The Instigator
resolutionsmasher
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

It is morrally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other......

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
snelld7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,162 times Debate No: 7959
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

resolutionsmasher

Pro

My opponent needs to present his case in LD format. If you don't know what LD format is then you are not to take this debate.

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." It's because that I agree with this quote from Jeremy Bentham that I urge an affirmation of the following resolution:

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

For clarity in today's debate I offer the following definitions of key terms and phrases from Merriam Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Morally - In a manner calculated to serve as the basis of action; according to the usual course of things and human judgment; according to reason and probability.
Permissible - That may be permitted; allowable; admissible.
Kill – to cause to die.
Innocent - An innocent person; one free from, or unacquainted with, guilt or sin.
Lives - The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death.

Before I continue with the case I would like to make three observations concerning the resolution.
1. According to the resolution, it is asking if killing an innocent to save the lives of more innocent people is morally permissible, not morally normative. The difference is that a morally permissible action changes to each circumstance while a morally normative action is in a sense absolute.
2. The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives. Abraham Lincoln once said that "action and inaction are both conscious choices and are equally praiseworthy or blameworthy if their outcomes are the same." Inaction is the cause of the death of a larger group of people, thus inaction is immoral.
3. The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted.

The affirmative values moral permissibility since it is the clearest value indicated by the resolution. The value of moral permissibility is upheld by the criterion of moral proportionality. Moral proportionality is defined as the weighing of consequences in determining a morally permissible action. When faced with a moral dilemma in which killing and condemning to death are the only options, the outcome of a specific act ought to be evaluated in determining the permissibility of that action.

To prove my position I would like to offer 3 points of contention.
Contention I: Positive consequences
Contention II: Situational Ethics
Contention III: The Harm Principle

Contention I: Positive consequences
Sub-point A) Maximizing the protection of life. On both the affirmative and negative's side, some type of life will eventually be lost. To uphold moral proportionality, the action which yields the greatest amount of life would ultimately be morally permissible. By killing one innocent, a larger number of people are being saved, thus maximizing the most amount of life possible. By not acting, the negative is condemning a greater number of people to death, thus acting immorally in their decision. For morality to be achieved, protecting life is pinnacle. The affirmative better maximizes the protection of life thus upholding a morally permissible action.

Sub-point B) Reducing negative right violations. Since the negative will eventually lead to a greater loss of life, a larger amount of rights are being violated. Violating the right to life of all these people is the clearest, however it stretches farther. All rights spring from the right to life. Without life, it is impossible to do anything. Life is necessary to pursue happiness, own property, speak freely, etc. The negative will ultimately end up in a large amount of right violations. By violating these rights, the negative is acting immorally. Therefore, the affirmative better protects the rights of a larger number of people.

Sub-point C) Reducing collateral damage. Essentially, a morally permissible action is one that reduces collateral damage. The affirmative prevents collateral damage from occurring, by killing one innocent to save many people. For something to be truly right in action, the action must not create wide-spread death or destruction. The negative ends up with many people dead, which is the greatest damage possible to a human being. To achieve moral permissibility, reduction of collateral damage is essential.

Sub-point D) Utilitarianism. "The greatest good for the greatest number." Ultimately the greater good should be protected to make an action morally permissible. The affirmative is maximizing the amount of social happiness by saving the greater number of people. Utilitarianism demands that an action should reap the greatest amount of happiness possible. The affirmative in comparison to the negative protects more people thus creating a greater amount of social happiness. J.S. Mill writes "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness, is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." Basically he's saying that moral actions promote the general happiness of society, and reduce pain in society. The more pain that is brought to society, the more immorality is spread. To reduce pain, one sacrifice is necessary.

Contention II: Situational Ethics
According to situational ethics, when deciding a moral action, 2 things are necessary: 1) The action itself and 2) the outcome and consequences of that action. However, situational ethics go further. When faced with a moral dilemma, such as the one implied by the resolution, the outcome should be foremost. Since there will be some amount of death, the permissibility of an action is determined by the outcomes. To save the larger amount of people, killing one innocent is necessary. The negative violates these ethics on the fact of inaction. By not acting, more people will die, which makes it immoral. J.S. Mill writes: "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." Life must be saved in this case, according to situational ethics. Since the outcome is much better on the affirmative, situational ethics demand that we take the action of killing one to save the greater number.

