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

First of all my opponent did not put his case in LD format and thus is not meeting the criteria I put on this debate. "Never can the death of a human being be justified, whether through actively killing another or doing nothing to save another from death. Both are equally wrong and non-justifiable." Because I agree with this statement as said by Mahatma Gandhi I must negate the following the resolution. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. For clarity in today's debate I offer the following definitions of key terms and phrases from Merriam Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: Morally - according to the rules of morality Permissible - That may be permitted; allowable; admissible. Kill - to cause to die. Innocent - An innocent person; one free from, or unacquainted with, guilt or sin. Lives - The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death. The negative value in today's debate shall be morality. Morality is the highest value in today's debate because the resolution demands as much. Morality is a set of rules that define the right and wrong in human behavior. These rules are typically vague, but in the case of human life there is no discrepancy. Any one life is of intrinsic value and thus cannot be put into mathematical terms of one vs. many. Because of this the negative criterion in today's debate shall be Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract Theory. Rousseau stated that all people have the inalienable right to life. Inalienable rights are rights that are given by either God, Nature, or chance/luck. Thus the only entity that can rightfully and morally take these rights away for any purpose is God, Nature, or Chance. Since no person is one of these three entities then no one cannot under any circumstance take away the life of another, including themselves. The negative will offer a sole contention to offer in today's debate. Contention: There is no morraly justifiable way to choose the one person. Thus there is no morrally justified way to uphold the resolution. Sub-Point A: The single person in question cannot morrally give away their life for the rest. Since this one person is not one of the three given entities listed in my criterion then they cannot rightfully take their own life. Doing so would violate Rousseau's Social Contract, and therefore not value morality. Thus this option does not apply in this debate. Sub-Point B: The group of innocent people mentioned in the resolution also cannot make that decision. First of all, such a decision is selfish and sinful. According to my definition of innocent, one must be free of such selfishness and sinfulness. If the group were to do this they would no longer be innocent and thus couldn't be applied to the resolution and wouldn't be relevant to this debate. In spite of this they would still be breaking social contract and thus would be violating morality. Sub-Point C: No outside entity can morally choose the singe person. To do so they would cease to be innocent as I've proven in my Sub-Point B, and no non-innocent person or persons has the right to choose the fate of an innocent person. They would also cease to uphold Social Contract. Sub-Point D: The person to be killed cannot be chosen through chance such as drawing straws and such. This is because it is still not a matter of chance. If they were chosen then they have a choice. One, they could accept the decision and give their life willingly. If so then just refer to my Sub-Point A to negate that option's morality. Or two, they refuse the decision and thus refuse to give their life. This would be a selfish act and thus that person's innocence would be negated. If that happens then it no longer applies to the resolution and is thus not relevant to this debate. In conclusion I would like to point out that if you cannot morally choose the one then you cannot morally sacrifice anyone. I have shown in my contention and its sub-points how all possible methods of choosing are not moral and thus negate this resolution. I will now attack my opponent's case. In my opponent's first point he states, "Because they are simply the same, quality over quantity, more people saved is more important." This is blatently false. John Locke, a man we founded our nation upon said this, "All lives are of intrinsic value and thus killing one is just as horrible as killing a million." Thus we can conclude that not only is killing the one to save the many immoral but allowing the many to die is also immoral. Thus there is no moral way to look at this situation. My opponent's second point is this, "The reason for the death of the innocent people is unknown making this debate tough to determine whether or not it is justified." This is of cource irrelevent. The resolution gives us a specific situation and it is this. You can kill one person actively and save more people or you can not kill one person actively and kill many passively. That is the situation and that is what we have to make our decision off of. Because of this we must negate the resolution. My opponent's final point talks about the possibilities of people. What they could become if they were to live. This is irrelevent since it applies to both parties and both parties could eventually become either good or bad for the future. Thus this arguement is negated. I have proven why affirming the resolution is wrong and why negating it is correct. Thus..... RESOLUTION IS NEGATED. thank you