LD Sept./Oct. (I've got a big invititational

I will rebut my opponent and then defend my own case. Value: Morality is required in order for moral permissibility to be considered. Criterion: The resolution does not state an extreme event, and it only implies that a decision must be made. This in no way implies a situation of extreme circumstances. Contention 1: This contention is just an extension of your criterion, as you admitted to, and therefore was not dropped. The situation is not defined as an extenuating circumstance according to the resolution, and therefore can not be considered one in this debate. Your contention and criterion are invalid, meaning your value is not upheld and I win this debate. My defense of my own case. Definitions: Thank you for accepting my definitions. "Ob 1: I disagree, my opponent has no basis to say that morality is normative, and therefore, this observation must be dropped off the flow." Ob 1: By accepting my definition of morality you conceded the fact that morality is normative, and therefore this rebuttal of yours is self contradictory. "Ob 2: I disagree the resolution only asks if it is permissible to kill one innocent to save the lives of the many. It can be debated in any manner." Ob 2: Because you agree that morality is normative, killing is inherently immoral. Therefore, your burden is to prove how committing the immoral action of killing is necessary enough to warrant it as moral. This in itself is a self contradiction, and therefore further warrants my victory in this debate. Ob 3: Thank you for agreeing on this observation. "Ob 4: The resolution does not state an agent. The agent does not have to be an innocent." Ob 4: Because you agree with my definitions, you concede the fact that innocent is defined as free from the action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes. If the person being killed is innocent, then he is inherently not free from action or intention of committing moral or legal crimes. Therefore, the affirmative must prove that the intention to kill is a moral intention. Value: Thank you for accepting my value; morality is the set value for this debate. Criterion: By agreeing to my definitions, you agree that morality is normative, and therefore not circumstantial. Therefore, we must not look at the situation, but rather the ethics of the action itself. Because killing can not be universalized, it is inherently immoral, and therefore my criterion of moral normality stands. "Contention 1: A. My opponent claims that violating one individuals right to life is always and inherently immoral, however he gives no reasoning as to why this is. This is an unfounded and baseless claim, and cannot be accepted. B. This does not relate back to his criterion. His contentions must stem from that criterion so this contention is dropped. C. This also does not go back to his criterion, and it is dropped. D. This is an unfounded claim and is not proven. You cannot accept it without evidence or logic showing why this is true." Contention 1: A. As I stated above, you have conceded the fact that morality is normative. The set standard for normative morality is the categorical imperative, which simply states that an action is moral if it can be universalized. For this reason, killing is inherently immoral. B. Deontological ethics define moral normality. C. So does the categorial imperative. D. Humans are born with inalienable intrinsic rights, and life is the most important of these as it is the basis of all others (1 cannot pursue happiness without life, among other actions). By actively killing an innocent person, you are violating his right to life. Voting Issues: 1. My opponent, by agreeing with my definitions, agrees with my value criterion (moral normality), and therefore agrees with my entire case. 2. My opponents value criterion is not stated by the resolution, and by agreeing with my definitions is invalid in this debate, meaning his entire case is invalidated. 3. My opponent has not provided any substantial claims or rebuttals, as he only states I have not provided enough logic and has not yet rebutted any of my given evidence and logic.