it is morally permissible to kill one innocent life to save more innocent lives

I will respond to R2 by selecting my opponent's main ideas and then refuting them as I go along... "First regardless of the fact that i simply just layed out my points rather then elaborating on them the initial ideas should still be flowed throughout the round for there significance is of vital interest to this debate." --> Actually, no, Pro has the burden of elaborating on any point that he wishes to be addressed, especially if he believes the point to be in his favor. Why should any points based on utalitarianism, for instance, be granted to him in the round, if he did not elaborate or explain why that criterion applied to his case? Regardless of how important that idea may be to his debate, Pro has the responsibility of explaining why and how in order to get people to understand his idea. Pro failed to accomplish this in R1, however, has the ability to make his points in later rounds. "what my opponent fails to understand is that either way on either side people are going to get killed as a result of the end decision so what you need to refer to is a quantitative number." --> No, I understand that either 1 or 3 people are going to die. However, I have pointed out that killing in general is wrong, whether it be killing 1 or killing 3. I have also pointed out that in terms of a moral outcome, there is no way to tell that saving 3 is more preferable than saving 1. What if the 3 people were immoral or better yet just ordinary citizens, whereas the 1 person that Pro is suggesting we sacrifice is a Mother Theresa type character who would do an insurmountable amount of good for society? In that case, Pro's argument of the greatest good for the greatest number would be dismantled, as in saving this 1 person would be better for society as opposed to saving 3. "my opponents sole contentions are based off of nothing other then ASSUMPTIONS that are used in a way of favoring her side." --> True, and I agree. However likewise, all of Pro's points are based on assumptions as well (that saving 3 people will automatically generate the most moral outcome for the greater good of society). I have established how this presumption is unwarranted. "by negating you are essentially saying that every combatant in every war ever fought commited an immoral act." --> This is a completely abusive statement, as it barely pertains to the resolution at all. It's also a statement drawing on sympathy and dripping with manipulation -- nobody has ever said that soldiers have done immoral things. If Pro wishes to use war as an example in his defense, he should introduce the topic and explain it thoroughly rather than going into a mini tirade that is completely unwarranted. He has not explained how warfare pertains to the topic, and if he had, I would refute it effectively. Be prepared, however, that even the subject of war does not rise above my point that killing is inherently immoral, even if your government brainwashes you to think otherwise... more about this later (if my opponent chooses to bring it up). "so in conclusion my idea of a util based society should still stand the reason of total consequentialism supporting it should still stand for it only makes sense as well as my contentoins pertaing to war and morals should still stand" --> I disagree. Pro has not made and certainly not won any arguments in this round nor in R1, especially on the grounds of either his value or value criterion. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with in R3. Thanks.