Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

RFD: Okay to kill one person to save more?

fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:25:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Here's the RFD. If it is confusing, ask me.

1: The Debate

RFD: Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?

http://www.debate.org...

Seagull (Pro) v.s. ssadi (Con)

2: The Burdens

The BoP is shared. Pro argues that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Con argues that it is not morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

3: Framework

Framework will be separated from arguments.

Pro's framework: Pro says that morality is the core to the debate. He says that morality is simply defined as "conforming to the rules of right conduct." Pro says that killing one for more is right conduct. He says we can weigh it by the greatest happiness principle: Utility (I will only say Utility).

Pro says that Utility is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. Pro quotes John's Stuart Mills book of Utility, and concludes that desires exists and that the ultimate desire is happiness. Pro says "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall" Pro shows that happiness and Utility is a good way to show morality.

Con doesn't have a framework. He only makes his intro. Therefore, I have no choice to listen or choose Pro's framework that Utility is a good way to show Mortality.

4. Pro's arguments

I: Spock's Death

Pro gives a example of a movie "the Wrath of Khan" I didn't watch it, but I just saw it to vote. Pro shows that Spock killed himself to save the ship and many others, Spock had protected and preserved more happiness. So, Pro says that it is permissible.

Con rebuts this by saying that Pro's example was sacrificing or suiciding to save others, when the resolution is about killing people. Con sacrificing is much different from killing, which is true. So Con says that it is not innocent, and it was Spock's own deed. This is a very good rebuttal from Con.

Pro defends this by saying that the sacrifice was in the resolution, one to save many.

I think that Con won this argument. Con had proved that killing and sacrificing is different, 2 major differences. Con made a very strong rebuttal, and Pro's argument is rebutted.

II: Train Question

Pro's train question is you friend, or anyone closely related to you is tied to a railtrack. You are the switch. If you do it in the other way of your friend, the 100 people in the train fall over a cliff and die.

Pro says that saving 100 is moral, as it says in his framework. Pro says it is reasonable to say that it is immoral if you pick something else.

Con rebuts this by saying that it is not killing, the person in the track is basically sacrificing to save others, not killing. Nice job.

III. The Framework

I present this in my section of framework. Even though Con pointed out flaws about the framework, in Round 3, Con cannot make a new framework. And only Pro has a framework, so I have no choice to follow Pro's framework and don't need to know about rebuttals of the framework

5. Con's arguments

I: Killing 1 innocent person OR killing more innocent people

Con basically has a premise case which I like, and it is easy to follow. Con says that killing an innocent person is immoral, and also killing more innocent people. Con says that it is less immoral to kill one person, but it is still not morally permissible, only less immoral.

Pro doesn't really make separate rebuttals to make it confusing. Obvious wasn't an argument. I assume the rebuttal is the second point. Pro rebuts that Utility in his framework that the more happier case. He says that less immoral is more happier, meaning it is morally permissible.

Con defends by saying that less immoral is still immoral, and immoral is not moral. Con defends the case of Pro's Utility rebuttal by saying that Pro wrote in his argument overall happiness. Con says that it is not overall happiness because even Pro says that neither is a good choice, but saving 100 is better. But because Con says it is not overall happiness, which is true, the argument is defended.

II: Killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved OR not killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved

Con says that if two people say that we will kill one innocent person or 100, if they kill 1, it is not saving, it is just killing an innocent person. But if you didn't, the 100 will die, and it is the bad guy's fault. So Con says the question is

"Is it morally permissible for you to kill 1 innocent person or not?"

Con says it is not because he has a right of life and he is innocent. No one can decide who dies because they are all innocent. Con says that killing that one person is not morally permissible because his parents, friends, sons and daughters, and whoever is related to him will feel very hurt, and that is immoral.

Pro gives a rebuttal of 1 and 2. Also Pro says that Con accepts Utility about the brothers and sisters. Con says that it was of Utility killing people is not acceptable. So, Con defends his case well.

III: Saving 1 innocent person or saving more innocent people

Pro says that there is a choice to not kill anyone, and says that it is in round 3. I already put it in Pro's arguments and Con's rebuttals side.

More of Pro's rebuttals

I: Appeal to the obvious

Pro says that Con is just appealing to the obvious and giving no sources unlike him. Pro says it is a bare assertion.

Con defends by saying that it is reasonable with no doubt like 3 is bigger than 5, not a bare assertion.

6. Outcome/ Conclusion

Good debate. The framework is Utility, it is the only one. For this, Pro has no arguments to have, and in Con's side the arguments are that killing a person is not immoral, etc. Because in Con's side I have arguments, but in Pro's side I don't, Con's burden is filled, and Pro's is not. Therefore, I vote Con.

Extra 7. Feedback

To Pro: First, sacrificing is different from killing. Killing is more of the example of Con's, of bad guys threatening. Your example was sacrificing. They are different. Therefore, I couldn't accept your arguments because Con pointed this out also.

Now, your rebuttals. Make specific rebuttals to all arguments, it's easier for the voters to understand, and it is easier for you to not drop arguments of Con's. You dropped some arguments of Con by making a rebuttal of the entire whole case. Don't do that.

To Con: Not much. Very good job, But if I were you, always make a framework. It makes you a higher chance of winning. Also, you don't need to change this, but can you lower your font? It hurts my eyes.

Vote Con/
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:25:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Only arguments to Con.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 1:02:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:25:34 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Here's the RFD. If it is confusing, ask me.

1: The Debate

RFD: Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?

http://www.debate.org...

