The Instigator
Anairis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is murder wrong?

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 1 vote the winner is...
LaL36
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,037 times Debate No: 29852
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Anairis

Con

I don't think that murder is wrong because there is no valid reason it shouldn't be, other than how other people feel about people they know being murdered or them being murdered. People who believe in animals rights don't like the mistreatment of animals but they say nothing about how they kill each other. They call that survival or things that animals do. But there comes a time when murder it is a want or a necessity to kill...so why can't we?(other than for self defense)
LaL36

Pro

Good luck!

"I don't think that murder is wrong because there is no valid reason it shouldn't be"

Either you meant to type "should be" or you are just helping my argument. If you meant should be, I am going to half to strongly disagree with you. First of all, you are taking away somebody's free will. They want to live and you are taking that away from them. Second of all, depending on how you kill the person you are torturing them. Also, it is unknown what happens after someone dies. What if there actually is hell? Do you know what torture you bringing upon that person?

"People who believe in animals rights don't like the mistreatment of animals but they say nothing about how they kill each other."

First of all, animals kill each other for food just like humans kill them for food so it would be stupid for someone to say sharks should stop eating fish because otherwise the shark would die. Second of all, you can't really compare animals to humans. They are just in a different class and do not have as much meaning in their life(Please do not turn this into an animal debate. I love animals just feel they are in a different class).

"But there comes a time when murder it is a want or a necessity to kill"

You say "want" and "necessity". The way you phrase it, it is almost like you are suggesting they are synonyms. You have said self defense is not to be included in this debate. Besides for self defense, there is no other time where killing is a necessity.

"so why can't we?"

Well because there are laws that prohibit it(Calm down just trolling for the first time).
To answer you seriously, it is morally wrong. I think I have proved that but I will continue to prove it.

My arguments: Answer this con: If I were to come to your house tonight and just kill somebody in your family, wouldn't you say that isn't okay? Wouldn't you hate me for the rest of your life? I assume that you would answer yes and bring up the case of revenge. If so, that would be circular logic because if you think killing is not wrong in response to a murder, that means you condemn the first murder therefore saying murder is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Anairis

Con

Second of all, depending on how you kill the person you are torturing them"

A lot of murders don't include torture. The pain the person feels as they are dying could be considered torture but I don't.

"Also, it is unknown what happens after someone dies. What if there actually is hell? Do you know what torture you bringing upon that person?"

Like you said, what happens after we die is unknown. You can't really judge a person for sending another person to hell, if they didn't know it existed. Also, don't forget the fact that people that are supposed to go to hell are those who have in some way wronged someone around them/committed a sin. If the person that is murdered goes to hell, they did something to deserve it(going to hell, not necessarily the murder).

"Second of all, you can't really compare animals to humans. They are just in a different class and do not have as much meaning in their life."

Humans are animals. You can't argue that to me. I assume you want to separate those two words because of the way people see animals and their intelligence. Our brain's capacity is the only thing that separates us from the other animals. However, we do have animal instincts and desires. That being said, life is life. How can you determine that their life has less meaning than ours? I want you to explain this to me. I'm arguing this and asking you at the same time. Because there are humans who are born with mental disabilities. A lot of them spend their entire lives in their beds and a lot can't even communicate. So does their life not have as much meaning because of it? Other animals can't speak but they can form bonds and feel. If you're going to say that murder is wrong, the killing of animals should be wrong too. Unlike other animals, we can get our food from other sources and we also don't only kill animals for food.

"Besides for self defense, there is no other time where killing is a necessity."

You really can't come up with another example of when killing would be a necessity? I'll give you an example. Women that are abused. They often don't seek help and deny help being given to them because of their fears. If a woman was to kill her husband after he started hitting her, the court would call it self defense. If a woman was to plan her husband's murder(even if she was abused before it), it is considered murder. The sentence might be shortened but there would still be jail time. In both scenarios, it was a necessity. One could say that if she had time to plan a murder, she had time to call for help or get help...but that isn't necessarily true. There's a lot of ways of killing someone that aren't that hard or take long to plan. Plus a person that is abused is not in the same state of mind that a regular person would be.

"If I were to come to your house tonight and just kill somebody in your family, wouldn't you say that isn't okay? Wouldn't you hate me for the rest of your life? I assume that you would answer yes and bring up the case of revenge. If so, that would be circular logic because if you think killing is not wrong in response to a murder, that means you condemn the first murder therefore saying murder is wrong."

