The Instigator
Sitara
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

It is a proven fact that rape and murder are always evil.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 856 times Debate No: 37365
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Sitara

Pro

Rape and murder are evil, therefore they are proof of evil. Anyone who says otherwise does not know the facts. Le defintion de evil: http://www.merriam-webster.com... If you believe otherwise, you are disgusting.
Debate Round No. 1
Sitara

Pro

Anyone that does not believe that rape and murder are always evil has mental issues. The hard to a rape victim, and the harm to a murder victim's family attest to this.
Mikal

Con

This is not really a contention or an argument from Pro but I will present a case either way


Contention 1

Her Perspective

She is saying rape and murder are evil because of her own personal worldview. She is applying what she knows as wrong and using it objectively to judge other people.

Example : She could have said " In America rape and murder are considered evil"

That would have been a more plausible stance. That is not the case, she is taking two acts that she views as evil and labeling it as objectivity evil. This is not considering all the factors at play




Contention 2

Time, Culture, and Location can determine morality or in this case what is evil.


In different cultures, murder could be accepted as a normal within the society. They could kill people for fun, or just not see anything wrong with it. In this case, it does not fit her definition of evil. It is causing no harm and is accepted.

For murder to be an evil or immoral act, it would have to be accepted as that within the society. Some societies do not share the same beliefs we do, so often consider murder normal.



In Closing

She is taking how we are raised in America and more modern cultures, and applying it objectively throughout time and to every culture that exists or has existed.

To say murder and rape is objectively evil which is the stance she is taken, and then to say it is a proven fact does not take into consideration all the variables at play.

She has not considered different cultures whom accept these acts, and even at points in history where they were justified.




Contention 3

Murder - The act of taking a human life

She is not even considering cases where murder can be used in self defense, or accidental murder. Both of these types of murder are not evil even by her definition.





Final Point:

We view murder as evil, but all people do not have the same worldview or perspective as us


So her resolution should have been "Murder and rape can be evil", not "are always evil". She has taken an impossible resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Sitara

Pro

It is not murder to defend yourself, give me a break. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone.
Mikal

Con

First I have no idea why my third contention was below my conclusion. It copied bad from word I gues


Next she has not addressed any contention I have brought up other than saying what she defines murder as


Murder is defined as

A : To put an end to; destroy

B: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

This means even people whom accidentally kill someone can be tried for murder. Which is why the key word is "especially". Most murder is premeditated, but I have even given examples of premeditated and planned murder in my contentions as well.

You could argue that someone whom is insane does not commit murder under those circumstances. Due to the fact it is not premeditated malice towards the person they killed. When we look at it, it is all in how we perceive murder. Murder is the act of ending a life in most cases, and which is what most people are put on trial by. Even people whom did not mean to commit the act can still be tried and found guilty. Often if it is found to be an accident, they will be found not guilty. The question is defining if it was in fact an accident. Which is why people often play that card and use it to try and get away scotch free.

http://www.kansas.com...
http://www.journalnow.com...


Again even consider the scenario I brought up with different cultures openly killing each other and being okay with it. By them, this is not an evil act. Therefore you are judging them with your perspective on what is evil. This is wrong because it is not taking into consideration their perspective. They could see this as a positive impact toward the society. Openly murdering someone because they hate them, but not being harmful to the society itself. There are hundreds of ways in which the act of murder can be committed, and be deemed acceptable.


In Closing

I have shown why it is impossible to uphold her resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
lmao, either way it is was explained. I didn't want to troll it to much, it would have been funny though to bring that point up lol
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Ahh you went the wrong way with it....You shoulda twisted this to say its ok to rape and murder people in video games since no harm is done, and therefore murder and rape isnt always evil.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
I have no idea why contention 3 came before the closing wtf lol. O well
Posted by Sitara 4 years ago
Sitara
I know, right?
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
This will certainly be interesting unless con plans to troll the ever-loving f*** out of this debate
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Leonardo 4 years ago
Leonardo
SitaraMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Only con used arguments to defend the case. Pro only offered their opinion.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 4 years ago
Nyx999
SitaraMikalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Rape-Always evil, there's no question. Nobody can ever justify rape. It's terrible. But murder... Sitara defined murder as the unlawful killing of somebody else, but just because it's unlawful doesn't mean it's wrong. If a person killed my entire family unprovoked, than I wouldn't view it as wrong if I took revenge and killed him. It would be against the law, but not against my principles, and therefore not evil. (At least not to me) Mikal's argument however was flawed. It is lawful to kill someone in self-defense, and therefore not murder. And murder can't be by accident, or else it's called manslaughter. Mikal also provided a false definition of murder. Murder is simply not killing someone, it is the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another. Therefore, Con's Third Contention is inherently flawed. And Con DIDN'T provide an instance where murder would be okay EXCEPT with the situation where people would have different principles.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
SitaraMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro didn't even try to make a case. He just asserted his point. Also, the source he cites gives 10 different definitions and he didn't make it clear which one would be used (nor did Con).
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
SitaraMikalTied
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: Didn't you two have this exact same debate before? Anyway arguments since pro made little arguments, and cons arguments went unrefuted. Rest is equal. Edit* It was not you two, but Mikal had a similar debate