The system inhrently lends itself to barbarism and injustice. It cannot enact itself. Same goes for the constitution. It cannot enact itself, thus interpretation are left upon men, who naturally have a tendency to deviant from justice.

I meant to say "wouldn't". I was rushing that argument. So, take the first part and change would to wouldn't.

Rape is just forced sex. I would bring death upon a man for forced sex. That is just jail time.

Murder? Still no. If i kill the murderer then I am just killing again. This time it's just legalized. I would still place him in jail.

Torture? If this was the case then I would say that our military should be put to death if torture is punishable by death (not the entire military, but those who use torture as a method for retrieving information). Even then I would say no. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.

I don't think killing a man will stop crime. Crime seems to be a natural by product of human nature.

Should heart surgery be legal? Of course. I feel as of it is another operation that is voluntarily chosen by the female seeking the abortion. The women should be able to walk into a doctor's office and receive abortive services if possible. Of course doctor should also be allowed to charges fees for the operation (as all operation do).

I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I believe that life is jail or solitary confinement should be used, but I can see argument from the other side mentioning the cost of these methods over just killing the person being held with charges.

It's not intrinsically racist (as I am sure that this is to promote African American modeling). However, it does set itself up to a Miss White USA. If a Miss Black USA can exist without intrisically being racist then someone else of another race or skin color could do the same if they truly feel the need to promote their race.

The proof is in the statement itself. Monday is the day before Tuesday. That is already known. Providing evidence for that is useless asit is already there. A statement that requires proof would be like "Iceland is home to Elephants". That statement can be pressed for evidence and dismissed if I fail to provide the evidence.

I shoupd have constrained this debate, but the one person will not move regardless of any external stimuli or any intrinsic motivation.

Here is what the problem truly hints at. It is a test or moral obligations. Are you morally obligated to divert the train? Let's assume you do, then you have purposefully killed the one person on the other track. You killed this person directly through choice. Now if you felt as if you were not morally obligated to do anything and didn't want to kill anyone then you let the train be since you are not morally obligated to do anything.

The trolley problem tests those moral obligations.

What does this debate seek to accomplish, if anything?

That should be fairly obvious in my last request in the debate description.

Indeed. Good bye.

Such a negative nancy.

Thank you for your input, 7thDebater. I like these scenarios. They make you question your indirect and direct moral obligations to others.

Yeah, I tried to tighten the problem by saying that the one person was "unaware". It's so the person being asked this doesn't attempt to wiggle out of it. Thank you for your input though. I appreciate it.

Is insisting that your audience engage in a false dilemma the only way you can rationalize your point?

What is my point? What point have you detected? I'm not arguing for or against anything. It's just the trolley problem. You don't have to participate at all.