The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DawnBringerRiven
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I ought to be allowed to kill the man who molested my son

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 414 times Debate No: 105727
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Masterful

Pro

Very recently my son was brutally molested by a balding man. This man was his teacher, someone who should ensure my child's safety and protect him from harm. Instead he was pushing his fat grubby fingers deep into my sons anus.

My beautiful son was attacked, his innocence stolen. I have every right to end the life of this predator.

-That man is sexually attracted to children. You can't undo that, he will always be a threat to society, prison will not rehabilitate that.

-He preyed upon the most vulnerable members of society, infants. Do we really want to be paying for his time in prison?

CCTV evidence shows him touching my sons butt in the 'play ground.'
My son gave an account of having things inserted into his butt hole. Many other children also came forward claiming the teacher put his finger up their butts.

This man should die by my hands.
DawnBringerRiven

Con

What your child needs most right now is lots and lots of love and support from his family. If you go through with those actions, you will be sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for second degree murder. Not only will your child have to go through to pain of being previously molested, he will also have to go through an even greater level of suffering by not being able to see his father for years and having his father turned into a murderer. Killing the teacher will only serve to benefit you and no one else. Your revenge will only serve to satisfy your bloodlust, while the aftermath will hurt you and everyone else in your family. Not only will your family have to suffer emotionally for you being sent to prison, but some of them may not be able to look at you the same way ever again. Your children may learn to fear you rather than love you.

Your son needs a loving father more than he needs a dead rapist.
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

Rebuttal

"What your child needs most right now is lots and lots of love"

I think he's had enough love from numerous bum hole fingerings, don't you?

"You will be sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for second degree murder"

If I wasn't allowed to kill him then yes, but i'm arguing that I should be allowed. Therefore your argument is not valid.

Arguments

-He can not fit into our society ever again as his sexual desire is children. He has acted upon that desire once, we would be stupid to give him another chance and another victim.

-The alternative is to pay for him for the rest of his life in prison. Why should I give money to feed a man who has just brutally penetrated my child's anus? Please tell me, i'm curious as to your reasoning.

-Allowing the father to kill him would serve as a loud and clear message to any other would be child molesters. They'd know that preying upon children would potentially get them killed.

-Some men are institutionalized and seek ways to go back to prison. If it so happens that they are sexually attracted to children, then they'd bum a child as a way to get back into prison. For them it's a win win and ultimately this proves no real justice has been served by keeping these sort of people alive and breathing.

These points are important. If my opponent does not address them, i'll be forced to extend them into the next round.
DawnBringerRiven

Con

"I think he's had enough love from numerous bum hole fingerings, don't you?"
The reason why I brought up that he needs support from his family is because he was molested and is likely suffering from mental distress. He needs his father to focus on supporting him emotionally instead of having his father risk being killed by the molester in self defense, or the father succeeding and the son fearing the father because the father has just killed someone. Attempting to murder the molester only puts your son at risk for an even great level of suffering.
I apologize for misinterpreting the main point of this debate.
Argument I + II + IV -He can not fit into our society ever again as his sexual desire is children. He has acted upon that desire once, we would be stupid to give him another chance and another victim.

-The alternative is to pay for him for the rest of his life in prison. Why should I give money to feed a man who has just brutally penetrated my child's anus? Please tell me, i'm curious as to your reasoning.

-Some men are institutionalized and seek ways to go back to prison. If it so happens that they are sexually attracted to children, then they'd bum a child as a way to get back into prison. For them it's a win win and ultimately this proves no real justice has been served by keeping these sort of people alive and breathing.

Rebuttal:
I believe these three points can all be settled at the same time. As you already know, rapists are hated everywhere. This includes prisons as well. Many prisoners hate child rapists just as much as you do. [1] Many inmates are more than happy to commit vigilante justice against child rapists. This includes beating, raping, and even possibly killing the child rapist themselves. So in reality, you are paying to have a rapist be tortured for the majority of his time in prison. He won't want to go back when he's already spent years being beaten and raped, if he's even alive by the time his sentence is over.