Contention III: The Harm Principle
According to the harm principle, as stated by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, an action is morally permissible if it prevents a greater harm to people and society. Since people are members of a larger society, we must insure the greater protection of it. As individuals our actions must protect society from a greater harm. J.S. Mill writes: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." By sacrificing the innocent to save more people, a greater harm to society is being avoided, thus making it morally permissible.
snelld7

Con

Acting in the situation of the resolution, allows everyone to walk away from the situation innocent, except the actor.

A trolley has run out of control and is speeding toward the end of the track where it will then kill all 3 passengers. There is an innocent bystander whom happens to be severely overweight (which you intend to push onto the tracks), you think he will have enough weight to stop the trolley thus saving 3 innocent lives, however you will be killing him. If you hurl yourself in front of the trolley it will simply tear you apart because you do not weigh enough. Is it ok to push this man in front of the trolley? Of course it isn't! Why, one might ask. Simply due to the fact that you would be attempting to take the life of an innocent bystander just to make up for the BAD LUCK of the few. Put it this way, would you like it if he turned around and pushed you onto the tracks of the trolley? No you would not, but why? Because he would be attempting to steal your life without consulting you about it to make sure it is ok. It is funny how people will allow for someone else to be pushed or even push the someone else themselves, but if the tides are flipped and they are the one being pushed, it suddenly becomes wrong unjust and immoral.

It is because of these previous words that I cannot concur with the following. Resolved "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people." My value is that of morality. Morality being defined as the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.

My Value criterion will therefore be that of De ontology. This is best defined as, is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Now, in LD debate your value criterion is suppose to support your value. For instance, you know your value is there when your value criterion is present.

Keeping that in mind, lets move to my opponents Value and Value criterion. His value is that of moral permissibility and his value criterion is that of moral proportionality. This stands the test of seeing if one upholds the other, however he is under false pretenses. He says the consequences are either, "kill or condemn to death." He is under the misconceived notion that if you do nothing you are condemning the people to death. My opponent is using a conjugation of the word "condemn" in order to put the weight of the deaths on the shoulder of the person who witnesses the horrifying event. I'd like to point out that in NO WAY is this person under fault. He did not put the few people in the position to lose their lives, so he is not the one responsible. Under his statements, he is saying that every citizen is obligated by morals to be a super hero or else you are directly responsible for any bad outcome. It is not wrong to witness a crime, ESPECIALLY if you were not the one who put the person into harms way.

Within his first contention my opponent attempts to justify his actions with utility. But fails to realize, Utilitarianism will only work if you take individual rights into consideration, in fact, every instance when utilitarianism is wrong is when it DOESN'T take individual rights into consideration. In other words, it is ok to accept utility if with going by the majority vote, nothing bad happens to the minority. Hitler attempted to get rid of the Jews because he felt as if it would better his community. Although the betterment of society is a great value to hold, and the betterment of society would be better for the majority of Germany (the non-Jew population being larger than the Jew population), you can easily see this is inherently flawed due to the fact of horrible treatment of the innocent Jews. You cannot have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Which is exactly what is happening here.

This is where DEONTOLOGY comes into play. Looking at the actions themselves (like my opponent has said) it is INACTION VS MURDER. Is it hard to pick the more evil of the two?

My opponent mentioned that you have the right to life and by inaction you are violating that right.

he is right in one aspect of this sentence, you do have the right to life. However, the only way to violate this right is to kill. Seeing as how witnessing someone's death without being the person responsible for killing the person, isn't killing. The only way you're violating this right is if you affirm the resolution which is what you're doing.

=================================Bottom line is==================================

---To know if something is morally permissible or not, you must first understand what morals are.
My opponent is confused as to what MORALS actually are. When evaluating morality in an action, morals are based off of good and bad BEHAVIOR. The behavior present in the resolution is either Kill someone, or refuse to kill someone. In seeing this, you realize it is not morally permissible by this criteria.

In the situation of the resolution, it is impossible to determine if actions are moral or not by knowing what the consequences are because knowing the future is NOT present nor possible for the person in the actual situation. All he can do is merely speculate what could/should/would happen. The resolution isn't saying if you do this, this will happen. It's more so giving a motive for a crime. Saying, you are doing this...for this (You are killing in order to try to save). It is impossible to prove that you will WITHOUT A DOUBT save those people's lives. For example, Life guards are there TO save.... Surgeons are there TO save.... Policemen are there TO protect and save. But this doesn't mean they will necessarily save you ever time. But that they will TRY to save you.

This said[...]

You see that if you kill this person, it's possible for the others to not be saved! Leaving you stuck with ALL negatives in the situation. On the other hand, if you do nothing, EVERYTIME, the innocent bystander will always survive.

