The Instigator
cheesedingo1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 1/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 20609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

cheesedingo1

Con

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool: oh, where am I, oh here now. Umm okay. how does it dooooo? I would be argueing against. I hope that is what had in mind.. all. What the hell is the argument about? What are domes?

A Fool .. in you window..
Debate Round No. 1
cheesedingo1

Con

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. That is the resolved. Hello, I am glad to debate against you. I will be supporting the con, or Negative side to this To Use deadly force on an individual is to have the intention of of kill them, and to kill someone who has abused you, is only stooping to their level. By killing them, you are valuing your own life over theres. To have proper morals, and then value your life over another is contradicting itself in it's own sense. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, It is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Killing someone who abused you can make you go to jail
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cheesedingo1

Con

cheesedingo1 forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
just put something. i want to win fairly.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Self-defense would be more intuitional, or reflexive... deliberate implies deliberation.. that which implies they the murder was thought about first. not just as a self, defense.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
But she made sure to say deliberate... it word which made the difference..
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
In this case, it could be considered self-defense.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
if you are okay with killing people on purpose... I am not.. a woman was beat many times they have had many time to leave..

They have to take acount for some responsibity,, beating is assualt..

But murder is murder

there is no coming back after murder.....
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
....Pro is a perfectly defendable position....
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
oh. so i guess i winn by default. sorry we couldn't have debated. We should debate some other time.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Nah its against my morals to trick people with my reason.. it get very unconfortale dissonance with gives me a sick stomach... its every thing I stand against.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
just say somethin. this is a debate.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
just say somethin. this is a debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.