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

"My opponent provides several compelling arguments however, there is a major flaw in the base on which his negation is built. That flaw lies in his definition of morality as normative, therefor absolute and then his transition to a statement claiming that morality is individually based, which negates his first claim of the absolute nature of morality. Logically, morality cannot be both absolute and individually based. Morals and societal agreement of normative behavior are either individually or societally established or they are absolute. They cannot be all three." --> I apologize for my unclear observation. I wasn't posing that morality is based on individual preference, because that would make it subjective. Thus, going against my definition, as my opponent has brought up. The meaning behind my observation was that something cannot be claimed morally permissible based on calculation and sole number. A morally permissible action must be on an individual basis, i.e. killing is wrong because it violates the individuals human dignity. I'm sorry for the confusion in my words. "I argue that morality is established individually, supported by societal acceptance and agreement but is not and has never been absolute. Society influences each humans acceptance and notion of what is moral or right and wrong, and those ideas change with human situation and debate and perspective of the things that are real and important in life. For examples to prove this we only need to look at examples of ancient man's notion of morality....." --> My opponent makes a flawed argument. Something can be absolute in a certain time period. I am arguing that killing (at this moment) is absolutely immoral. Therefore, it is immoral to kill to save more people. "1. Killing one innocent person to save the lives of more people actually fortifies the equal worth of all individuals. My opponent contends that killing an innocent undermines society's duty to protect and maintain the equal human worth of all people. At face value, this appears valid, but denies the loss of value and greater human life that would result, if the individual was left alive. In order to contend that killing the individual is unequal and requires a position of superiority, one MUST ignore the fact that not killing the individual would result in the loss of far more individual human lives. Therefore, if equality of value is acknowledged in individual human life, we would have no other choice but to sacrifice one, for the many as the many hold more intrinsic value. If all human life is weighed equally, then it is clear that the loss of more human life, is more immoral and tragic than the loss of one human life." --> Extend my observation 2. I already conceded that in the end it is NECESSARY to kill the one innocent to save the greater number. However, the action still is immoral because it violates the human worth of that one individual. The negative does not have to prove that letting the alrger number die is moral compared to kill one. I just have to prove that killing one is still immoral. You can drop my opponents attack based on: 1. My observation #2 2. Moral calculation fallacy. I.e. that a sole number determines a moral action. Killing one still violates their human worth and uses them as a tool. This violates morality. "A) Dehumanization. The sacrifice of a single human as a means to save multiple humans can be viewed in many ways. Instead of devaluing the required sacrifice of the individual, I choose to view that death, not as a means to an ends or that person as a tool, rather, I choose to view that person's death as an affirmation of life. That person, rather than being a tool, is truly a savior and protector of human life." --> The fact still remains that you have forcefully killed another human for an end purpose. Therefore, you have devalued them to a rank of inanimate object. "2. John Locke's Social Contract does affirm the rights of the individual, but only when those rights don't infringe on society. For instance. According to Loche's Contract, I have an inalienable right to life. That right however is forfeited when I commit crime or actively threaten the lives of others. While that would disqualify me as an innocent, it still highlights the fact, that when society is threatened, inalienable rights quickly become alienable. If the innocent life or existence of an individual threatens the lives of many, mankind, valuing individual human life, must be compelled to protect it to the best of his ability. In this scenario, that includes taking one innocent life." --> My opponent claims a part of the Harm principle. However, my opponent fails to mention that Locke applied this only to external rights. I.e. rights given by government. The harm principle excludes the violation of the inalienable rights. Why? Because they cannot be forfeited no matter what crime is committed. The right to life cannot be taken way by any member of society. --> (Turn) Turn my opponents rebuttal against him. Murder is illegal and immoral. If you use what my opponent said then it would be necessary for the government to take away the right to life of the person who killed the innocent. Furthermore, helping a criminal would also make the people who were saved, criminals. Thus they lose rights to. "B) Protection of individual's rights is of paramount importance to our society, but slightly less so than protection of the society itself. For instance, an example of the plague can be utilized here. If an innocent individual contracted a new strain of plague, that was airborne and highly contagious, we as a protective society, would be forced to alienate that individual's human rights and perhaps even kill that innocent in order to protect our species and society. My opponents defense of the rights of the individual at all cost, would lead to the death of millions, and if completely adhered to by all, would lead to the eventual extinction of the human race due to disease." --> Observation #2: Saving more is necessary but immoral because you have violated an individuals right. "Morality dictates that isolating and extinguishing the plague ridden human, irregardless of his rights, would be morally permissible simple because of the resulting affirmation and protection of all other individuals." --> (Consequentialist Fallacy) It is impossible to know the consequences of an act, and if it will truly protect society as a whole. E.g. What if the innocent being killed would have discovered a cure for cancer, but you kill him anyway. You have stripped the cure and thus potential millions of lives would be lost. Thus, you have not protected society as a whole. Morality based on outcomes is flawed because all the outcomes can never be known, thus an action may come back to bite you in the future. 3. Self Preservation --> I apologize, but my opponenet did not create a clear value and value criterion for the round, which in LD would mean an automatic loss. I was trying to be nice by inferring that he had one. --> (Overview attack) May it be self-preservation or survival of a species, my attacks still remain, because of the slippery slope effect. Furthermore, extend my consequentialist fallacy argument against his argument. It can never be known what will protect the human race. It may be that killing one has doomed the race forever. [Voting Issues] 1. I win Value structure debate, since he doesn't provide one. 2. His case falls based on the notion of slippery slope, and the consequentialist fallacy 3. My case stands because his attacks are all based on the moral calculation fallacy. For these reasons I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.