Seagull (Pro) v.s. ssadi (Con)

2: The Burdens

The BoP is shared. Pro argues that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Con argues that it is not morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

3: Framework

Framework will be separated from arguments.

Pro's framework: Pro says that morality is the core to the debate. He says that morality is simply defined as "conforming to the rules of right conduct." Pro says that killing one for more is right conduct. He says we can weigh it by the greatest happiness principle: Utility (I will only say Utility).

Pro says that Utility is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. Pro quotes John's Stuart Mills book of Utility, and concludes that desires exists and that the ultimate desire is happiness. Pro says "Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall" Pro shows that happiness and Utility is a good way to show morality.

Con doesn't have a framework. He only makes his intro. Therefore, I have no choice to listen or choose Pro's framework that Utility is a good way to show Mortality.

4. Pro's arguments

I: Spock's Death

Pro gives a example of a movie "the Wrath of Khan" I didn't watch it, but I just saw it to vote. Pro shows that Spock killed himself to save the ship and many others, Spock had protected and preserved more happiness. So, Pro says that it is permissible.

Con rebuts this by saying that Pro's example was sacrificing or suiciding to save others, when the resolution is about killing people. Con sacrificing is much different from killing, which is true. So Con says that it is not innocent, and it was Spock's own deed. This is a very good rebuttal from Con.

Pro defends this by saying that the sacrifice was in the resolution, one to save many.

I think that Con won this argument. Con had proved that killing and sacrificing is different, 2 major differences. Con made a very strong rebuttal, and Pro's argument is rebutted.

II: Train Question

Pro's train question is you friend, or anyone closely related to you is tied to a railtrack. You are the switch. If you do it in the other way of your friend, the 100 people in the train fall over a cliff and die.

Pro says that saving 100 is moral, as it says in his framework. Pro says it is reasonable to say that it is immoral if you pick something else.

Con rebuts this by saying that it is not killing, the person in the track is basically sacrificing to save others, not killing. Nice job.

III. The Framework

I present this in my section of framework. Even though Con pointed out flaws about the framework, in Round 3, Con cannot make a new framework. And only Pro has a framework, so I have no choice to follow Pro's framework and don't need to know about rebuttals of the framework

5. Con's arguments

I: Killing 1 innocent person OR killing more innocent people

Con basically has a premise case which I like, and it is easy to follow. Con says that killing an innocent person is immoral, and also killing more innocent people. Con says that it is less immoral to kill one person, but it is still not morally permissible, only less immoral.

Pro doesn't really make separate rebuttals to make it confusing. Obvious wasn't an argument. I assume the rebuttal is the second point. Pro rebuts that Utility in his framework that the more happier case. He says that less immoral is more happier, meaning it is morally permissible.

Con defends by saying that less immoral is still immoral, and immoral is not moral. Con defends the case of Pro's Utility rebuttal by saying that Pro wrote in his argument overall happiness. Con says that it is not overall happiness because even Pro says that neither is a good choice, but saving 100 is better. But because Con says it is not overall happiness, which is true, the argument is defended.

II: Killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved OR not killing 1 innocent person so that more innocent people were saved

Con says that if two people say that we will kill one innocent person or 100, if they kill 1, it is not saving, it is just killing an innocent person. But if you didn't, the 100 will die, and it is the bad guy's fault. So Con says the question is

"Is it morally permissible for you to kill 1 innocent person or not?"

Con says it is not because he has a right of life and he is innocent. No one can decide who dies because they are all innocent. Con says that killing that one person is not morally permissible because his parents, friends, sons and daughters, and whoever is related to him will feel very hurt, and that is immoral.

Pro gives a rebuttal of 1 and 2. Also Pro says that Con accepts Utility about the brothers and sisters. Con says that it was of Utility killing people is not acceptable. So, Con defends his case well.

III: Saving 1 innocent person or saving more innocent people

Pro says that there is a choice to not kill anyone, and says that it is in round 3. I already put it in Pro's arguments and Con's rebuttals side.

More of Pro's rebuttals

I: Appeal to the obvious

Pro says that Con is just appealing to the obvious and giving no sources unlike him. Pro says it is a bare assertion.

Con defends by saying that it is reasonable with no doubt like 3 is bigger than 5, not a bare assertion.

6. Outcome/ Conclusion

Good debate. The framework is Utility, it is the only one. For this, Pro has no arguments to have, and in Con's side the arguments are that killing a person is not immoral, etc. Because in Con's side I have arguments, but in Pro's side I don't, Con's burden is filled, and Pro's is not. Therefore, I vote Con.

Extra 7. Feedback

To Pro: First, sacrificing is different from killing. Killing is more of the example of Con's, of bad guys threatening. Your example was sacrificing. They are different. Therefore, I couldn't accept your arguments because Con pointed this out also.

Now, your rebuttals. Make specific rebuttals to all arguments, it's easier for the voters to understand, and it is easier for you to not drop arguments of Con's. You dropped some arguments of Con by making a rebuttal of the entire whole case. Don't do that.

To Con: Not much. Very good job, But if I were you, always make a framework. It makes you a higher chance of winning. Also, you don't need to change this, but can you lower your font? It hurts my eyes.

Vote Con/

Very interesting debate.
Meh!
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:15:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Not okay, as it is far more complex and you didn't tie it to certain situation. We would also have to think it in a time frame, and even after that it would be question of subjectivity. Who gets to decide what is okay and what is not?

To add in the complexity... you could kill one person to save two for now, but what about retaliations? It's killing of innocent person...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
The needs (NOT WANTS) of the many out weigh the needs (NOT WANTS) of the few.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%