The Instigator
Paige_S
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Can Murder be justified?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2011 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,388 times Debate No: 15598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Paige_S

Con

Ok so heres The deal, recently i got in too an almost heated argument about whether murder can be justified, in other words, is it ever "OK" to take the life of another human being. personally i believe NO except in ONE sercumstance, self defense, I'm talking about extreme cases when its kill or be killed because i cant sit here and expect someone to die because they shouldn't defend themselves (kill someone) or use there natural instinct to survive.
socialpinko

Pro

Thank you for posting such an interesting challene and I look forward to a stimulating debate. Good luck!

To begin, as you have not adequately defined murder or justified I will take the liberty to define them here.

Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid[3]

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.[1]

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought[2]

Murder is by definition the unlawfully killing of another person. In times of duress self defense may be a viable option, but that is not what this debat is about. If one acts in self defense and kills a person, that does not constitute the legal definition of murder.

I await my opponent's response!

[1]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Paige_S

Con

Paige_S forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

My opponent's account is no longer active. What a waste.
Debate Round No. 2
Paige_S

Con

Paige_S forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

I showed that my opponent's defense of murder in the case of self defense was incorrect as killing in self defense is not in the definition of the word murder. My oppponent forfeited the rest of the debate so I urge a Pro vote.
As I did not post an argument in this round I invite readers to chill to some Biggie.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
This guy's account is no longer active.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Why did the instigator take the pro position in the first round, but shows up as con?
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
lol, please define "murder." Murder, by definition is not legally justified. You mean to argue that "killing" is.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
based on your argument... arn't you mean to be the "Pro" in this debate?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Paige_SsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
Paige_SsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: F.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
Paige_SsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro gets conduct for cons forfeit. con made mutiple spelling errors in his only round so pro gets spelling. pro also refuted cons only argument.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Paige_SsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeits. Pro seems to have had a terrible rash of these debates where he is the only debater left standing. He has my sympathy.