You assumed wrong. I don't say this for the sake of arguing. I would not hate you, I would not be bothered by what you did. If I knew it was you, I'd ask you why. I'd tell you to pay for the funeral and that's probably it. I don't really care for my family members but I think that even if I did, it wouldn't bother me. I think that even though from a legal standpoint people are not allowed to kill, we are all born with the right to do so.
LaL36

Pro

Thank you for your response.

"The pain the person feels as they are dying could be considered torture but I don't."

Considering you are not the one dying, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

"You can't really judge a person for sending another person to hell, if they didn't know it existed."

Yes you can. The person knows that hell might exist. And as we both agreed, when someone dies, it is unknown what happens. You are sending somebody to a place unknown and this is a pretty bad thing.

"Also, don't forget the fact that people that are supposed to go to hell are those who have in some way wronged someone around them/committed a sin. If the person that is murdered goes to hell, they did something to deserve it(going to hell, not necessarily the murder)."

Completely irrelevant. Maybe you will go to hell even if you are good. It still remains unknown.

"Our brain's capacity is the only thing that separates us from the other animals."

Okay either you are ignorant or you chose to disregard the facts that animals have four legs, we have two. We have thumbs animals don't. And the biggest difference beyond the activities humans and animals have in common (eating, sleeping, mating, and defending), human beings have a fifth faculty: the intelligence to inquire into the truth of our existence:

Who am I?
Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?
Why am I suffering?
How can I liberate myself from this suffering condition?
It is this extraordinarily valuable ability to be introspective"to question the meaning and purpose of our existence and endeavor to find a solution to human suffering"that sets humans apart from animals.

What about morality? Do animals posses morality? Sense of humor? Culture? Empathy? Point is animals are different.

"How can you determine that their life has less meaning than ours? I want you to explain this to me. I'm arguing this and asking you at the same time. Because there are humans who are born with mental disabilities. A lot of them spend their entire lives in their beds and a lot can't even communicate. So does their life not have as much meaning because of it?"

This is once again irrelevant but I will address it. Even that disabled human's life has more meaning than an animals because he probably has a family and people who care for him.

"If you're going to say that murder is wrong, the killing of animals should be wrong too. Unlike other animals, we can get our food from other sources and we also don't only kill animals for food."

Okay even if I am a hypocrite that doesn't mean murder isn't wrong so take animals out of this.

"I'll give you an example. Women that are abused. They often don't seek help and deny help being given to them because of their fears. If a woman was to kill her husband after he started hitting her, the court would call it self defense. If a woman was to plan her husband's murder(even if she was abused before it), it is considered murder. The sentence might be shortened but there would still be jail time. In both scenarios, it was a necessity."

Well then it is clearly not a necessity. If he wasn't attacking her, why would she need to kill him. She definitely could have got help. It is a necessity for her to seek help but she didn't.

"Plus a person that is abused is not in the same state of mind that a regular person would be."

So what?! That doesn't make murder morally okay. If an abused person would rape kids would that make it okay? (Well if my opponent thinks murder is okay, she might think rape is okay but voters, you got my point).

"You assumed wrong. I don't say this for the sake of arguing. I would not hate you, I would not be bothered by what you did. If I knew it was you, I'd ask you why. I'd tell you to pay for the funeral and that's probably it. I don't really care for my family members but I think that even if I did, it wouldn't bother me."

Okay most people would therefore it would be wrong because most people will be extremely pissed at me. Do you have a heart?
Debate Round No. 2
Anairis

Con

"Considering you are not the one dying, your opinion is completely irrelevant."

Neither of us can say murders are torturous. We haven"t studied all murders/most murders to know what percentage was torturous. A person shot in the head who died instantly, didn"t feel pain. Also, I"d like to point out that most of what we say is opinion. The reality is that the grand majority of people would agree with you, but that doesn"t make it a fact.

"Yes you can. The person knows that hell might exist. And as we both agreed, when someone dies, it is unknown what happens. You are sending somebody to a place unknown and this is a pretty bad thing." Also" "Completely irrelevant. Maybe you will go to hell even if you are good. It still remains unknown."

People eventually die anyways. Sure, you are taking the decision of whether they want to die at the moment or not but they would have died anyways. If you went to hell and you suffered or felt good or whatever"it would have happened anyways. The killer would have only shortened the time. Which I believe is not something you can use to determine whether murdering someone is wrong or not.

"Okay either you are ignorant or you chose to disregard the facts that animals have four legs, we have two. We have thumbs animals don't. And the biggest difference beyond the activities humans and animals have in common (eating, sleeping, mating, and defending), human beings have a fifth faculty: the intelligence to inquire into the truth of our existence:

Who am I?
Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?
Why am I suffering?
How can I liberate myself from this suffering condition?
It is this extraordinarily valuable ability to be introspective"to question the meaning and purpose of our existence and endeavor to find a solution to human suffering"that sets humans apart from animals.

