) has been about MORAL maxims, not LEGAL ones, and on that pertinent level the PRO still stands. "ADDITIONALLY, WE…NOT STAND." 8. Let's not split hairs. The point is not about Jocelyne's own confidence. The point is that if Jocelyne has the ability, knows it, and fails to act on it, she is as guilty as Raymond would have been. "2A. FORGIVE MY…FUTURE ENDEAVORS." 9. I thought the example was clear enough, but I will call to attention one quote: "there will certainly be riots IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT HANGED." Other options fail (as, in many other instances, they would). And again, if the PRO is obligated to justify the killing of an individual when OTHER OPTIONS are in place, the round would be entirely biased toward the CON. "2B. AGAIN, THIS…SAME LUXURIES." 10. "Furthermore, if the doctor does perform the transplants, he is positive that no one will ever find out that it has been done." This takes care of the trust in authority argument: the decision, again, is a moral one rather than a legal one. 11. The CON states that it would be absolutely wrong to steal from one person to benefit five. THIS POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT. Not only does this completely destroy her arguments about moral relativism (she is now advocating moral absolutes) but she makes a big mistake here: is it more wrong to steal from the one person to benefit the five, or to allow the five people to die to benefit the one? Remember that INACTION and ACTION are equally blameworthy. "LET'S REMEMBER…DISPROVES PRO'S LOGIC." 12. These two points can be grouped together: my opponent is weighing the issue based on who would feel bad about it – both the individual being killed, and the "big family" he/she must come from. The good feelings they would have when he/she survived, however, would be countermanded by the crushing GUILT they would have, knowing that many people sacrificed their lives unwillingly for that person's live. This would nullify any happiness they would have, and may even drive the person in question to depression or suicide. But also, the "big family" point does not work in favor of the CON, because it is not guaranteed to rest on the CON side – it might rest on the PRO side. And, as I have stated above, just because the bereaved family or the person FEELS it is morally wrong, that does not MAKE the action morally wrong. "2. I'LL KEEP…NATURAL SELECTION" 13. And now we enter the world of Malthusian philosophy. Thomas R. Malthus believed (like the CON does) that it would be a folly to do anything to help a person or group of people survive (like food aid to Africa or medical procedures) because it would increase the population at the time when Earth runs out of food – so that perhaps ten million people would suffer instead of five million suffering had we not saved lives. This point, however, justifies every population control from euthanasia and abortion to nuclear war, because they would all reduce the total amount of sufferers in Malthus's view. If the CON wants to uphold nuclear war as a moral maxim, by all means, go for it. In summary: the CON's arguments in favor of moral relativism are refuted not only directly, but indirectly when she herself speaks of moral maxims in terms of absolutes. Many of the "negative" aspects of killing 1 for 5 are based entirely on feelings, which do not necessarily correspond to morals and ought to be disregarded. Inaction and action are equally praiseworthy/blameworthy, because they both involve a choice that will save or slay the person involved. And the CON's point of family devastation is outweighed by the crushing guilt they would feel.