The Instigator
Carla_Macie57
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
PervRat
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
PervRat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,081 times Debate No: 7850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Carla_Macie57

Pro

Hello, I am a public forum debater that decided to take on a Lincoln Douglas topic. Remember that Lincoln Douglas is about morality and acceptance in society so don't count on little tubs of evidence to win. :) Accept if you want a good debate about morality. Best of luck and may the best debater win.

Think about this scenario - a terrorist wants to bomb a building. He prepares the bomb puts it inside and makes a detonator which he is running with( because let's say you are a police man and you caught him.) He tosses he detonator in the bushes and runs away. Suddenly a little boy walks up and starts playing with it trying to push the button. There are 200 people inside the building. Is it rightfully moral and just to shoot the little boy to save the 200 people? Yes, it is. Think about it if you're the policeman. Its a very difficult decision to make but you haven't got much time and there are 200 people inside that building. One life against 200. This is acceptable because we must think of the greater good. If you shoot the little boy you will be saving 200 lives. People with families. Yes, it would be tragedy for the family of this boy, but how much more of a tragedy if 200 others are dead. If you vote con you will be killing 200 others for the sake of saving one. If you vote pro the greater good is accomplished. Vote pro :)
PervRat

Con

I thank Pro for putting forth such a challenging debate, and I hope I can represent the "Con" side to the best of my ability.

"Pro" has not given any exceptions to the case, so I submit that sort of example he gave of an immediate situation is not the only one covered by the official debate title:

That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

== CRITICISMS & REBUTTAL TO PRO'S HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO ==

First, there are a number of alternatives to shooting the boy. Shout at the boy to get him to stop, run at the boy (assuming he isn't mute) should give enough time to take the trigger from his hands, or if there is not enough time to run at the boy, if you happened to be so equipped, a non-lethal meas such as throwing a stone or firing a "bean bag gun". And even if you had to shoot, why not just shoot the boy's arms?

However, in the event that Pro intends this hypothetical example to be bounded by the two options of "Shoot to kill the boy to stop him OR do nothing and allow the boy to accidentally kill 200 people." If these are the two and only two options, then in this specific case (given those unrealistic boundaries), then yes, in that situation, killing the boy to save 200 is an unfortunate, tragic lesser of two evils and the one I would take; I would view it as a form of triage. I submit, however, this is far from conclusively proving the subject of this debate.

Referring to the scenario, the hypothetical scenario is simply unrealistic. I thus present a hypothetical situations of my own for Pro to disprove as being an example that disproves the totality of the debate topic:

== CON'S HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1 ==
A cure for a terrible disease that kills 100,000 people every year if lethal medical experiments were performed on 20,000 people. (Presume somehow you magically know this to be true, and the only way to get the cure is through these experiments) Should it be legal?

== HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1 EXTENSION #1 ==

A lot less messier, less-labratoristic-fake situation: Give the above situation, but everything is less than certain. You don't know for certain that a cure would come, but there's certainly a good chance that if you conduct enough lethal experiments, a cure might be found.

== HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #2 ==

Instead of a disease, let's take a more brutal real-life example: Islaamist terrorist extremists.

If we knew somehow that all the terrorists were in one single country, would it be worth the loss of innocent lives if we were to nuke every last inch of that country, thus killing all of the terrorists (though you would, along with the terrorists, kill all the innocent people of that country)?

This, too, falls under the "That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons." subject of this debate.

I eagerly await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Carla_Macie57

Pro

Hello, I am a public forum debater that decided to take on a Lincoln Douglas topic. Remember that Lincoln Douglas is about morality and acceptance in society so don't count on little tubs of evidence to win. :) Accept if you want a good debate about morality. Best of luck and may the best debater win.

Think about this scenario - a terrorist wants to bomb a building. He prepares the bomb puts it inside and makes a detonator which he is running with( because let's say you are a police man and you caught him.) He tosses he detonator in the bushes and runs away. Suddenly a little boy walks up and starts playing with it trying to push the button. There are 200 people inside the building. Is it rightfully moral and just to shoot the little boy to save the 200 people? Yes, it is. Think about it if you're the policeman. Its a very difficult decision to make but you haven't got much time and there are 200 people inside that building. One life against 200. This is acceptable because we must think of the greater good. If you shoot the little boy you will be saving 200 lives. People with families. Yes, it would be tragedy for the family of this boy, but how much more of a tragedy if 200 others are dead. If you vote con you will be killing 200 others for the sake of saving one. If you vote pro the greater good is accomplished. Vote pro :)

