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

Value: My opponent claims that his value of morality does not contradict. However, when he provided the definition of the term morality he is going to use, he used "conforming to a standard of right behavior". My opponent did not clearly mention moralality of being a social standard of right or wrong because according to his definition, it states "conform". My opponent did not refute this matter. "Contention 1: He advocates killing, an immoral act, to save others. So therefore, my opponent should indeed be judged on this, since if he's not judged on this, there is nothing for him to be judged on, since that is the crux of the affirmative case." Killing is the last solution to a matter where all the rest of the solutions are thought of. Therefore, if killing was the last solution to a problem it can not be immoral because then many more would die from it. Killing without justice is wrong; however, in this situation killing one will lead to the saving of many more lives, giving justice. My opponent states that killing is immoral, reasoning that killing is "always" murder, then my opponent is justifying that war is immoral as well. For example if a person was to go out in war to defend his or her country and an opposing side shoots at that person who is trying to defend his or her country, and kills the opposing person, then it is a good sacrifice, but definitely not a murder or immoral act. As of this example, "moral" act is on behalf of the country. On the other hand, robbing a bank and getting killed by the bank security guard would be considered immoral and murder. It proves that on the Affirmative side, killing is not immoral. "I agree, the intention should be judged. However, it should not override the actual action itself. In this case, the intention would most likely be a good one. However, that does not eclipse the fact that he is still killing. Killing is an immoral act." My opponent still does not clearly define immoral. Killing is thought of when other solutions can not act. Therefore, it is the lesser of the evils. The choice of the lesser evil must be acceptable, or the greater evil will occur. For example, we want peace, but in order to do so, we must maintain an army (just in case). We desire mutual responsibility and respect, but still a police force is needed. Therefore, if greater evil exists, then the law must allow room for choosing the lesser evil. "So in other words, you advocate killing an INNOCENT PERSON! Let me make this clear. The victim has not done anything wrong. The victim has done nothing to deserve this fate. It is not a noble act because you are killing. You are devaluing one person's life, in favor of other lives. You are saying that we can kill an innocent person, just because we have good intentions. That is not noble. It is wrong to think that we can justify killing." My opponent believes that killing is not justified. During World War II, there were a group of men who tried to assassinate Hitler with the goal of preventing the spread of the deaths of the other MILLIONS DEATHS of people. If the group of men were to have succeeded then the people would not have had to suffer the holocaust. Killing is justified because it is for the lesser evil. The choice of the lesser evil is justified as long as one can do nothing to prevent the greater evil. If we were to follow my opponent's beliefs, then the more people would have died for the sake of not killing just one person. Many more people would have to suffer and die. One death CAN NOT REPLACE the deaths of many others. In other words, the negative side kills more people by justifying that no one would die. Thus, the affirmative is better since it is trying to save more people rather than refusing to. "Contention 1:However, even if we have a duty to protect humanity, you have not shown why doing so is a morally correct action. You have just shown that that is what most people would do. Just because the majority of people do it does not make it right." A human being has the duty to protect humanity because then it will protect society. By protecting society will prevent any "road of destruction". Society contains the laws to govern people and maintain a steady and regulated environment where people can live. Thus by protecting humanity, we are protecting society which prevents a downfall in to anarchy. "No, that is your opinion of what makes something right and wrong. I happen to think that morality exists beyond humans. Morality is there, and humans do not effect it. Because you have not warrant to this claim, it must be disregarded. You cannot prove this claim, so it should be thrown out from the debate." The word, "conform" has no alternative definitions other than to act in accordance or be in harmony or even to bring about agreement of a society. Unfortunately, my opponent believes that I am merely stating my opinions. (Please search it up in a dictionary) However, I am not since conform means to be in agreement and in harmony. Therefore, by acting in harmony or agreement by society, it basically supports the majority. My opponent believes that morality is there and that humans do not effect it. If humans do not affect it, what is morality. My opponent contradicts himself here too since he just said that humans do not effect morality which means goes against his definition he provided himself stating morality is "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment". If humans do not affect morals, morals can not exist. Morals are ethical beliefs that for centauries humans based their experiences on in deciding the right from the wrong. Isn't that why deontology and utilitarism exist as of now? By saying that humans do not effect morality clearly means that my opponent proves himself wrong. He himself believes that killing is immoral. Saying that morals are not affected by humans mean that there lies a strict protocol of what is wrong or right. "I do not think it is immoral to save more lives. I think that it is immoral to kill one innocent person, to save more lives." Here my opponent contradicts himself since he believes it not be to immoral to save more lives but immoral to kill one person. In all the cases I presented to you, I clearly stated "life or death matter", meaning that killing is the last resort to a situation. Since you have not refuted about the type of scenario I presented, my opponent agrees to my examples. Therefore, it is impossible to think that killing one is immoral yet saving more is not because it would be impossible to not kill one person and to save more in the cases I presented. "You are saying that we would save more people, but does that really justify killing an innocent person?" The affirmative side is saving more people while the negative side decides not to. In a life or death situation, the affirmative side would be saving while the negative side would ultimately be killing. (In this situation where all other alternative solutions are carefully thought over but can not solve the life or death matter). If this is so, then the negative side would be killing more people, refusing the chance to save more lives. Two parts of justice are as known: punishment and the violation of another's right. Punishment is a result from combinations of revenge and collective social sympathy. Revenege has no moral function, and collective social symphathy is equivalent to social utilitary, Also, violations of rights are derived from utility. Therefore, rights are claims that one has on society to protect us. Therefore, society protects "Contention 2: We could justify killing all sorts of innocent people by saying that it would save many more people. My argument is that this mentality of justifying killing is wrong." Why would it be a ripple effect? The affirmative side will kill one only to save more. That is not bad mentality. Again, in a situation of life or death matter, saving more i