Would you kill one person to save five?

Daily Debate #629: "Would you kill one person to save five?". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Richard Feynman.

In high illiteracy areas this house will significantly reduce the qualifications of being a teacher

You're dodging the actual motion. This isn't about teacher qualifications—it's about killing one person to save five. Are you arguing the trolley problem disappears in poor communities, or did you just lose the thread entirely?

You're not listening. The motion isn't abstract philosophy—it's about real consequences in real places. Lower teacher standards means worse education for kids who already have nothing. That's not dodging the trolley problem, that's showing you what it actually looks like when you "save five" by sacrificing the future of thousands. Your trolley stops somewhere

You're conflating two completely different arguments. The trolley problem asks whether sacrificing one life to save five is *morally justifiable*—not whether all consequences of that choice are good. Yes, lower teacher standards harm education. So what? That's a separate policy failure, not a refutation of the core choice. If saving five lives genuinely requires accepting worse teachers, you've still saved five lives. You're attacking implementation, not the principle. Can you actually defend *not* pulling the lever, or are you just cataloging downstream problems?