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
First of all- the reality of the scenario doesn't necessarily matter; it still falls under the resolution. We can use his if he wants. The point= is it right.
Second- he said that there might be other ways to stop the boy- well lets assume he is too far for him to hear you. Lets assume you have two options... as i stated in round one. I believe/assume my opponent has nothing else to say considering he is not attacking my arguments directly; instead he is trying to beat around the bush by telling the voters that my scenario "isn't real enough". Again thats not the point. Point= is it right.
Third- My opponent admits himself that since we have two options he would take the pro. "If these are the two and only two options, then in this specific case (given those unrealistic boundaries), then yes, in that situation, killing the boy to save 200 is an unfortunate, tragic lesser of two evils and the one I would take."
Fourth- In his example about the disease he argues the pro by saying that a cure will probably be found.
Fifth- In his last example he (as in all the others) he gives the question but doesn't answer it. As for the pro- First of all you don't have to nuke every inch of that country- there is such thing as intelligence so we could have an idea of where they were located to start taking them down. Would some innocent people be killed? Yes. Would it be worth possibly saving our country or the surrounding countries from acts of terrorism, invasion, and deaths? Yes.
Thank you for your time. Please vote Pro. :)
PervRat

Con

I wouldn't trust any policeman who would knowingly shoot an innocent person to death, that's for certain, regardless of how much of a burden they are.

The "greater good is served" argument could be logically, rationally applied to support Adolf Hitler's efforts against the Jewish minority of Germany. The medical experiments doubtlessly greatly advanced medicine "for the greater good." The sudden transfer of expensive labor to free slave labor doubtlessly helped Germany become strong in the wake of the economic devastation it endured following its defeat in World War I; certainly there was a "greater good" served for the white German majority. Based on pro's criteria, the German Nazi party made necessary sacrifices for a greater good, and thus their efforts were justified regardless of the minority population they sacrificed.

I'm not going to even bother responding to his rebuttals, as he seemed to miss the point -- I was asking whether Pro was comfortable with the "Yes, make the involuntary sacrifice of innocents" in each of those cases. Clearly he mis-interpreted them to mean I would take the "pro" side to each and all of them since I took the "pro" side to a triage situation -- but I would take the con side. I would like Pro to discuss why, in much more detail than he gave above, he would take the "Pro" side in each of those cases. I intentionally didn't answer the question, because I wanted Pro to answer first.

For the last, it was a hypothetical scenario, and I'm not sure why "Pro" has such confidence in intelligence reports, certainly we've seen very harsh real-world examples of the world's sole supowerpower flubbing Intelligence in persuit of an agenda.

Going to that real-world example, I ask Pro to consider whether the "sacrifice of innocents" in Iraq was worth it?

It was supposedly a retaliation for 9-11, and both the American People and the world were told that Hussein had links to al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attacks. We were also told "slam dunk" that Saddam was developing new WMDs beyond the ones we gave him. We were led to believe Saddam was helping, participating or planning on attacks to threaten America and kill Americans.

The sacrifice has been high ... in addition to thousands of American troops, more than half a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the chaos and anarchy we created in the wake of destroying Hussein's regime. Terrible as it had been, Hussein's regime kept the country from descending into civil war. Are all these deaths worth now knowing Hussein most definitely poses no threat to anyone again?
Debate Round No. 2
Carla_Macie57

Pro

Carla_Macie57 forfeited this round.
PervRat

Con

I sincerely regret that my opponent was unable to develop a response in time, so the final argument is left to me with nothing to provide a rebuttal to.

There are certain private rights that should not be surrendered to the public good, except by the willful consent of the private citizen. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness are among these.

No one should be able to take your life from you, unless you forfeited your life by taking someone else's.
No one should be able to take your liberty from you, unless you forfeited your liberty through a serious crime.
No one should be able to take your persuit of happiness from you, unless you took away someone else's.

There are people very sick in this world with no medical insurance to give them traditional treatments, who offer their bodies to sacrifice for experiments as well as several who donate their bodies to science after they die. These are important, but they differ greatly from Pro's argument in one powerful regard: the person /willingly/ surrenders their bodies to science. Its their consent and decision. What Pro is talking about is killing an innocent person without their will or consent. That it might save a lot more could be used to excuse the German medical experiments on Jews and other political prisoners during World War II. Beneficial or not, the ends do not justify the means in this case to me, and I hope you, the voter, agrees.

I thank you for participating, as well as my opponent and hope all is well with them. I know real life has an irritating renown for interrupting online activities. I certainly hope none of you are abducted for involuntary medical experiments!

Read the arguments, try to be objective (I know we all have opinions going in, else we wouldn't go to DDO!) and vote as your judgement tells you who made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Don't forgets to vote. ^_^
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Depraved, I tells ya, depraved.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
S: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ..."
K: "... or the one."

for each{ Knows.Origin( above.lines); Geek.Points += 1; }
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
Carla_Macie57PervRatTied
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 
Vote Placed by brycef 8 years ago
brycef
Carla_Macie57PervRatTied
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 PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Carla_Macie57PervRatTied
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