What about morality? Do animals posses morality? Sense of humor? Culture? Empathy? Point is animals are different."

I probably should have specified but I thought it was obvious that I knew the physical characteristics separate us from other animals. The reason I did not specify is because humans are also different from one another, but that doesn"t change the fact that they are humans and equal to each other, especially in terms of worth living/dying. Also, what was in question was whether or not their life had more or less meaning than ours. You bring up again the fact that most of them cannot think like we do. I too said that they don"t. However, that doesn"t make them less than us. They may not know what their purpose in life is, but we do know that they have a purpose. We again use more of our brain than they do and have more capability of doing so, but that doesn"t make their life worth less than ours. As animals of high intelligence, we should know better.

"This is once again irrelevant but I will address it. Even that disabled human's life has more meaning than an animals because he probably has a family and people who care for him."

A lot of animals have families. They can form bonds and even care if something were to happen to those family members. I will admit that a lot also have families for the simple fact of survival, not because of sentimental value, but they do have families. But even if they didn"t, it wouldn"t make them less than us. It"s like saying because someone has no family and no friends that they deserve to die more than a person who does have those things. Is that what you"re saying?

"Okay even if I am a hypocrite that doesn't mean murder isn't wrong so take animals out of this."

I"m still arguing about animals because they apply to this debate. If you refuse to accept the fact that other animals are as worthy of life as we are"your arguments are weak. Humans are animals. Other animals are different than us and have less brain capability but we are still one of them. I"m not trying to make you change your mind about murder being wrong or right. I"m arguing why I think murder is right for the simple sake of arguing. A lot of people would say this is not debatable, but it obviously is. I know that your opinion is not going to change after this debate. I also know that I will lose this debate due to the fact that they majority of people will agree with you on the simple point of morality. But I am not going to back down from my point about animals.

"Well then it is clearly not a necessity. If he wasn't attacking her, why would she need to kill him. She definitely could have got help. It is a necessity for her to seek help but she didn't."

People that are abused don"t see the same options as normal people or people that are not under constant stress and abuse. Just like people with mental disorders. Also, women that plan their husband"s murder don"t believe that they can simply over power them. I"d like to bring up the point that in court (depending on what the person did) people with mental disorders often get help instead of jail time or a combination of both. In cases like the one I brought up, the ruling is mostly murder one. Now, I see the fact that being abused is not a mental disorder. But I also see that being abused and having such strong fears about your life being in danger, can cloud your judgment. The same way that having a mental disorder would.

"So what?! That doesn't make murder morally okay. If an abused person would rape kids would that make it okay? (Well if my opponent thinks murder is okay, she might think rape is okay but voters, you got my point)."

It is known that if women/men who are abused (in whatever way) don"t receive help, that a percentage of them will go on to abuse their children or other children The same applies for that. These people can get help. But yeah you"re right. I don"t think rape is wrong.

"Okay most people would therefore it would be wrong because most people will be extremely pissed at me. Do you have a heart?"

Yes, most people. Again, just because the majority of people feel a certain way about a topic, it doesn"t make what they think"right. To answer your question, yes. I have a functioning heart. If I didn"t, I wouldn"t be writing right now. But I think you meant the symbolic heart. If you meant that" then yes and no. Decisions/opinions sometimes need to include emotions but for the most part I think it is better not to use them. Logic is more useful.
LaL36

Pro

"People eventually die anyways. Sure, you are taking the decision of whether they want to die at the moment or not but they would have died anyways. If you went to hell and you suffered or felt good or whatever"it would have happened anyways. The killer would have only shortened the time. Which I believe is not something you can use to determine whether murdering someone is wrong or not."

Okay you basically said what I was going to say. You sped up the time. That is a bad thing and if they had a good life and wanted to live that might new considered torture. Anyway you are doing something against their will so how is it not wrong?

"I probably should have specified but I thought it was obvious that I knew the physical characteristics separate us from other animals..

I mostly mentioned the non-physical charecterstics

Okay enough with the animals. If I were to say animals suck. Humans are definitely better. That would not make a difference. This is my last thing about animals. Even when you kill animals, there is somewhat of a purpose. Eating. When you kill a human. It is just for revenge. Eating is more important than revenge.

"People that are abused don"t see the same options as normal people or people that are not under constant stress and abuse."

That doesn't mean their murder isn't wrong.