I sit and wait anxiously for your reply
Debate Round No. 1
resolutionsmasher

Pro

I would like to begin this round by reminding the voters of some key statements that I made that went unattested by my opponent. "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives." "A morally permissible action changes to each circumstance." and "The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted."
First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later.
Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later.
Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable.

Now on to my opponents statements.

He begins with an example story. First of all the resolution defines all parties in this debate as innocent. Thus if the "fat" man were to not be willing to give up his life then he would be selfish and that story would not apply to the resolution. Next is the fact that the one person to be sacrificed could very well be in the trolley and would thus die due to non-action anyway. All in all, a realistic example isn't practical in this debate due to the excessive variables. So allow me to pose a more efficient one. You have three innocent people. An unknown cause is about to surely kill two of them and possibly the third. The only way to save the lives of the two is to kill the third. If the third is killed the two WILL survive. The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example.

I will dispose of my opponent's definition of morality and provide a more accurate one. Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil.

My opponent uses the idea of the ends do not justify the means. This is false. As I have proved. No matter what means are used, there is some negative result in the given situation. Since morality is as I have defined it, the best of the choices despite the means, we must agree that killing the one to save the many is the morally justified path.

My opponent made this statement: "He did not put the few people in the position to lose their lives, so he is not the one responsible."

My opponent hasn't thought this situation through. The resolution as I have defined it dictates that the person making the desision has a definite ability to save the many soley through the means of killing the one. This ability, acording to popular belief, unquestionably puts the decider in a position of RESPONSIBILITY to make the right desision. For example, it is US federal law that anyone who is a "certified Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) must act to save the life of anyone in danger of losing it through a medical need that that individual has the ability to fulfill." Why does the federal government require this? Because the person has an ability to do the right thing and is thus expected to do it as the morilly justified reasoning.

In the words of French President Nicholas Sarcozy, "When an individual has the knowledge of a situation in which he or she has the ability to assist another and chooses to be innactive, they have commited a vile offence against hummanity."

Basically, if you don't choose to kill the one to save the many then you might as well be thrusting a rusty knife into the hearts of those you chose not to save. Innaction is an action in an of itself and everyone is resoponsible for the consequences of their own innaction.

He attacks my first contention by saying that utilitairanism in this situation is not looking at individual rights and to this I say that it is looking to individual rights. When we kill the one to save the many we value the individual rights of each and every one of that group. While the rights of the one are valuable, they are not above in value to the combined individual rights of the group. Because of this Utilitarianism still stands to prove my case as the better of the two. He uses Nazi Germany as an example. May I remind you that Nazi Germany is not an innocent entity and thus the problems that arise from such a situation do not apply to this debate. As the resolution implies, all parties in this situation are innocent and are equal when compared as individuals.

"INACTION VS MURDER. Is it hard to pick the more evil of the two?"

No it is not hard. Since the MURDER is the perfectly moral SACRIFICE. And since INACTION is equal to MASS MURDER as I have proved then the equation is this: MASS MURDER VS NECCESSARY SACRIFICE and NECCESSARY SACRIFICE is the obvious choice.

As I have proven, witnessing a death when you could have prevented it is murder. Thus my opponent's next attack falls through.

Now for his 'Bottom Line'

Yes behavior is morals. Either behave to kill many or only one. The choice that produces the best behavior and thus the moral choice is to only kill one.

It is not 'knowing the future' as my opponent states, but simply this. The resolution tells the consequences and thus we must act accordingly (refer you to my definition of the resolution). The resolution does not say killing to try to save. It says killing to save. Thus the definite result of killing the one is the salvation of the group. He gives examples but they are reallistic and contain to many variables. If we go with my perfect situation for the resolution then we see that the ability is not in question.

That said.....

There is no way for the decider to end up with a double negative result.

Because of these infalible arguments I urge all those who vote to do so in my favor.

thank you, I now wait to see what my opponent can come up with to deflect my attacks.
snelld7

Con

>>>>I would like to begin this round by reminding the voters of some key statements that I made that went unattested by my opponent. "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives." "A morally permissible action changes to each circumstance." and "The resolution implies that all other options have been exhausted."
First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later.
Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later.
Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, the part where you mentioned "The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives," went uncontested because (a) The statement is obvious. The resolution implies that the debate is inaction vs action, so why do I need to address the fact that you want to repeat it? ___and___ (B) I don't have to prove ANYTHING except it isn't morally permissable. I could adopt the side saying "It isn't morally permissable, but you do it anyways" if I really wanted to. All I have to do is prove why you're wrong, which i'm doing. The resolution is if an action is just or not. All I have to do is say it isn't and state why, not to uphold a completely different argument and plan something else that should happen instead. Being an LD debater. You should know this isn't how LD works, that's how POLICY debate works.

