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

Thank you! Now to debate. Value: My opponent's value is dropped. By my opponent's definition for morality or moral, it means to have the majority gains favor because the definition clearly states "conform", meaning making social standards of people equal and to act in accordance. Therefore, he supports my value. Thus, my opponent's value is inferior to mine. My value supports better because it looks on to welfare of society which supports society and the individuals in it. My opponent stated that in his value that breaking a moral law for a good purpose is wrong. However, there will be consequences on the affirmative. Affirmative side should not be judged upon this. To be morally permissible, it is the intention that should be judged. Because the act of killing one in order to save many is noble, it is morally permissible. In the decision of doing this, killing one would be a last resort. The reason for killing one is that there is no alternative solution to the matter. Value Criterion: My opponent's value criterion is not clear. Value criterions are supposed to support value statements, not tell the requirements for this debate. That is for observations or analysis. Therefore the criterion is dropped. Contentional 1: My opponent also did not set measurements of morality. Therefore, it is vague. By moral, meaning the principles of right and wrong behavior, the act to save more people by killing one can be justified as moral. In the definition provided moral can also mean a moral obligation. A human being has the duty to protect humanity. Moral also means conforming to the right standard of behavior. As stated above, in the definition of moral to conform to the right standard behavior means to act in accordance and together (majority) in deciding wrong from right. Therefore, why is it not moral to save more lives? Killing and condemning people are the same thing. Killing is the last resort of a situation that brings harm, meaning death, to innocent people. By taking inaction will result in further sacrifices, but by taking the initiative to kill one will save more. Contentional 2: My opponent states that it is wrong mentality. In my opponent's definition, it states that morality is conforming to a standard of right behavior. "Conforming" means to act in accordance or harmony. Therefore, it supports that all people are equal in social standards. Thus, moral meaning conforming to a standard behavior and innocent meaning free from evil motives and morals contradicts wrong mentality. By conforming in to a standard behavior of right means that the majority judges the term of innocence. If a person is suspected of being a terrorist, there must be a clear reason why the person is suspected of being a terrorist. Therefore, it is not mentality wrong since the majority conforms to the decision. A. Why is killing wrong, "no matter what"? Killing is the last resort to a situation that causes harms, meaning death, to people. By saying killing is wrong, no matter what, it means that no matter how crucial or life-threatening the situation is, we must not kill. The intention should be judged. If by killing more, more lives are saved then it has the intention of saving more lives. Therefore, killing is not wrong no matter what. B. By happiness, I defined it as the absence of physical pain. If the greater majority is protected, there will be more happiness, meaning less physical pain. There will be less physical pain to the majority. C. Again, mentality is conformed by the majority since moral by the definition is conforming to the right standard of behavior. The majority conforms what is wrong mentality. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.