"I"d like to bring up the point that in court (depending on what the person did) people with mental disorders often get help instead of jail time or a combination of both. In cases like the one I brought up, the ruling is mostly murder one. Now, I see the fact that being abused is not a mental disorder. But I also see that being abused and having such strong fears about your life being in danger, can cloud your judgment. The same way that having a mental disorder would."

Completely irrelevant. You are basically arguing that the punishment isn't unfair. That does not matter. What they did was still undeniably wrong.

"It is known that if women/men who are abused (in whatever way) don"t receive help, that a percentage of them will go on to abuse their children or other children The same applies for that. These people can get help. But yeah you"re right. I don"t think rape is wrong."

So they should receive help but that has nothing to do with our debate. Okay if I were to rape you and then kill you. Would you not like that?
Debate Round No. 3
Anairis

Con

Okay you basically said what I was going to say. You sped up the time. That is a bad thing and if they had a good life and wanted to live that might new considered torture. Anyway you are doing something against their will so how is it not wrong?"

It isn't wrong because we are all born with the right to do whatever we want. Humans are the ones that have set limitations.

"I mostly mentioned the non-physical charecterstics"

You did mention mostly physical characteristics. To quote you, you said "Okay either you are ignorant or you chose to disregard the facts that animals have four legs, we have two. We have thumbs animals don't." Those are physical characteristics.

"Okay enough with the animals. If I were to say animals suck. Humans are definitely better. That would not make a difference."

It would make a difference because it doesn't matter if you like other animals or not. We are animals, animals have life...therefore they apply to this debate. You're arguing that taking life away is wrong.

"This is my last thing about animals. Even when you kill animals, there is somewhat of a purpose. Eating. When you kill a human. It is just for revenge. Eating is more important than revenge."

Oh, so committing murder because of your personal beliefs is right? By what you said, cannibals who kill people and eat them are in their right to do so. Eating human meat is a personal preference and it is for the purpose of survival. Of course there are other foods that the cannibal could eat, but since the cannibal sees the human race DIFFERENTLY...what they did must not be wrong....correct? By your logic, this is true. Just checking.

"Okay if I were to rape you and then kill you. Would you not like that?"

I think you meant to say would you like that but anyways...I wouldn't care. Plus if you killed me, there's not much I can do now is there?
LaL36

Pro

LaL36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Anairis

Con

Anairis forfeited this round.
LaL36

Pro

My opponent has forfeited but so have I so I am addressing her arguments from last round. "It isn't wrong because we are all born with the right to do whatever we want. Humans are the ones that have set limitations.

1. Wrong, we do not have the right. 2. Even if we did, it doesn't mean it is morally correct. We have the right to fail school does that mean it's okay? 3. Humans already set that limitations.

"You did mention mostly physical characteristics. To quote you, you said "Okay either you are ignorant or you chose to disregard the facts that animals have four legs, we have two. We have thumbs animals don't." Those are physical characteristics."

You quoted once sentence. Do you want to quote the rest of what I said which is much longer.

"It would make a difference because it doesn't matter if you like other animals or not. We are animals, animals have life...therefore they apply to this debate. You're arguing that taking life away is wrong."

Murder-the crime of unlawfully killing a PERSON. Meriamwebsterdictionary

I thank the con for debating. Vote pro. Vote con and ill "murder" you. (Just trolling) :)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
Oh shoot! I didn't mean to forfeit it was sabbath.
Posted by Anairis 4 years ago
Anairis
Okay thanks billy!
Posted by BillyTheKids 4 years ago
BillyTheKids
If you click debates, then voting it should be one of the first ones, also the title is murder is right... if that possibly helps... I will post a link as well
Posted by Anairis 4 years ago
Anairis
@BillyTheKids: I tried to go read it but he has so many other debates and i don't think he named that debate as simply as i did. Could you tell me more about how to find it?
Posted by BillyTheKids 4 years ago
BillyTheKids
Go see Logical-Master in his debate, Murder is right, im sure you would be suprised
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Well, if your in so much pain and suffering that it seems unbearable and hopeless to continue living I supposed being murdered upon request should be allowed.
Posted by Avamys 4 years ago
Avamys
This is definitely not debatable, murder is obviously wrong, the person you kill doesn't want to die or loose their life, you are forcing them to. (If they wanted to die they would have committed suicide!)
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Well, it could be debated by someone who doesn't think good or bad can be objective, I suppose, but it seems like the motion is for a particular, when the only debate could be the general.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Are you equating murder with kill?

You should define it methinks.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
AnairisLaL36Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No one used sources. Con seems to have deactivated her account mid-debate, so conduct point to Pro there (this weighs more than simply missing a round). S&G to Pro because Con's was lacking. Arguments to Pro because Con's arguments against murder being wrong was weak.