Second off, chance is unreliable? Chance has no factor? The resolution in itself is proof that we're debating things with a slim chance. The proposition on offer is if the action of killing someone is ok if you are doing it to save other people. For instance, life guards are there TO SAVE, pacemakers are there TO SAVE, doctors are there TO SAVE.... Do you see where I'm going with this point? It isn't a cause ===> effect (If you kill they're saved), it's more of an Action ===> consequence sort of thing (If you do this, is it ok?). And the reasons why it isn't ok is:
1) It isn't possible for you to prove the people will be saved. You must look at the resolution and apply it to real life if you're attempting to apply real morals and values to it. Like I said before, don't expect the result of something to be absolute. It is impossible for the person to know that if they kill the innocent, no matter what, it will save more people. They are merely speculating that if they kill the innocent, it MAY save the other people.
2) Killing is wrong. No matter how you look at it, killing this innocent man is wrong. It is a direct infringement upon his rights. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, I see you mention the word "sacrafice." In no way, does the resolution imply that the innocent being is sacraficing his life! If he did, arguing in the first place would be null and void because the person is telling you what to do. It doesn't say, "It is morally permissable to kill an innocent person who's willing to die for the cause, in order to save more innocent people," so don't try to add that in your side. It speaks of killing, not being willing. So take the action for what it is, MURDER.

and

3)Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner"
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

>>>>He begins with an example story. First of all the resolution defines all parties in this debate as innocent. Thus if the "fat" man were to not be willing to give up his life then he would be selfish and that story would not apply to the resolution. Next is the fact that the one person to be sacrificed could very well be in the trolley and would thus die due to non-action anyway. All in all, a realistic example isn't practical in this debate due to the excessive variables. So allow me to pose a more efficient one. You have three innocent people. An unknown cause is about to surely kill two of them and possibly the third. The only way to save the lives of the two is to kill the third. If the third is killed the two WILL survive. The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example.

Selfish, huh? The fact that you're calling him selfish because he doesn't want you to kill him to compensate for the bad luck of the other few IS INSANE. Plus, how does this make him no longer innocent. Moreover, if you decide you want to prove why this is selfish, what's wrong with him being selfish when it comes to someone taking his life for an unreliable, unrelated, unjust, and unpredictable cause?
You stating "The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example." Holds no water in an argument with me. You've seem to forgotten, I'm not for the resolution. I'm looking to find fallacies within the resolution and prove why the resolution is wrong. So you stating "But the resolution says so" doesn't mean anything to me for the simple fact that TO ME THE RESOLUTION IS WRONG SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS. One the reasons why it's wrong is because we can predict the future in the actual event. Only when we're in the "pretend phase."

>>>I will dispose of my opponent's definition of morality and provide a more accurate one. Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil.

Mine: Morality being defined as the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.

Yours:Morality is the distinction between good and evil when evil is present in all choices. Thus the moral choice is the one that presents the most good and/or the least evil.

-Hmmmm... Which definition seems to be ridiculed with opinion in order to skew the arguments to one side, and should thus be thrown out? Should't be too hard to figure out here. But this isn't even the striker. The funny part is how you have basically said the EXACT same thing as mine, but have added the "my side is right" into your definition and then saying yours is more accurate. The underlying point in the definitions is that we're distiniguishing if the act of killing someone is good or bad. This said, how is yours more accurate?

>>>>My opponent uses the idea of the ends do not justify the means. This is false. As I have proved. No matter what means are used, there is some negative result in the given situation. Since morality is as I have defined it, the best of the choices despite the means, we must agree that killing the one to save the many is the morally justified path.

You're arguing something TOTALLY different than what you're suppose to be saying. This debate isn't about the ends at all! it boils down to if the action of killing is bad
Debate Round No. 2
resolutionsmasher

Pro

"First of all my opponent failed to prove that inaction isn't wrong. I will again address this later.
Second, my opponent failed to address my circumstancial justice statement and this will also come into play later."

Actually I did. I've made it a valid point by integrating it into every point that I made. So it's there and your denial of that is costing you the debate.

"Third, because my opponent excepts that all other options have been exausted he must agree that this includes the possibility that the many will survive if you do not kill the one. Chance has no factor in this debate. Simply because it is unreliable."

