Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
From Debatepedia
| ||||||
Topic Description.
Overview
Topic Overview.
Definitions
The swing word in this debate is "innocent". What makes someone innocent? Is anyone really innocent? The affirmative should approach this with a tight definition regarding legality. They should define innocent in such a way that most people are innocent (ex. "when someone is not guilty of a crime" from Cambridge dictionary). The negative should approach this definition broadly in such a way that no one is innocent (ex. "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" from Merriam-Webster dictionary). This leaves the negative open to arguing that no one is truly innocent.
Note: Another approach for the affirmative is to define this word as the negative would. When the negative argues that no one is innocent, the affirmative can agree - but note that in the context of the resolution, there are innocent people. The resolution asks a question of morality, and we must situate the question in a world in which the question could come to be.
The other important word to define in this debate is "moral". The affirmative should define this word as relating to right and wrong(ex. "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" from Merriam-Webster). Then, argue that right and wrong are subjective based on the circumstances (and this is one circumstance where killing is right). The negative should define this word as relating to ethics(ex. "sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment", also Merriam-Webster). Then, argue that killing is unethical (see: John Locke). The definition of this word will most likely tie into your philosophical basis.
Values and Criteria
Philosophical Basis
The affirmative should support their case with the philosophy of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham, which state that "determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences." In other words, whatever benefits the greatest number of people is moral/just.
The negative should support their case with the philosophy of Natural Rights by John Locke/Thomas Hobbes. The right to life is a natural right that should never be violated.
Affirming the Topic
Overview
| Arguments | Responses |
|
[Edit] Argument #1 | |
|
[Edit] YesUtilitarianism Utilitarianism states that whatever action benefits the most people is just. Killing one person to save the lives of more innocent people hurts one person and benefits many, and is therefore just.
|
[Edit] NoIndividualism Any individual has the right to live even if it means that others may be lost, however if this individual lives and does more good to the entirety of the human population than the whole group combined together, then more good is done. (Ex: a scientist spared from an entire village's execution only to contribute much more greatly to science because of that loss.) |
|
[Edit] Argument #2 | |
|
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
|
[Edit] Argument #3 | |
|
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
Negating the Topic
Overview
| Arguments | Responses |
|
[Edit] Argument #1 | |
|
[Edit] YesThere are no innocent people This is a great argument to counter any specific examples in your opponents case. With this argument, you would define innocent in broad terms. You would say that in the context of this resolution there is no circumstance in the current world in which it is permissible to kill someone to save many because no one is innocent.
|
[Edit] NoOk, so there are no innocent people in the world. But this resolution is about morality, which is an ideal. In a world in which there were innocent people, would it be permissible? It absolutely would. |
|
[Edit] Argument #2 | |
|
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
|
[Edit] Argument #3 | |
|
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No |
Argument #4
</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">
Yes
</td><td valign="top">
No
</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" colspan="2">
Sample Cases
Further Reading
Sources Cited
See also
External links
Merriam Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com
Cambridge Dictionaries Online: http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org
