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

He first claims that my value is inferior because it is not stated or implied within the resolution. My answer to this is that morality cannot exist without Societal Order. Societal Order is a prerequisite for his value, making my value superior. Criterion Attacks: You can ignore his turn because the law does not allow you to violate it even to save life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The law must have no exceptions if it is going to work. Hypothetical imperatives, such as that of moral proportionality, are inconsistent and lose their power. A categorical imperative is much more effective because there are no exceptions. His turn just violates my VC. His drop argument is also flawed. Laws are fallible, but following them is necessary. If everyone decided to break laws that they found unjust, laws would soon lose their power. In order for the Rule of Law to be upheld the law must be followed. It can be questioned, it can be fought, but it must be followed. Again, you don't drop my first contention, as my VC is fine. He then says that killing innocents is not murder. It is. He brings up the example of war. An innocent would not be harmed in a just and moral war. Even if we bombed there nation, we would attack their military. The enemy military is not innocent, and it is morally permissible to kill them. Civilian non-combatants are innocents, and they cannot be killed, as international law has us minimize civilian casualties. Civilian death can be made non-existent, which is minimizing it. Therefore, killing a civilian is violating the rule of law. Remember, letting die is not illegal, although it should be avoided if we can do so without violating the law. Killing an innocent is illegal even in a state of war. He then says nothing would justify war. That is not true. It is in accordance with international law to wage many wars. If we have a legitimate cause, we can wage war. Evil can be fought within the bounds of the law. Police officers exist for a reason. Law has no power if it is not absolute, exceptions cannot exist. There is a reason murder laws don't say we can kill to save more people. On my opponent's case, as I said before, my value is necessary for your value to exist. His criterion does not link to my value so it is dropped. He then claims his criterion is not consequentialism. Consequentialism is any theory of morality the relies on the outcome or consequence of an action to determine morality. The outcome of an action is not always evident, and is not in the control of the moral agent. It is not his fault if he accidentally causes genocide while trying to save lives. He is not a bad person, but under my opponent's VC he is bad, and the mugger I mentioned earlier is a good man. Obviously, there is something wrong. Contention 1: Again,it is dropped because his VC is flawed. I rebutted the subpoints when I attacked the contention as a whole. Positive consequences cannot have a bearing on morality. They can be accidental, or unintended. Consequences are uncontrollable, they cannot constitute morality. Contention 2: Like I said earlier, consequences are uncontrollable and often occur by chance, they cannot equal morality. Contention 3: He links this to my VC/value. This is flawed. The Rule of Law does not allow one to break it. It has absolute authority. It needs to. You cannot link something that violates to my case. This point is dropped. I will not post in R3, so as to keep this debate somewhat like LD.