What's your point? If you don't kill the one the rest WILL DIE!!! So what does that tell you? It tells you that we must kill the one and save the many.

""The resolution implies action vs. inaction. Therefore, my opponent must prove why inaction, which will end up in more deaths, is morally sound in comparison to action which would save more lives," went uncontested because (a) The statement is obvious. The resolution implies that the debate is inaction vs action, so why do I need to address the fact that you want to repeat it? ___and___ (B) I don't have to prove ANYTHING except it isn't morally permissable. "

a) here's what I wrote in Round 2 that you failed to see, "In the words of French President Nicholas Sarcozy, When an individual has the knowledge of a situation in which he or she has the ability to assist another and chooses to be innactive, they have commited a vile offence against hummanity. Basically, if you don't choose to kill the one to save the many then you might as well be thrusting a rusty knife into the hearts of those you chose not to save. Innaction is an action in an of itself and everyone is resoponsible for the consequences of their own innaction."
b) We both have burdens of proof. You have to prove everything YOU say and I have to prove everything I say. So far I've fulfilled my burden of proof and you have not. Thus I'm am winning this debate. It is also your burden to prove me wrong and mine to prove you wrong. In this you are also failing.

"It isn't possible for you to prove the people will be saved."

I did so deal with it. This isn't a realistic debate. It is an idealogical one. Thus we must answer it in that way.

"Killing is wrong."

No. Murder is wrong. Murder is killing hatefully or neglectfully. Ending life is not wrong since life always comes to an end anyway. It is the reasons that you do it that matter.

"Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner""

So you are basically saying screw the majority in favor of the minority. You're no better than what you're accusing me of.

"Selfish, huh? The fact that you're calling him selfish because he doesn't want you to kill him to compensate for the bad luck of the other few IS INSANE. Plus, how does this make him no longer innocent. Moreover, if you decide you want to prove why this is selfish, what's wrong with him being selfish when it comes to someone taking his life for an unreliable, unrelated, unjust, and unpredictable cause?"

Yes, selfish. I defined innocent of devoid of this and since you didn't counter that with your own definition you must accept that so get over it. Selfishness = Non-innocence.

"You stating "The resolution states "in order to save the lives..." not "to possibly save the lives..." thus someone WILL die in this situation. For the rest of this debate I will use this most appropriate idealogical example." Holds no water in an argument with me. You've seem to forgotten, I'm not for the resolution. I'm looking to find fallacies within the resolution and prove why the resolution is wrong. So you stating "But the resolution says so" doesn't mean anything to me for the simple fact that TO ME THE RESOLUTION IS WRONG SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT SAYS. One the reasons why it's wrong is because we can predict the future in the actual event. Only when we're in the "pretend phase.""

You just violated rule numero uno of LD debate: The resolution is always true in the CIRCUMSTANCES IT GIVES YOU. and only wrong in the choice it makes concerning those circumstances IF the negative can prove that. Thus my observations of the CIRCUMSTANCES are undebateable. If you are going to take this debate then read up on the LD rules.

"Which definition seems to be ridiculed with opinion in order to skew the arguments to one side, and should thus be thrown out? Should't be too hard to figure out here. But this isn't even the striker. The funny part is how you have basically said the EXACT same thing as mine, but have added the "my side is right" into your definition and then saying yours is more accurate. The underlying point in the definitions is that we're distiniguishing if the act of killing someone is good or bad. This said, how is yours more accurate?"

So what if my definition is slightly one sided. It sticks if you don't prove it incorrect. Since you didn't prove it incorrect then I guess it sticks so, again, deal with it.

"You're arguing something TOTALLY different than what you're suppose to be saying. This debate isn't about the ends at all! it boils down to if the action of killing is bad"

Here's the point o simple minded one. Because of the ends of saving more human lives, the means of killing only one is therefor justified. You're the one who brought up the ends not justifieing the means in the first place.

because of this we must vote aff because my opponent wasted his round 2 complaining about my debate rather than actually debating. Thus...

Vote NEG

thank you.
snelld7

Con

hmmm... I'm the "o simple minded one" huh?

Well since my opponents first 2 rebuttal arguments are against himself... He must be pretty slow. Do you not realize that those 2 arguments are those that you've posted and that I was refuting? Oh well, destroy your own case, means I have more time to spend doing something productive oppose to evaluating the side of someone who can't even tell his arguments apart from mine.

But anyways, l'll move to my first argument against you.

