It is morrally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other......

"First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later. Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later." Actually I did. I've made it a valid point by integrating it into every point that I made. So it's there and your denial of that is costing you the debate. "Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable." What's your point? If you don't kill the one the rest WILL DIE!!! So what does that tell you? It tells you that we must kill the one and save the many. ""The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives," went uncontested because (a) The statement is obvious. The resolution implies that the debate is inaction vs action, so why do I need to address the fact that you want to repeat it? ___and___ (B) I don't have to prove ANYTHING except it isn't morally permissable. " a) here's what I wrote in Round 2 that you failed to see, "In the words of French President Nicholas Sarcozy, When an individual has the knowledge of a situation in which he or she has the ability to assist another and chooses to be innactive, they have commited a vile offence against hummanity. Basically, if you don't choose to kill the one to save the many then you might as well be thrusting a rusty knife into the hearts of those you chose not to save. Innaction is an action in an of itself and everyone is resoponsible for the consequences of their own innaction." b) We both have burdens of proof. You have to prove everything YOU say and I have to prove everything I say. So far I've fulfilled my burden of proof and you have not. Thus I'm am winning this debate. It is also your burden to prove me wrong and mine to prove you wrong. In this you are also failing. "It isn't possible for you to prove the people will be saved." I did so deal with it. This isn't a realistic debate. It is an idealogical one. Thus we must answer it in that way. "Killing is wrong." No. Murder is wrong. Murder is killing hatefully or neglectfully. Ending life is not wrong since life always comes to an end anyway. It is the reasons that you do it that matter. "Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner"" So you are basically saying screw the majority in favor of the minority. You're no better than what you're accusing me of. "Selfish, huh? The fact that you're calling him selfish because he doesn't want you to kill him to compensate for the bad luck of the other few IS INSANE. Plus, how does this make him no longer innocent. Moreover, if you decide you want to prove why this is selfish, what's wrong with him being selfish when it comes to someone taking his life for an unreliable, unrelated, unjust, and unpredictable cause?" Yes, selfish. I defined innocent of devoid of this and since you didn't counter that with your own definition you must accept that so get over it. Selfishness = Non-innocence. "You stating "The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example." Holds no water in an argument with me. You've seem to forgotten, I'm not for the resolution. I'm looking to find fallacies within the resolution and prove why the resolution is wrong. So you stating "But the resolution says so" doesn't mean anything to me for the simple fact that TO ME THE RESOLUTION IS WRONG SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS. One the reasons why it's wrong is because we can predict the future in the actual event. Only when we're in the "pretend phase."" You just violated rule numero uno of LD debate: The resolution is always true in the CIRCUMSTANCES IT GIVES YOU. and only wrong in the choice it makes concerning those circumstances IF the negative can prove that. Thus my observations of the CIRCUMSTANCES are undebateable. If you are going to take this debate then read up on the LD rules. "Which definition seems to be ridiculed with opinion in order to skew the arguments to one side, and should thus be thrown out? Should't be too hard to figure out here. But this isn't even the striker. The funny part is how you have basically said the EXACT same thing as mine, but have added the "my side is right" into your definition and then saying yours is more accurate. The underlying point in the definitions is that we're distiniguishing if the act of killing someone is good or bad. This said, how is yours more accurate?" So what if my definition is slightly one sided. It sticks if you don't prove it incorrect. Since you didn't prove it incorrect then I guess it sticks so, again, deal with it. "You're arguing something TOTALLY different than what you're suppose to be saying. This debate isn't about the ends at all! it boils down to if the action of killing is bad" Here's the point o simple minded one. Because of the ends of saving more human lives, the means of killing only one is therefor justified. You're the one who brought up the ends not justifieing the means in the first place. because of this we must vote aff because my opponent wasted his round 2 complaining about my debate rather than actually debating. Thus... Vote NEG thank you.