A human life more important than anything.

Thank you for accepting this challenge, I'm not that experienced a debater (This is still within my first full day at the site) and I seen your comment earlier, [1] and was curious why you felt that way. I took the topic of this debate directly from the comment you left, although I inadvertently left out the word 'is.' Feel kind of silly about this, but you seem to understand the topic.I agree with the idea that most people have some level of good, as vague as it is, Good is very vague, and I assume we are using the standard term of 'good' as moral, not good as in satisfactory like 'good dog'. My personal definition of good is 'of use,' or to the betterment of society as I have described.You state that we are all equal, and equally special, then you go on to say that "baby's and little peoples lives are more valuable and a doctor or someone who's life benefits others are more important". Unless, you would like to provide your personal definitions for 'Special, valuable, and important' I am afraid your statement seems contradictory.It might make sense if that "with an exception" was somewhere else, such as after "all people are equally special", meaning that you are attempting to state peoples lives of benefit to others and children's lives are of higher importance. If you state that Children and those who help others are good, you are saying the future generation and people who improve society are worth more.Valuing children and those who help society seem something we would both argue for, as my idea simplified is Society>Individual, whereas your claim states life>AnythingYou are saying life is important on it's own, I am claiming it's a means to an end which should be the core of our respective arguments.Finally, "If there is a school of fish what good is the school if the fish are empty?" seems very confusing. I think you are saying "if there's a group of fish, what good do they do if they don't have a soul?" My answer would have to be feeding the things that may eat them (such as humans, larger animals or decomposers and scavengers after they die.) This seems to be an odd point for your case, so I will assume that this isn't what you meant."If there is a group of life, what good is the group if life is without value?" Seems like the best equivalent to this strange metaphor that I can think of. It's a good question to ask, "Why is mankind of value if it's individuals are not?"I simply look forward to evolution, not of species in this case, but of seeing ideas evolve. I put more value in knowledge than I do of the average human life, (Including my own). This may lead to the question, why is this of value? The natural laws of nature are based off evolution and the common idea of evolution is the advancement of a species. So it is natural for humans to try to improve themselves, and it only through this attempt to work for improvement that makes mankind a better place. Individuals lives will work for the advancement of a species, for knowledge, and for the happiness of others'. I am not suggesting that people become mindless drones in these pursuits, human emotion is naturally occurring as we work for this goal. People naturally want to gain knowledge, others want happiness, whether it be greedy and for themselves, or to give that to others. The 'Greed' aspect goes against my idea of humans should help society, but with my idea of 'good' it maintains it's aspect of evil.Some final things I'll need you to clarify:What is a 'soul?' (I need you to explain your ideas about what they are, like morality it's answers can be different.)What is your definition of good? To hold human life at different values we need different moral opinions, so to explain this to me may help me understand your position better.What is the exception to some people having some good, if that's really what you meant?1. http://www.debate.org...