Would you kill one person to save five?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you kill one person to save five?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

Look, the whole premise is rotten. You're asking me to *play god* and decide who deserves to live—and that's where your logic collapses. The moment you accept that calculus, you've opened the door to tyranny. Who picks the five? The sick? The old? The poor? History's full of "rational" killings done for the greater good. And here's the thing you're missing: that one person you kill is *real*. The five you save are theoretical. You're trading certainty of evil for probability of good. That's not morality, that's just gambling with innocent people. What makes you so sure the five are worth more than the one?