Argument III: -Allowing the father to kill him would serve as a loud and clear message to any other would be child molesters. They'd know that preying upon children would potentially get them killed.

Rebuttal:

Many fathers have killed their child's rapist in the past, yet child rapists still continue to commit these acts. [2] People who are dumb enough to molest children aren't intelligent enough to comprehend dangers far into the future. They'll only care about immediate dangers. Even if they did comprehend the dangers, they may not be able to control their urges to avoid molesting children in the first place. It is impossible to teach every child molester in the world a lesson. By the time a molester has learned they're lesson, they would have already molested children by then.

Conclusion:

You shouldn't be allowed to mess up your brain. [3]
Revenge out of hatred doesn't just go away after you kill them. You'll still feel the same hatred even years afterwards. You won't be satisfied with just killing them, nor will you be satisfied if you torture them. Not in the aftermath, at lest. You shouldn't be allowed to ruin your life by comitting murder, and risking that not only the child molester kill you in self defense, but the child molester's family members kill you as revenge for killing one of their own. Not everyone's moral compass aligns with each other.


Sources:

[1] https://goo.gl...
[1] https://goo.gl...
[1] https://goo.gl...
[2] https://goo.gl...
[3] https://www.psychologicalscience.org...


Debate Round No. 2
Masterful

Pro

CHILD MOLESTATION.

How many cases do we have of people molesting bear cubs?

If you found a bear cub in the wild, you wouldn’t stop and play with it, harm it or MOLEST it. You’d run, knowing where there is a cub, a dangerous and wrathful mother bear is also nearby. She is far more dangerous to humans, because she’s held to no laws.
This is exactly the same principle you should have to heed within humans. You feel my sons butt, you will feel my wrath. That’s the unspoken threat, the problem is, the law tells me I can’t harm such a monster. Nobody fears being put in prison and having meals made for them every day, everyone should fear the wrath of a raging father held to no particular law.

Why would my opponent protect a deranged man who took a job at an infant school in order to prey upon the vulnerable and innocent?
A man who has monstrously defiled no end of child anus.
This is the man my opponents defends. Any attempt to suggest this man deserves to live is preposterous.
Should we keep him caged up like an animal and pay for his miserable existence? Or should we just end all the evil that he is?
The answer is quite clear.

It currently costs £40,000 [A] per year to house an inmate within jail. This is all tax payer money, we certainly shouldn’t be paying for the evil crimes of that man. It’s his turn to pay, with his life.

That man is 32. Child molestation is punishable by 1-30 years in prison [B] This means he will be out by 62 at the latest. Once out he’ll have the freedom to molest more children.

A molester dying would not further the emotional distress that my child is facing. Do you believe my child cares about that man? They hardly knew one another, it wasn’t like they were dating.
He will rest assured knowing that monster is dead.


A rebuttal of my opponent’s rebuttal.

For the record I am emotionally supporting my child. I can kill a man and support my family.

“Many inmates are more than happy to commit vigilante justice against child rapists”


My opponent attempts to refute my arguments by telling us that child molesters will get beaten and killed in prison anyway.

He uses this as an argument in favour of the current justice system. This tells us that my opponent concedes to child molesters deserving death.

I would therefore like to thank my opponent for helping my arguments overcome any issues concerning morality they may have had. We agree it’s not immoral to kill child molesters.


"You shouldn't be allowed to mess up your brain"

Don't tell me I might get hurt, don't tell me that killing will mess with my mind. I've shot at a group of dangerous boars with a hunting rifle where the single bullet penetrated through one boar and managed to hit 2 others. The two other boars were squealing like cute piggies, trying to run, but too much of their blood had drained. And so they lay there in horror as I walked over to them and began to smash their cute innocent heads in with a rock! AND YOU DARE TO TELL ME THAT I’D GO CRAZY AFTER KILLING A CHILD MOLESTER? I ALREADY AM CRAZY!

