The Instigator
Elkyriaze
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jessalyn
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

LOD (logic only debate): murder is an expression of sympathy

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 3 votes the winner is...
Jessalyn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 25834
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Elkyriaze

Pro

The resolution is a good eye-opener I hope.
In this debate I wish to have a little fun with logic and philosophy, so If you find that you are a practical thinker please don't accept. If you do accept, don't hesitate to use humor to support your arguments, and please provide thought provoking material, not literal garbage.

Definitions are unnecessary, semantics are allowed. Don't troll or do anything like it, or else i will express my sympathy to you, and other than that, good luck! :D
....................../""/)
....................,/"../
.................../..../
............./""/'...'/"""`""
........../'/.../..../......./""\
........('(..."...".... "~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........'...\.......... _.""
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Jessalyn

Con

I accept this debate! Neither my stance on the subject nor my arguments necessarily reflect my personal opinion--I will be opposing your points for the sake of the debate. So even if I agree with you, I'm not going to admit it. Instead, I will continue to deny it on the basis of my own arguments and pretend that you're incorrect.

May the games begin, and good luck to my opponent! :)

*Intimidating voice* I await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Elkyriaze

Pro

Thanks heaps to my opponent for accepting, enjoy the debate :)

My arguments:
1) Murder is an expression of sympathy from things too complex to be refuted by human reasoning.
Humans are not the only things that can express sympathy. Sympathy is a show of care, something that anything can do. The intents and purposes behind shows of sympathy are usually attributed to human beings, but that arises out of media brainwashing and brainwashing in the education system. To give my opponent an example of how pronounced this brainwashing is, I will use examples from my own school. They teach that:
a) The earth is round
b) The moon is not made of cheese
c) Pythagoras theorem is a valid approach to dissecting the mathematics behind a triangle. (Preposterous, how can there be maths hiding BEHIND a 2D shape?)
going back to my argument, anything can show care to a human, care is shown by most things in the form of death, sweet lovely death. A respite to the horrors and pains of life. Most things have the ability to show this form of care to a human, so in that case, the resolution is true.

2) Murder is not what you think it to be.
Most people think that murder is killing someone without their permission(or with it, in many cases), I argue that murder is actually just answering someones plea for help. When someone is alive, they are forced against their will by their brain to survive, so to properly attain freewill, someone must be dead. So if we killed someone, then asked them if they wanted to die, we could safely assume that we would get the correct answer. Hence, we should kill every human alive so we can find out if they actually wanted to be alive. My bets that not a single person will say yes.

3) Previous people who have held on to this philosophy have changed the world.
Some of the most notable people who have caused change due to this philosophy include:
Hitler
The Mongolian Emperor
Early cave men
Hitler caused a very big change to the way we think. Nowadays, I can be arrested for making sounds similar to this one: N-a-z-i. Thats how pronounced his change was.
The mongrel was famous for collecting human ideas and making them vanish. he also had a talent for turning life into non-life on a global scale. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do that again?
The cavemen were the foundations of human civilization. I will hear nothing bad said about them on pain of life.

Concluding, I hope I have convinced everyone that I must be right, true, I may have strayed from the rules a bit, but lets take a philosophical approach to it: Rules are there to be broken... -by me. So I don't encourage my opponent to be me in his/her next post but I can't exactly tell anyone to follow the rules, how can you follow something intangible?

Look forward to hearing from Con.
Jessalyn

Con

Thank you very much to my opponent for this very interesting debate! I enjoyed reading his first arguments.

Opponent's Argument 1:
Inanimate objects cannot "express" anything, let alone sympathy or care, as my opponent claims. The expression of any feeling, including sympathy, is only possible through consciousness. Literally speaking, nothing that lacks a functioning brain can possess consciousness"therefore inanimate objects, ideas, and experiences cannot express sympathy; we can only perceive it as so.
(By the way, I definitely (and unfortunately) know what you mean with the brainwashing thing!)

Opponent's Argument 2:
My opponent is correct in saying that murder is not always necessarily depriving the victim of life, but awarding them with death"however, the majority of the murders that are committed are not done so out of sympathy. Murderers do not generally kill in order to help their victim, or even out of sympathy; they usually kill for selfish reasons. They often kill for money, relationships, drugs, religion, acceptance, fun, hatred, anger, happiness"None of which involve sympathy for the victim. Very seldom do murderers take action on the behalf of their victims--Jack Kevorkian being an exception (along with several others).

Opponent's Argument 3:
This point is really kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. The motives of the people/groups he has mentioned have nothing to do with whether or not murder is an expression of sympathy. We can never be sure, obviously...But I tend to think Hitler"s reasons for killing were more for himself than they were for those he killed.

Thanks again to my opponent, and I wish him the best of luck in the next round!
Debate Round No. 2
Elkyriaze

Pro

sadly, I wont be able to continue this debate, this will be my last post, I give the win to my opponent.
However, I don't intend on letting his/her arguments stand >:)

1) "Inanimate objects cannot "express" anything,"
Yes they can, they can express sympathy by murdering someone.

2) " Murderers do not generally kill in order to help their victim, or even out of sympathy; they usually kill for selfish reasons."
Oh? Is that the case? Well then, it seems murderers kill out of sympathy to themselves, which makes the resolution true.

3) "This point is really kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand."
Indeed, I don't know why you bothered.

Concluding, Its been a really fun debate, I'm really sorry that I am unable to continue, best of luck to my opponent for future debates.
Goodbye! :)

PS. Vote Con.
Jessalyn

Con

I'm sorry to hear that my opponent cannot continue! I hope we can pick this up another time.

1. Inanimate objects cannot murder people. They can be used by other people to murder, however they themselves are incapable of committing murders.

2. Since my opponent cannot prove that murderers kill for the said reasons, he cannot make the generalization that murderers kill out of sympathy for themselves.

3. Eh, boredom.

Well, Pro, it's been fun while it lasted! Thanks for your interesting arguments and good sense of humor.
Goodbye to you! :)
Debate Round No. 3
Elkyriaze

Pro

Elkyriaze forfeited this round.
Jessalyn

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this debate as he stated earlier. Although his account is no longer active, I'd like to thank him one last time for a fun debate. I hope we can continue the topic another time! :)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jessalyn 4 years ago
Jessalyn
I know. :(
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Elkyriaze has deactivated his account :\
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
ElkyriazeJessalynTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF....
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
ElkyriazeJessalynTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: 4 fat
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ElkyriazeJessalynTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.