The Instigator
uppitynumber
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Murder is Justifiable morally and socioeconomically

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: 1/29/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,614 times Debate No: 14590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

uppitynumber

Pro

Hi!
Pro will argue that murder is justifiable morally and socioeconomically.

As with many of the other debates of similar nature, arguments the instigator, I, set forth in this debate do not reflect the instigator's personal opinion and ideology in any way whatsoever.

Murder is defined by the action of a person killing another person resulting in the latter's death (that's what killing is, I suppose :P). It does not matter whether intentional or unintentional. Death is in its most simplified definition--the simplest I can think of is cessation of all bodily functions.

Ground rules:
1) Keep wordplay, if possible, to the minimum.
2) No ad hominem or profanities. Be respectful.
3) No forfeits.

My Overall Contentions:
1) Overpopulation/Competition
2) Humans rape, subjugate, persecute, dehumanize and torture.

Structure is 1) intro
2) Arguments
3) refutations
4) conclusions/refutations

I thank my opponent in advance. Hope to God I don't get owned. :P
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate uppitynumber.

Definitions

According to Princeton's Wordnet, justify means "absolve from culpability." [1]

Morally means "concerned with principles of right and wrong, or conforming to standards of behavior consistent with those principles." [2]

Burden of Proof

My opponent as instigator has the burden of proof. He must provide some sort of system of morality that is consistent with his viewpoint, so I can argue against it.

Intro

I will answer my opponent's contentions with:
1) The overpopulation myth
2) The other immoral acts he justifies (like stealing being "moral" when you are poor)
3) That rape and torture are also immoral

I will then offer two different systems of morality and show how murder is immoral under both.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...


Debate Round No. 1
uppitynumber

Pro

uppitynumber forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Too bad . . . seems like it would have been a good debate. In case my opponent comes back, I contest his definition of murder as well. Murder is "to kill intentionally" (Princeton's Wordnet). Indirectly causing someone's death, say by having an extra child, causing over-population, leading to some people dying from starvation is not "murder." Having a child should never be deemed "murder."

If aborting a fetus and carry the fetus to term can both be deemed murder, the pro-life lobby is in a very strange double bind.
Debate Round No. 2
uppitynumber

Pro

uppitynumber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
uppitynumber

Pro

uppitynumber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@vardas

yup, or more specifically the demographic transition
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"1) The overpopulation myth"
Are you serious ?
Posted by Alchemistress 6 years ago
Alchemistress
Apparently by his definition manslaughter = murder o.O ?
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@OreEle

wooooow, wtf, that's what I get for skimming. I must have only seen the first part, which seemed reasonable. Yeah, I disagree with that definition of murder as well.

uppitynumber,

I reserve the right to contest the second part of the murder definition, if you try to use it against me.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Nevermind, Blue just jumped it.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I'd take it, but I completely disagree with your definition of murder.
Posted by uppitynumber 6 years ago
uppitynumber
whoa whoa whoa... murder, not death. :P.... typo.
WHy'd I say death.
I'll revise it.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
Are you specifically referring to murder?
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't understand the resolution. Death happens. Gravity happens. So the resolution seems like "Gravity is justifiable morally and socioeconomically." It makes no sense.

The convention is that accepting a debate accepts the proposers conditions, like structure.

Pro excludes semantics, but the resolution is so indefinite I don't see how semantic issues can be avoided.
Posted by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
If I take this debate do I have to go by your structure?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
uppitynumberbluesteelTied
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 Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
uppitynumberbluesteelTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, straight Con ballot.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
uppitynumberbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture equates to concession of arguments plus bad conduct. 4 points to Con, plus sources provided equals 6.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
uppitynumberbluesteelTied
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: Was looking forward to this, bluesteel has solid kung-fu. Unfortunate forfeit.