It is ok to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people

I'm not sure if my opponent was able to understand the logic I presented in my case, because he probably wouldn't ahve made such arguments if that was the case. This round, I will be rebutting to my opponent's case =)======================================================================Hypothetical Scenario:My opponent brings up a hypothetical scenario. He states, "...500 unsuspecting people will blow up if you do not kill this unconcious male" Rebuttal 1: This scenario is a little absurd to me. It doesn't make any logical sense. Following the logic that I stated in my opening case, the problem with this scenario can easily be seen. Let's break down the problems with this resolution, and apply it to the logic that I stated in my first case.1. The resolution explicitly mentions one innocent person and one innocent group of people. In this case, the innocent person is the man trapped in the room. and the group of people are the 500 unsspecting people.2. Here is the problem. How exactly do you save 500 people by killing an unconcious man??? I don't get it. How does that make any sense? My opponent just spews out some scenario, but the scenario doesn't actually make any sense.3. In order for this scenario to actually make sense, we have to add some details. How exactly does killing the unconcious male help save 500 people? Since my opponent doesn't bother to explain, I will just make something up. Let's assume that this male is a "bad" guy who is holding these 500 people hostage and killing him is essential to saving the people. The problem with this is that if the guy is holding people hostage, then he is not innocent in the first place.4. Again, I don't understand what the heck my opponent is trying to say. If you kill an unconcious male, you can save 500 people??? Is it just me that's not following his logic?? I just don't understand how it logically works out.Rebuttal 2: My opponent's scenario doesn't flow logically, but I can understand what he's trying to say. Instead of completely disregarding his scenario, I will come up with a scenario that resembles what he's trying to say, but with it actually making sense: You live in a village that has been taken over by other enemies from other lands. in the middle of this situation, you have a small infant only about 10 months old. one day the soldiers march in the village and start to kill any body they see. as a last attempt you take your child and hide in a nearby building where you discover there are many other people there. you hear the soldiers passing by, and everybody being quite. then you notice your baby start to cry. you put your hand on your baby's mouth but soon realize that he is struggling to breath so what would you do? kill your own baby by suffocating him or let your hand go and letting the soldiers hear which would most likely kill the rest, you and the baby.I think this is the type of situation that my opponent was trying to give me. Once again, using the logic I stated in my first case, I will show the problems with this scenario.1. First, there are two groups here. The innocent baby and the innocent village people.2. Next, their is a thrid person who is faced with the choice of killing the innocent person. In this case, we have the person facing the dillema of killing the baby3. There is also a 4th group here. And that is the people that are threatening the innocent group of people. In this case, that would be the soldiers.4. As I stated in my case, there can be no certainty that the fourth human agent will allow the many innocent people to live even if the understood person kills the one innocent person.5. It cannot be morally permissible to, it can not be morally permissible to kill one innocent person because Affirmative can not be certain that this fourth party would actually cease the threat. Rebuttal 2: While I have already proven that my opponent's scenario makes no sense, I could make up a situation that could suit my case as well:For example: Let's say we have 5 people in need of a transplant. One needs a heart, another needs kidney, 2 of them need new lungs, and the last one needs a liver. In this situation, we could ask one person to essentially kill hiimself so that he can give all of his organs away to save these 5 patients. But does that sound moral? If someone walked up to you and said, can you donate all your organs to 5 other people. You'll die, but they'll all live.Does that sound Morally Permissible?? Would you do that?Now this leads to another interesting argument that my opponent may make in a future round, which I will address right now, and prove the problems withit to get it out of the way. The argument that mmy opponent would give is: "It is permissible to kill oneself to save many."My rebuttal to this is simple:The affirmative‘s own resolution says that one who dies must be innocent. If this person is threatening the many with death, then that person can not be innocent. If the person is forced to kill himself, then the responsibility is on the one who forced the death. Either way, in this situation, the justification or permission for the death does not exist. ===============================================================Good luck to my opponent. I look forward to his arguments