DawnBringerRiven

Con

Argument I - Animals stay away from cubs knowing a dangerous adult bear is nearby. This works the same way with humans. If humans were allowed to kill threats to their family, no one would threaten others.

Rebuttal I:

Humans aren't as simple as other species of animal. As I have pointed out earlier that you have not addressed, fathers have killed their child's rapist time and time again, yet rapists continue their acts. Child molesters may not be able to resist their urges enough to consider the dangers of raping a child. This principle will not stop molesters from acting out their desires. Many humans don't keep up with the news enough to be aware that fathers are murdering their child's rapist in the first place. Some humans don't even fear death. This principle does not work at all with humans.


Statement I - "Why would my opponent protect a deranged man who took a job at an infant school in order to prey upon the vulnerable and innocent?"


In no way did I implicate that I am defending the molester. In this debate, I am defending the stance that revenge murdering should not be allowed as it is morally and logically flawed. I am in favor of the molester being punished to the fullest extent of our current laws.

Argument II - Inmates are expensive and the offender will eventually be free to commit more criminal acts. I ought to be allowed to kill him as he is evil and wastes our nation's resources.


Rebuttal III:

Evil exists only in the eye of the beholder. Killing even a single animal can become objectively evil in the eyes of many. If anyone who was viewed as evil and wasted more of our nation's resources than they gave, many people would die that would be innocent in your eyes, but guilty and evil in others. Hypothetical scenario - An adult who has never moved out of his mother's residence and refuses to apply for a job. The single mother believes that her son has wasted the life given to them, that her son is evil because she has given him everything and the child hasn't shown any gratitude. The mother kills her own son as he has wasted so much of her money and resources his entire life, and refuses to get a job to contribute to society. Would you agree that this mother was morally right in murdering her own son as in her eyes, her son was evil and wasted more resources than contributed? Perhaps you'd answer that with a yes, but not everyone would agree with the mother. This line of logic is flawed and won't work in human society, as what's viewed as evil is entirely subjective. If you are afraid that the pedophile will reoffend, then murdering him is not the solution.

Argument IV - My son would be happy his rapist is dead.

Rebuttal IV:


That was not my main point. Your son won't care if the molester is dead or not. I don't believe your son is old enough to comprehend death and justice. Your son will care about you. As I have previously stated, you risk dying by the molester from self defense. You also risk dying by the friends and family of the molester if you succeed. They may kill you out of revenge for murdering one of their own. Risking your own also puts a risk on your child.

Statement II - "My opponent attempts to refute my arguments by telling us that child molesters will get beaten and killed in prison anyway. He uses this as an argument in favour of the current justice system. This tells us that my opponent concedes to child molesters deserving death."

I do not concede that molesters deserve death, nor do I believe that it is morally right to revenge murder a molester. My argument supports my reasoning that molesters will be too afraid of prison to want to "bum a child" to go back to prison. My argument refutes the notion that tax is paying for pedophiles to live happily. They are not living happily if they are being beaten regularly. My argument opposes the notion that molesters will reoffend, as the majority of molesters will be too afraid to go back to prison; therefore, they won't molest another child. Nowhere in my argument did I state that I agree with the inmates who kill rapists. I was simply stating the facts.

Argument VI - As my brain is already broken, revenge murdering a rapist won't damage my brain any more than it already is. This is evident as I have killed boars without empathy.

Rebuttal VI -

The notion that Pro is "crazy" because he has killed boars simply does not make sense. Even teens and children hunt animals for sport and food. [1] The ability to kill boars without empathy is not abnormal in any way. Even smashing a boar's head with a rock is not abnormal, as children have skinned animals themselves. If killing boars is the most morally questionable thing Pro has ever done in his life, then he is nothing less than perfectly sane. My original argument still stands.

