R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to saves the lives of more innocent people.

:: CASE REBUTTAL :: We both agree that the agent should kill the one to save the three under the basis of necessity; however, Con's point is that the agent will receive a moral stain for doing so. I may or may not disagree. The point here is not whether the agent will receive a moral stain, but whether or not killing the one to save the three is morally permissible... which essentially comes down to - IS THE KILLING OF THE ONE PERSON JUSTIFIED? Now, Con took an interesting approach at arguing the neg. In doing so, however, he has agreed that killing the one to save the three is in fact the right thing to do. He even goes so far as to consider it the 'necessary' decision. Now, if something is morally necessary, than it is obviously morally PERMISSIBLE. Whether it leaves a "moral stain" or not is irrelevant, as the resolution only asks whether or not a certain action is acceptable. Con agrees that it is. :: EXTENSIONS :: 1. In regard to dropped arguments, personally, I feel no need in arguing about something that has little relevance to any of the main arguments. For instance, in his previous round, my opponent discusses morality vs. necessity regarding an example of tattle-tailing on a peer who has cheated on a test. While I recognize his attempt at offering an example to prove his point, I also have the ability to rationalize that I can argue his point without referring to his specific example... which I did, when I already dismantled his point about morality vs. necessity up there in my Case Rebuttal. 2. But just to make sure all of my bases are covered - I wouldn't want there to be any confusion - I will respond to my opponent's so-called dropped arguments. First, Con accuses me of not responding to his point, "Killing may be a necessary way to achieve her VC, but that doesn't make it the intrinsically moral way of doing it." I did in fact respond to this in the previous round, as it is, after all, the entire premise of his sole contention. For instance, in R2 I exclaimed, "Even if you agree that killing is ALWAYS immoral, it does not change the fact that sacrificing one to save others would be morally PERMISSIBLE" with permissibility actually being the deciding factor of the resolution. Further, if you re-read my entire Case Rebuttal from R2, you can see how I did in fact thoroughly argue my opponent's point. 3. Next, my opponent says that I dropped all of his sub-points. Well, his sub-points included arguments regarding the 'point' system of human worth (I responded to that), and the argument of 100% vs. 300% (I responded to that too). So as you can see, I did in fact respond to all of these arguments, and therefore find the accusation of this matter abusive and dishonest -- Con is trying to turn your attention away from the true facts of this debate. Nevertheless, let me take the time to respond to Con's sub-points now, since they are undoubtedly in my favor anyway. Well Con's first Sub Point A is that, "Morality cannot be quantified... the debate is on morality. Morality is unquantifiable. Extend my attack." Then Con's Sub Point B reads, "By killing one, you have diminished a 100% human worth ratio. Thus, you are not upholding human worth, because you have taken away 100% of it." So what is Con doing with his Sub Point B? He is, in fact, attempting to put a quantitive value on human worth as it pertains to morality. In doing so, he completely negates his entire Sub Point A. It seems that Con is trying to have his cake and eat it too, by first saying you cannot measure morality, and then trying to make his point using "100% vs. 300%" to make his case. So, if you buy his Sub Point A, then you absolutely cannot buy his Sub Point B. If you understand MY point regarding Sub Point A (that using numbers sometimes makes describing our points easier and more cohesive), then you must apply that point to me, as well as consider my rebuttal for his Sub Point B. My rebuttal reads, even if I agree that by killing one you have diminished 100% human worth ratio, I also acknowledge that by killing three, you have diminished 100% human worth THREE TIMES... meaning times three... meaning 300%, and I am once again correct. 4. Finally, Con says that I did not respond to his argument regarding the logical fallacy, for which he used Hitler as an example. Truth be told, I ignored this argument because I did not find it pertinent to the debate or any of the main points. Here's why: Con brought up the argument that assuming Hitler was in a large group before his rise to power (... yeah, this gets confusing...), uh, something about killing the larger group and killing 10 million and the Holocaust? Say what? I pretty much ignored this and concentrated mostly on his clarified point, which reads: "So essentially, preserving life is a fallacy in terms of the resolution. The morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, i.e. killing, not the possible outcome, which might turn out horrible, it s impossible to tell." Okay, well first of all, preserving life cannot be considered a fallacy in terms of the resolution or this debate. Why? Because Con already agreed several times throughout the debate that preserving life should be upheld, for instance when he considers saving more lives the NECESSARY thing to do. Well if saving lives was not necessary or moral (which Con has agreed to), then how can the notion of preserving life be a fallacy or turned against the resolution, such as Con attempted to do with his Hitler example? Hmm? Moving on, Con's final statement is essentially reiterating his entire sole contention of this debate - the morality of an action ought to be based on the action itself, and not the possible outcome. So again, I will make the point that in terms or morality or "moral stains," my opponent may be correct. Perhaps normative morality does exist. None of this is the point. The point here is whether or not a certain action is morally permissible, i.e. justified. :: CONCLUSION :: So the question remains: Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of 3 innocent people? Well Con agrees that upholding life is important, and that saving the 3 lives is "necessary," so I would say that yeah - killing one to save three is morally permissible. Because in committing the immoral act of killing, you do not have immoral intentions. You have noble intentions. And while that may still make your sole act of killing immoral (Con's point), at the same time, given the situation implied by the resolution, it is in fact the MORAL option... meaning the affirmative stands - it is morally permissible. Thank you.