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." --> He uses a messed up logic here. If morality cannot exist without societal order, then societal order would be a VC, not the main value. Furthermore, my value still is superior on the fact it is the implied resolution. The resolution specifically asks for what is morally permissible. You can turn this argument against him, and say that since his value is now a VC, he cannot the round because he cannot achieve anything, unless he accepts moral permissibility as the superior value. "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." --> Ok, my opponent has just dropped his VC. By claiming that even the law does not allow you to violate it to save more of the 3 inalienable rights, then the rule of law means nothing. If you take my opponents definition of the rule of law in: "…society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates..."; here you can drop right away. Even in his quote from John Locke he is implying that members of society have a right to defend those 3 inalienable rights. Furthermore, by inaction more of those rights are lost, meaning society has failed in its duty to protect those rights, which according to him, undermine the rule of law. Now you can infer that to uphold the rule of law, members must take action to protect society against these violations. Without them, my opponents rule of law means nothing. So, you either have to sacrifice to save society, or not act and cause a great harm to society, which is the basis of the rule of law. --> E.g. The resolution asks to save one for more people. Ok, lets say that killing the one is necessary to save the existence of the human race. If he does not act human existence would die off, and he would live for a partial amount of time (until he dies). Now, link this to his VC. What is the importance of the rule of law, if there is no society for it to govern over? Thus I argue that to maintain the rule of law, it sometimes must be undermined to save society. "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. " --> I have a simple argument. The right must be followed over the written. According to your logic, The American Revolution was not justified, and African Americans were acting immorally by running away from their slave masters. I argue that what is moral is not always dictated by the law, therefore his VC is flawed and can be dropped totally. "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." --> lol, a law doesn't prevent mishaps. That's why I brought up the double effect. It is impossible 100% to not kill at least one innocent in war. We can MINIMIZE it, yes, but it isn't eliminated. Furthermore, according to you it is wrong to kill, and is a categorical imperative (Referring to your VC response). Ok, a categorical is unconditional. Therefore, according to you, it is wrong to kill in self-defense, wrong to kill evil doers, wrong to commit war. By negating the resolution for his contention I, you are opening up a world where terror reigns because it is ALWAYS wrong to kill. turn this against his VC. By claiming the categorical imperative, he is leaving the innocent people undefended against evil doers. Thus, the rule of law means nothing in a world where the law is an imperative. Furthermore, going back to his VC, it would be wrong for someone to go through a red light, even if there are no cars around, while a person is dying in the back seat. See, the flaw in his case. He is making the law by letter only, not the spirit. To save society and to maximize life, going against the written law is necessary. "The ends may justify the means as long as there is something to justify the ends." Moving to defend my own case: "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." --> Ok, lets look at this. You can turn this against my opponent as well. If you kill the larger group, later on you can find out that the person saved is Osama Bin Laden who goes and commits another act of terror. There is a flaw in my opponents reasoning. Of course the future, future events are not known, but the present moment is in front of you. You are in a moral dilemma. What ought you to do? Let a larger group die, or let one person die? This is the whole idea of moral proportionality. At that moment it would be immoral for you to let the larger group die. One action out of the 2 is morally permissible. Thus, the one with the better outcome at that moment is the morally permissible one. "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." --> He brushes off these points because he says well its the consequences. Ok, but lets go through my sub-points. Would it be morally permissible to devalue life and save the greater number? Would it be morally permissible to increase the number of right violations? Would it be morally permissible to create collateral damage? Would it be morally permissible to increase pain in society? What would you do in this situation? If you answered that all of these outcomes are immoral, then you have affirmed the resolution. At this moment, what is the morally permissible action? My opponents never responds to this and he merely says well we don't know. Ok then, the negative has chosen death as the action which is morally permissible. --> Situational ethics are part of morality and claim that in a moral dilemma, then the outcome must be evaluated. "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." --> My opponent fails to refute my attack. Essentially the rule of law is nothing if it hurts those that it needs to protect. Rules and actions ought to protect society. If it does not it is immoral. Thank you ladies and ge