Conclusion:

Pro argues that he should be allowed to kill his child's rapist out of revenge. There are a myriad of flaws with murdering out of revenge, both morally and logically. Pro argues that he is obligated the right to murder his child’s rapist because the rapist is evil and will only continue to molest more children. What is evil is not finely defined in any way. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. I have shown this to be evident with my hypothetical scenario of the mother killing her son. Pro does not have the right to choose what is evil on behalf of all of humanity. They are not God. Morals are decided by the individual, or by a God(s) if you are a person of faith. There is no such thing as absolute evil. Even the most controversial human that ever existed, Adolf Hitler, is not seen as evil by all people. The notion that the molester will continue to offend. A person should not be killed simply because of a chance for them to commit a felony in the future. This is not at all fair, as this ruling is based in bias and guesses. Under this ruling, almost every felon in the world would receive the death penalty as they all have the chance to commit more crimes once they are let out of jail. This includes those that are innocent of their crimes and were wrongfully placed in jail. Not only is murdering out of revenge morally flawed, as killing will always be morally wrong in the eyes of most people, this is also logically flawed. If Pro succeeds in murdering the child molester, he risks being killed out of revenge by the molester’s family. If Pro is allowed to kill out of revenge, so is everyone else who feel they’ve been wronged.
If Pro allowed to murder the molester, and does so, under Pro’s reasoning the molester’s parents are allowed to murder Pro’s son out of revenge. [2] As Gandhi has famously stated, “An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.” Pro wants to kill only to satiate their self-serving desires for revenge, they don’t actually care about retribution. If Pro didn’t perceive an emotional high out of revenge, they would never contemplate carrying it out. Retribution, evil, recidivism, taxes, these are nothing more than excuses to commit an act Pro already knows is morally flawed. The need for revenge is nothing more than instinct leading you around like a pig on a carrot stick. [3] No one should be allowed to kill out of revenge, as it incites a cycle of killing out of revenge that won’t end. Pro murdering out of revenge will directly put everyone’s lives that are related to him at risk. Revenge murders don’t solve anything at all and instead lead to more problems. If Pro and the rest of the world was allowed to kill out of revenge, Pro’s son would eventually become a victim of the same revenge murders that Pro himself started. Pro will indirectly lead to his own son’s death. There is nothing logically or morally sound about Pro murdering a felon out of revenge. Pro in no way shape or form should be allowed to physically harm the felon out of revenge.

Sources:

[1] https://goo.gl...

[1] https://goo.gl...

[1] https://goo.gl...

[2] https://goo.gl...

[2] https://goo.gl...

[3] https://goo.gl...



Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 1 week ago
DawnBringerRiven
According to Adolf Hitler you are allowed to kill all of the Jews.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 week ago
TheMarketLibertarian
According to John Locke, if he is not punished by the legal system, yes.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 week ago
TheMarketLibertarian
According to John Locke, if he is not punished by the legal system, yes.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Debating_Horse// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I will say that the con person (DawnBringerRiven) had better reasoning and arguments against the pro person (Masterful) arguments.

[*Reason removal*] (1) The voter does not explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Generalizing about the reasoning presented by each side is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Debating_Horse 1 month ago
Debating_Horse
I would not approve of murder for his offense, but a good lengthy prison sentence is more preferable by me! Life or 60 years!
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 1 month ago
DawnBringerRiven
Please do
Posted by lukert11 1 month ago
lukert11
I can send you a message..
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 1 month ago
DawnBringerRiven
Can you elaborate on what I'm doing wrong? I'm always happy to receive criticism
Posted by lukert11 1 month ago
lukert11
I would love to debate con in this exact debate because the Con speaker is going about this all wrong
Posted by What50 1 month ago
What50
I personally let my son handle the whip to torture him a bit, give him some new experiences and show him what to do if that ever happens to his child.
No votes have been placed for this debate.