Murder is evil.
Debate Rounds (5)
Murder-the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life
Evil-any action which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people.
With that being said, nothing is really 'evil' or 'good' considering that those are terms we made up in our heads and just because society subjugates murder as a form of evil does not mean that it is evil in the least. Of course, I do not condone murder, for I personally believe that it is not something that needs to applicable towards society in general; but that doesn't change the fact that I believe nothing is "evil" and/or "good".
Considering the belief of "nothing is evil and/or good", I will use a couple of scenarios to justify my point that these words are nothing but made-up definitions for something that we cannot possibly understand fully.
[Example One: Take love for example. One person may fall in love with another and that's, generally sought as, a good thing. That's only because you are looking at that situation and not the things in the background - sure, it could be good for the couple that is in love, but what about the man/woman that never got a chance to experience that love? Would that not be bad for the people not involved in that pursuit of happiness? What if the man that is in the love with the woman broke a million hearts to get to that point, or what if the woman cheated with the man she fell in love with before actually breaking it off with the other man?]
[Example Two: Take murder, a more close-to-discussion example. Say someone stabs someone in an alleyway - you hear it on the news a couple hours later and it states that the person stabbed had no criminal charges, he was 'innocent' and his family was completely devastated. In the background, though, you realize that the man stabbed was harboring young children and peddling them to the black-market and was using the money to afford his filthy drug habit. The man stabbed was abusive, corrupt, and the only reason that the media says he's "innocent" is because he was never caught in the act. He had caused so much pain to others that taking his life caused more peace than suffering.]
With the examples stated, I personally believe that nothing is "evil" and/or "good" - it's only the feelings that you are subjected to that allow you to define how you personally feel on the subject. Murder could be evil to some people, but on the other hand, people could think that it is a good way to keep society in order. Considering that, without some type of bad-natured things, society would have nothing to fear and living would become dull.
So, in short, I do not believe that murder is an evil act - nor do I believe ANYTHING is an evil act. There are good and bad to everything and whatever happens in our society shapes us into what we are today. We fear murder, therefore, we have great security at public places. That could only have occurred had something traumatic happened in the past - so, more people are safe because someone had taken a bullet. You may think it's bad that the person died, but in actuality, it made it so more people were safe in public locations.
"Evil" is merely subjective. You need to look at both sides and realize that all outcomes have good/bad.
1. That was an acceptance-only round. You did not need to post your argument.
2. According to the definitions I laid out, your example is not murder because the person killed is not an innocent, regardless of whether or not he was discovered, he still would have committed the acts.
3. I stated that evil is anything which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. This is a purely objective definition and is not dependent on societal ideals.
4. With regards to your falling in love, two people falling in love in no way means others are denied love. Love is not a finite resource. But since this is besides the point, I won't discuss this further.
Now, my argument:
A life is the most valuable thing a person can have, for without it, they have nothing else. Therefore, the taking of a life cannot be outweighed, except by the saving of a life. However, if this is the motivation, it would be necessary for the purposes of defending oneself or others, and therefore not murder.
Why murder is more important than other fears? When people fear murder, people take life and make it seem more important. They strive to help themselves, protect themselves, and keep themselves safe in society. Also, that type of fear, in most cases, defines "trust" and gives people a better definition of what "trust" actually is. In other words, people tend to be cautious and pick the people that they believe to be genuinely "good".
Your definition of "evil" is defined as something that harms a person or a group of people, but can something really be evil if it has so many more pros than cons in a situation? There are multiple pros to having murder in society; sure, there are cons, but can something be genuinely "evil" if it has good inside of it? No, it can't, because it helps more than it harms - ultimately, out-right, out-weighing it and allowing it to be a good thing instead of a bad thing.
...and, to clarify, I was only disproving YOUR definition of "evil". The actual dictionary definition of murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. It has nothing to do with innocence, just the killing of an individual. So, with that being said, you're proving that definitions are subjective if you are using YOUR definition over the definition of a dictionary.
Another thing, the definition of evil is something that is immoral. The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality. The "accepted standards" are society's outlook on it; ultimately making evil, bad, murder, etc.. all subjective in itself considering the definition.
Now, the actual rebuttals:
"If I am to follow your definitions, I will say that murder is a necessary action in society."
No you wouldn't, because part of my definition is "unnecessary".
"When people fear murder, people take life and make it seem more important. They strive to help themselves, protect themselves, and keep themselves safe in society."
I think you have "murder" confused with "death" here. Not the same. People can still die even without being murdered.
"Although innocent people are, unfortunately murdered on a daily basis, this gives society room to the improve [sic]"
"Also, that type of fear, in most cases, defines "trust" and gives people a better definition of what "trust" actually is. In other words, people tend to be cautious and pick the people that they believe to be genuinely "good"."
Not all crime is murder-there is still rape, theft, torture, etc. even if murder does not exist. These also give society room to improve and lead people to be cautious and avoid criminals.
"So, with that being said, you're proving that definitions are subjective if you are using YOUR definition over the definition of a dictionary."
Who said they weren't? Anyways, this was MY challenge, YOU accepted, so I make the rules-including the definitions (where needed).
Extend previous argument that went uncontested.
Also, even if I use your definition, this debate becomes very easy for me: Most people think murder is evil, so it is.
If you would had said, in the Acceptance Round, that you were going to be using those definitions and those were the ONLY definitions that were able to be used: then it would've been a lot more clear to me to not accept this challenge. You simply said that they were "important definitions" and throughout the argument had absolutely no clarification that I was supposed to, without a doubt, use your definitions.
I make a valid argument, to which you project your inadequate definitions of "murder" to rebuttal my point. That, sir, is one-sided if I have ever seen it. I'm still going to rebuttal all of your arguments, but to everyone voting, let it be known that:
1) I was given absolutely no clarification to HAVE to use Pro's definitions.
2) The definitions that were extending to me have stacked in Pro's favor.
Honestly, this argument was completely one-sided. You're not allowing me to use the ACTUAL definitions for murder and evil, which is completely biased. Sure, this was "your" challenge, but it was not stated to me that I needed to use your definitions - I had assumed you put those definitions up in the "Acceptance Round" to clarify what murder and evil were.
Now for my rebuttal:
"I think you have "murder" confused with "death" here. Not the same. People can still die even without being murdered."
No, I do not have them confused. The next part of that sentence was me saying that murder defines "trust". To carry on with what you had said after about there being different types of crime: There is rape, torture, and other forms of crime; but murder is flat-out in it's definition. You die at the end - if someone says they're going to murder you, you will die. Murder is definite and more fearful than most other crimes - that is why it is necessary.
"If someone says they're going to murder you, you will die. "
Not if you defend yourself adequately. But that's being semantic.
"Murder is definite and more fearful than most other crimes - that is why it is necessary."
Yes, it is certainly true that murder is more fearful, but rape, torture, etc. are still fearful enough to make people wary of who they interact with, thereby having the same benefit as murder without as heavy consequences.
Also, if I accept the dictionary definitions, then this debate is even MORE one-sided than it already is. If we use your definitions, I could easily say "most people think murder is evil, so it is." Done, debate over, I win, that's it. You have actually made a case using my definitions-you have NOT been able to make a case using your definitions.
Extend all previous arguments, since they were not contested.
Solomon_Orlando forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.