The Instigator
TheDragonReborn
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

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
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,360 times Debate No: 14149
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

TheDragonReborn

Pro

If you kill a person, with no real intentions, no gain, no purpose or reason, I state that it is wrong to do so.
Sky_ace25

Con

Hope everybody had a lovely winter break, and on that note let's get rolling with the debate.

1. I contend that there is no such situation where a person can be killed with no real intentions, gain, etc. Even a cold-blooded murderer kills either for amusement or to satisfy some psychological problem. Other murders include those to acquire retribution, where one kills to satisfy there own sense of justice. Additionally, punitive murder seeks to punish somebody for a wrong. What we see now is that it is impossible for one to be killed for absolutely no reason whatsoever. My opponent must first prove that there is a situation in the real world where one can be killed for a selfless cause, if not you default Con since the resolution is negated if the situation is impossible to carry out to begin with.

2. Assuming Pro proves that such a situation exists, my opponent has never proved that objective morality exists. The statement that "it is wrong to do so" establishes an ideal that no matter where such a crime occurs, it is wrong. This is a form of objective morality, that is, a morality not dependent on individual factors. If we ignore for a moment compelling religious arguments on this subject, one sees that in the world today different countries have their own law and legal systems.They also all have different notions on what is morally wrong and/or morally correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is frequently abused and ignored, thus this is not a valid justification for objective morality. In light of all this evidence, it's clear that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus there is no universal moral wrong with the situation my opponent has depicted.

Summary:
1. It's impossible for one to kill selflessly.
2. Objective Morality does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDragonReborn

Pro

I will accede that for (PRO) to be true then morality must also exist. My opponent makes the statement that morality does not exist, yet, I would naturally assume that a vast percentage of people would (morally) agree that PRO is correct. Isn't that interesting? I further state that morality exists, even if it only exists in an imaginary sense.

Real, or imaginary morality, it still has a strong hold on perhaps every thinking human in some way, whether they wish to admit it or not.

In addition, if imaginary morality has such a strong foothold and effect, I state that morality indeed does exist but has different rules for each individual human being.
Sky_ace25

Con

I'll make this as brief as I can.

Dropped Argument:
1. My opponent completely dropped my first argument that tells you there is no such situation as selfless killing. Since it is impossible for such a situation to exist, we can not make a statement as to whether it is moral or not, and thus you default Con as I told you previously.

Refutations (these will go by paragraph):

1. My opponent makes a hasty generalization and assumes that people agree with his position, however in the context of a debate one can not make such a claim without proper justification. Furthermore, imaginary morality is not a legitimate argument because a. my opponent can change his interpretation of it at any point in this debate and b. it is unfair to assume I can argue against a state of moral thought that my opponent can create and change at will.

2. Dude, if morality had such a strong hold on people then we wouldn't have human rights abuses, pretty straight forward.

3. This basically contradicts with my opponent's position, my opponent is trying to prove a universal norm by affirming the resolution. However, here he admits that morality is infinitely subjective and is not equivalent for each human being. Thus, he admits that objective morality does not exist and thus we can not make a statement that appeals to objective morality.

Therefore, since my opponent dropped the first argument, did not adequately refute the second one, and basically contradicted himself, you vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDragonReborn

Pro

First of all, it is quite possible to kill for the proverbial "no reason" however this generally relates to some sort of psychological disorder. Sexual sadism, "daddy issues," etc. But, that being said, even killing out of your control (if you believe in a disorder that makes it beyond your control) is, in fact, killing for a reason (the reason being that you're psychologically drawn to these actions and can't bring your conscious mind to control your unconscious mind).

Morality is relative, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A murderer may believe murdering is acceptable, but that doesn't mean others have to consider it acceptable.

Morals are dependent on the person but social norms are known by everyone, which is why psychopaths have no guilt as they have lost the social plot.

