The Instigator
TobehMickwah
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Pro (for)
Winning
84 Points

It should be legal to murder prostitutes

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 16 votes the winner is...
Korashk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,675 times Debate No: 11519
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (27)
Votes (16)

 

TobehMickwah

Con

Present your case, you sick MF.
Korashk

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and would like to clear up a few things before I begin my arguments. I will be assuming that my opponent is referring to American law as he and I are both from America and he gave no specific country in his opening statement. The resolution of this debate is "It should be legal to murder prostitutes." Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, "It should be legal to kill prostitutes."

Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution.

Definitions:
Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour.
http://en.wiktionary.org...
Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
~~~~~~~~
Arguments
~~~~~~~~

While it may not be proper to refer to those that do legal activities for money as prostitutes, I would not hesitate to call those that do illegal activities for money prostitutes. This includes more than just those that sell their bodies for sex. I contend that professional hitmen are prostitutes because they sell their illegal skills to clients at a set or negotiable price, aka contract killing. It is therefore my contention that killing professional hitmen should be legal and in fact can be justified in America's current legal system.

There is a legal concept called 'necessity' which basically means that a person should not be held responsible for their illegal actions because their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm [1]. This concept can be used as justification because professional hitmen by definition kill people for money. I would say that it typically does not matter to the professional hitmen who the person that they are killing is as long as they are paid for doing the killing. Therefore by the concept of necessity it is justifiable to kill the professional hitman in order to save all of their potential victims.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TobehMickwah

Con

" The resolution of this debate is "It should be legal to murder prostitutes." Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, "It should be legal to kill prostitutes."

All murder is killing.

Some killing is murder.

Since my opponent affirms the resolution "it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes", he affirms this in ALL cases.
If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder.

There is no way around this.

"Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution."

The resolution is "it should be legal to murder prostitutes" not "there is an instance where killing prostitutes should be legal."

Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes.

My opponent argues that "it should be legal to murder prostitutes", and therefore asserts that ALL murdering of prostitutes should be legal.

"Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour."

Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition.

"Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people."

Again, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me.

And it follows that my opponents elaborate example involving professional hitmen is irrelevant and does not hold any weight in this argument.

To conclude, I realize my opponent still has one more round left, so to be fair, I request that he does not make any new arguments or definitions unless they are in direct rebuttal of my argument.

If my opponent makes any new arguments, they should be ignored by the voters.

And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well.
Korashk

Pro

I do not thank my opponent for his response because of blatant ad hominem.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///Since my opponent affirms the resolution "it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes", he affirms this in ALL cases.
If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder.///

It would be impossible for me to affirm the resolution that murder should be legal, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person [2]. Therefore it is logically impossible for murder to be legal. I am advocating that killing should be legal.
~

///Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes.///

The resolution also does not state that "it should be legal to murder ALL prostitutes." I have shown that as the resolution stands it is logically impossible to affirm and therefore have reasonably, I believe, changed the word 'murder' to 'kill.' I would also like to bring up the point that my opponent, though Con in the debate, is the instigator and should bear at least some burden of proof. He has provided no justification for his stance that we shouldn't murder prostitutes. I on the other hand have supported the idea that at least in some instances killing prostitutes should be legal, even if my opponent believes these arguments to be unsatisfactory to fulfill the resolution.
~

///Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition.///

Since my opponent agrees to my definition of prostitution and does not contest the idea that professional hitmen fall under the definition this argument stands.
~

///And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well.///

Ad hominem, this statement should at least give me the conduct point.
~

In conclusion I have shown that there are instances where killing prostitutes should be legal whereas my opponent has only stated that I have to affirm that murdering all prostitutes should be legal, as the instigator I believe that he should bear at least some of the burden of proof and he did not attempt to defend his side. I end my arguments and urge a Pro vote.

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I get that Pro was making this a semantics debate (which is usually annoying to begin with), but I don't think killing hitmen should be legal either nor did his arguments really support that enough to my liking. Hmm.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
This was short and sweet. Nice work. I buy the Pro's argument that proving one instance of the resolution true proves the resolution true. I see that people are trying to explain it on the comments. Here's another example: The US government should give welfare to its people. This doesn't mean that every single person should get a check in the mail every month; we can safely assume that it's directed to one group in particular: people in poverty.

I think that the Con is doing more debating in the comments than it did in the debate.

And one last thing that I think would be sweet to think about. I like the hitmen=prostitute thing, very clever. But if it's legal to kill hitmen, wouldn't the people killing the hitmen also be hitmen? In which case, would it be legal for anyone to kill anyone else who kills? I don't know, I haven't wrapped my mind completely around it, but I think this would make a complicated system of killings and such and killing might became far more legal than it first seems.
Posted by haley.debate20 7 years ago
haley.debate20
I apologize for my comment below, I made an error.
///Just being being respectful is a part of a ballot.///
This should be;
Just being respectful to your opponent is a part of the ballots.
Posted by haley.debate20 7 years ago
haley.debate20
Whoever is Con was a dick in his first rebut. You opened up the debate TobehMickwah, so don't call your opponent a sick MF. If you EVER acted that way in an actual debate, you would lose. Just being being respectful is part of a ballot. I think the fact that Korashk took the hardest side was interesting. Obviously they are not afraid of a challenge. Your comments about your opponent hurting small children were very barbarian.
Notice how TobehMickwah is losing. 3-77 (at the moment).
I want to give props to Korashk for stickin' in there when your opponent was savage!
Posted by TobehMickwah 7 years ago
TobehMickwah
FormAndTheFormless,

Your example describes a CONTEXTUAL difference NOT a LOGICAL difference.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
And I know that my comment is debatable, but I think it relates enough to what TobehMickah was implying in his debate. The PRO put forward a scenario where killing prostitutes could potentially be legal while excluding sexual prostitutes; the CON implied that since hitmen are classifiable as prostitutes that the potentially justifiable killing of prostitutes must include all those that are classifiable as prostitutes (including those who exchange sexual favors for money).
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
"Tom should eat bananas"
"Tom should eat all bananas"

The first statement only implies that Tom should eat bananas and could potentially exclude bananas that are rotten. The second includes all bananas; even those that are rotten but could still be classified as bananas.
Posted by TobehMickwah 7 years ago
TobehMickwah
Somebody call the cops, cause I just got "murdered"...although I'm not a prostitute...well, maybe by my opponent's definition.

But seriously, I think some of you are misunderstanding my argument. (And about the comment section "arguments": they were just me arguing because I like to argue. They were in no way meant to be a formal continuation of my debate.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but can somebody answer this question:

What is the logical difference between:

"It should be legal to murder prostitutes"

and

"It should be legal to murder all prostitutes"

...I know there is an extra word in the sentence, but what is the logical difference?

If there is no difference, my opponent's argument is irrelevant.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
So what does that make the debate? It should be legal to illegally kill prostitutes?
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Basically legal is to murder what consent is to rape.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by hrvdbnd2013 7 years ago
hrvdbnd2013
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by bombmaniac 7 years ago
bombmaniac
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by Firejack 7 years ago
Firejack
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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 Mari_Jo 7 years ago
Mari_Jo
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by xxdarkxx 7 years ago
xxdarkxx
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 7 years ago
pewpewpew
TobehMickwahKorashkTied
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:06