The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Assassination, in an effort to save lives.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
KingVeridical has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/29/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 267 times Debate No: 98524
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




If you could kill one child just by pulling a trigger, knowing that doing so would save 10,000 innocent children from dying by the childs hands, knowing that if you do not kill the child it will kill those 10,000 innocent children for no reason, knowing there is no way to stop the child and you only have two options, pull the trigger, or walk away, what would you do?

Pull the trigger is Pro/For.
Walk away is Con/Against.

If you walk away, the very next day that child plants a bomb on the cities largest orphanage and kills them all, then is never seen again.

If you pull the trigger you get caught and are charged with murdering a child, they find the child's plans and the bomb it planned on using, and you explain why you had to kill it to save the lives of others, you are released but the fact that you killed a child with a gun is on public record permanently. The newspaper the next day has an article titled "Lone Gunman Assassinates Child Terrorist!" and you are never seen the same way by the town again, some hate you, some admire you, others don't know, and employers refuse to hire you after seeing your background check.

What do you chose?


I am con since I would not pull the trigger for a reason or two.

1. I am against assassination overall since humans have good moral standing. But this is a kid and has even more moral standing. So no.

2. Have you mentioned any rules yet? If not, then you could do so next round.
Debate Round No. 1


There are no rules, only a lose lose scenario, and a decision to make.

I would pull the trigger simply because it would save 10000 orphan children. The death of one child terrorist means the continued life of ten thousand children who are not terrorists as far as we know. I would argue that not all humans have good moral standing and that just because the person in question is a kid does not mean that it has better moral standing than an adult. If the scenario was about a terrorist planning to bomb a hospital I would not feel differently about my decision to support assassinating him before he could commit the crime rather than being idle and doing nothing to stop him, leadng to the death of ten thousand patients.

Assassinations are not traditionally good things in the eyes of the majority, however if killing one person saves many lives and improves the lives of many people it is reasonably a good thing overall.

Would you say that a U.S.A. Sniper killing a dictator who is planning on enslaving and selling his people for his own gain, thereby allowing the people of that dictators country to remain free is a good thing?


I would like to be hired, so if I don't shoot the child, I can get a job.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.