Secondly, with or without morality - if you believe it is impossible to kill for no reason then you in fact believe that it is wrong or unnatural to kill for "absolutely no reason whatsoever."

The base question in this argument is purely reliant on if you have or do not have morals.

Let me ask you a question:
"If someone were to kill you tomorrow because you looked at them wrong, would you want them to be punished?"

If you answer yes I would like to make the following response:
"Then, you must really believe that it is wrong to kill for no reason or you wouldn't see it fair to punish someone for such an act."

Dear voters, please consider your decision carefully. If you choose con you are not saying it is okay to kill, but you are saying that is not wrong to kill.

Finally I would like to send a warm thank you to my opponent for putting up a very good argument.
Sky_ace25

Con

I'll just make my refutations according to my opponent's paragraphs.

1. If you're killing for a reason then you are not killing somebody in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever, hence resolution is negated because we can not evaluate the morality of an impossible act as I said previously. My opponent contradicts himself here again.

2. Another contradiction, if morality is subjective then it is impossible to make an absolute objective moral statement as the resolution would require. I pointed out this earlier and my opponent again does not respond.

3. Social norms are not known by everybody as we do not even have a universal guide to norms (objective morality doesn't exist as my opponent admitted). Psychopaths may have no guilt, but that doesn't mean they don't get some pleasure or joy out of killing thus they are not killing for "absolutely no reason whatsoever" so this argument has no bearing here.

4. If I believe something is impossible I don't believe it's morally wrong. Pigs can't fly, that doesn't mean I don't think it would be awesome if pigs could fly.

5. I'm sorry there is an argument here? At the moment all Pro has done is make baseless assertions, ignore Con's arguments, and contradict himself.

6 + 7. Again my opponent does not understand his own argument, if somebody is killing me because I looked at them the wrong way then they are killing for a reason. The reason being I looked at them the wrong way. This is completely irrelevant to the resolution we are debating.

8. If you choose Con you're saying that you don't buy a Pro argument if it has no warrant, if it's completely off topic, if it contradicts itself, if it does not answer the resolution, if it fails to respond to the Con's case, and is just a poor show of debating in general.

Conclusion.

1. I'm pretty sure I lost conduct due to my bluntness, but I can't stand debaters who try to pull red herrings all over the place.

2. In terms of arguments, Con has proved that you negate because:
a. Objective morality does not exist thus we do not make an objective moral statement by Affirming.
b. It is impossible to kill for no reason whatsoever, therefore we can not evaluate the morality of an impossible action.

With that I thank you all for taking the time to read this debate, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Objective morality derives from the inherent, genetically-programmed, nature of the human species. Pro didn't say that explicitly, but made adequate reference to the common human concepts of morality. It's obvious, so Pro didn't need to say much.

Sand gobies (fish) eat their young. Humboldt squid are cannibalistic. Humans are programmed differently.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
It wouldve been better if the debaters dont vote at all.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
If you would like my RFD:

I'll give Pro conduct, I did say he probably deserved it.
S&G : I felt I had better grammar, but if other people feel otherwise I'll tie this.
Arguments: I won't even waste my time justifying this one.
Sources: None of us quoted direct links, but hypothetical examples were better utilized to justify arguments on the Con side.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
Very well if it's that big of a deal I'll revise my vote.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Well you yourself admitted in your last round that you probably lost conduct, yet you voted that you won on it. So I dont buy that you're just voting for what you believe. Also, both of you used near perfect grammar so I dont see why you vote for that either. But you did better debating so good job on that.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
Is votebombing a crime now even if you agree with voting for yourself? Geesh Excuse me.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Vote bomb = No excuse
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
RFD:
Counter vote bomb. Even keel.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I vote arguments for con because he won, I vote conduct for pro because con votebombed himself.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
I know I know, I'll point it out when I feel like responding to the argument lol.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hiphopest 6 years ago
hiphopest
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ReptiDeath 6 years ago
ReptiDeath
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
TheDragonRebornSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70