The Instigator
safenation
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent p

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 4 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 19272
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

safenation

Pro

This sounds like an interesting debate
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Cases
Round 3- Rebuttal
Round 4-Summary
Round 5- Final Focus
socialpinko

Con

Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. In this debate, I will be attempting to negate the resolution. My opponent will attempt to affirm the resolution.

Definition of Morally permissable

Since this was not defined originally by my opponent, part of this debate will deal with our own competing definitions. Obviously, if we operate on an act utilitarian basis, the resolution would be automatically affirmed and if we used an ethical egoist basis, the resolution would be automatically negated. So part of the debate will revolve around the competing theories my opponent and I provide and argue for. All other words in the resolution will use the meanings that are most contextually probable.

As per rules, I will not post an argument this round.
Debate Round No. 1
safenation

Pro

First off i just want to tell my opponent that I am gonna keep this one brief and simple and without sources. Can you tell me what i need to do for sources because i am a new member to this website
Ok now to the case
I affirm Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Observation:
1) You are going to vote on which debater helps the most amount of people
2) everyone has the right to life
3) The world is not perfect therefore there will be losses
4) Society has to make trade offs
5) Morally Permissible is not implying a suggestion therefore its is not an obligation
6) The resolution says more innocent there fore these people are more deserving to have their rights

Contention 1: Every Person if equal
Because every person is equal therefore if somebody has to die then 1 is better than 10000

Contention 2: This is an extreme case
The resolution sets up a situation that will never occur therefore you are going to have to votes on the idea of a theoretical world with theoretical people. A person should not die but if we have to infringe on someone's rights to help humanity it has to be done.

Thus I urge an affirmative ballot
socialpinko

Con

Observation by my opponent

1.) This was never stated in the resolution. To do so would be to assume some form of utilitarianism. No moral code was ever specified by my opponent in the framing round.

2.) Assumed by my opponent with no logical or empirical proof. Also, my opponent never clarified as to whether these were positive(other's have obligations to sacrifice or comply in order to protect someone else's right to life thus negating their own right) or negative(the only obligation on others is to not interfere with another's right to life, thus upholding the one person's right not to be killed in the scenario).

3.) I will not disagree.

4.) Again, this is assumed. This observation assumes that society has rights over that of the individual. Even if we were to assume Pro's 2nd observation, tha would not mean that society has any rights over the individual.

5.) Please clarify.

6.) My opponent provides no reasoning behind the jump from multiple people deserving rights and one person losing theirs as a result.

Contention 1: Every person is equal

The conclusion that 10,000 people's lives are more valuable than one person's because everyone is equal does not follow, considering my opponent's 2nd observaion. If everyone has a right to life, than the interests of another cannot negate that, since the lone person did nothing to forfeit their own right to life(negating another's right to life) other than being in a situation not within their own doing.

Contention 2: This is an extreme case

My opponent provides no reasoning behind this. Pro somehow jumps from the argument that every person has some sort of innate right to life, but then goes in the opposite direction by arguing that the interests of humanity(assumedly as some sort of separate entity from the individuals that make it up) outweigh the interests of the individual. My opponent at least argued that individuals have rights, however he made no argument as to the existence of "societal rights".

My opponent has not upheld his BoP and thus the resolution is negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
safenation

Pro

safenation forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
safenation

Pro

safenation forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
safenation

Pro

safenation forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
safenationsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: lol... Conduct = forfeit.... And those forfeits resulted in CON getting the arguments too...
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
safenationsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeits = default to opponent. Interesting topic though.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
safenationsocialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
safenationsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. A shame, I would have liked to see Con's case flushed out.