When I said: "Utilitarianism (what you're trying to instill) doesn't become just if you're not including individual rights. You can't vote on something, for the sake of utility, that will harm the minority if the majority gets its vote, and then call it justice or say it's just. "You can't have 10 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

You replied by saying: "So you are basically saying screw the majority in favor of the minority. You're no better than what you're accusing me of."

-But this is totally false! I'm not saying exclude the majority vote in all cases, just in instances where, with majority vote, the minority is harmed or infringed upon. Does this seem bad OR wrong to you? If so, then you are probably the one who rightly earns the title "simple minded."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""Yes, selfish. I defined innocent of devoid of this and since you didn't counter that with your own definition you must accept that so get over it. Selfishness = Non-innocence.""

-Like I said, the resolution CLEARLY DOES NOT say ANYTHING about a sacrafice. So give that argument up, I know you're running out of excuses due to your inferior debate skills, but please refrain from pointless argments that hold no weight.

As far as this statement: "So what if my definition is slightly one sided. It sticks if you don't prove it incorrect. Since you didn't prove it incorrect then I guess it sticks so, again, deal with it."

-You're, not surprisingly, wrong again. I DID in fact give the better definition and called you out on your one-sided fairy tale of a definition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Opponent-"Here's the point o simple minded one. Because of the ends of saving more human lives, the means of killing only one is therefor justified. You're the one who brought up the ends not justifieing the means in the first place."

- Here's my point O Ignorant blind one. Because the act of selfishly taking ones innocent life due to the bad luck of others is unjust, the action iis not morrally permissable. Your stance is basically, it isn't morally permissable, but it saves more lives so "O well." But in taking this stance, you fail to realize you've conceded the most powerful point in today's debate THE FACT THAT WE'RE ARGUING MORAL PERMISSABILITY. So yes, you may seem to be obligated to do this because it saves more lives, however, it IS NOT morally permissable. Nor is it just. But it doesn't matter because your answer is, simply, DO IT ANYWAY.

Resolution Negated
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I'll debate you on both if you'd like
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
This resolution was one of the best. I'm very sad it was the one that I had to deal with for my first tournaments as a novice LDer. After thinking about it deeper, it is REALLY a great topic. Maybe I can write some new cases with it and debate someone.

My favorite LD topic, that I debated with, so far is "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote"
Posted by occum5 7 years ago
occum5
Alright. Hi. I have to debate this resolution in my debate class. And I'm the affirmative. I've had to debate a bunch of different resolutions this year, but this one, by far, has me stumped. I've read every debate I could possibly scape up on this website for this particular resolution but I'm still lost. So, I guess what I'm really asking is, where do I start for this thing? Send me a message or something please! I'm hangin by a thread here guys.

A speedy response would be very appreciated.
Thank You!
-Alexandra
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
By Oklahoma standards you lose but there's no use debating that so let's just shut up and let the voters decide.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
Resolutionsmasher.. I guarantee you if we were in an LD round, you'd lose. You're not the only one who does it (hello, I do 2)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Well, sure, but we'd also be remiss in judging duties if we let abuse slide. In competitive rounds, though I'm generally a strict flow judge, I will intervene when I think it's necessary and tell debates how much I dislike unnecessary rez analysis. You don't need all of the bulk to affirm or to strongly affirm. While that doesn't necessarily matter on this website, it heavily applies to competitive rounds.

And while I appreciate sarcasm, it's hard to read into comments on a forum board :) Innuendo is a toughy in print.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Oh and I know about the LD origens thing. I was just being sarcastic. Sorry
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
I specifically asked for an LD debate. So we need to judge him by those standards.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
First of all, if you think that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated like this, you are obviously not well versed in your history. What we debate now, the format that we use in competitive high school debates, is no where near what its namesake was. That seems like something I shouldn't need to clarify...

Second of all, framework was not a concept at that point. Resolutional analysis was born much, much later. The spirit of the debate is dedicated to those men because their debates were not policy-based, like CX.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that we shouldn't affirm on-face because your opponent "dropped" your abusive framework arguments. This, of course, assumes that we can come to this conclusion after reading the debate, and that being abusive is acceptable as long as your opponent doesn't spell out the abuse arguments. That might work in competition with a games judge or something, but this website isn't LD-based.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Student. Dude Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas started this type of debate. That's why it's called LD. for Lincoln-Douglas. I dare you to smack them upside the head. You'll have to unearth them first.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by occum5 7 years ago
occum5
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
resolutionsmashersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07