The Instigator
funwiththoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Solomon_Orlando
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Murder is evil.

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 1 vote the winner is...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,317 times Debate No: 37167
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

funwiththoughts

Pro

I am arguing that murder is evil. My opponent will argue that murder is not evil. Standard rules apply. First round is for acceptance only. Important definitions:

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.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

I think the first thing we need to understand is that, in society, we have defined all of these terms. Right and wrong are all offspring of the human races' mind and we have just grown accustomed to thinking things of this sort; just the same with evil and good. [Example: Murder is evil, Loving is good.]

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.
Debate Round No. 1
funwiththoughts

Pro

I assume you accepted without reading the rules, so let me repeat:

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.

Vote Pro.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

If I am to follow your definitions, I will say that murder is a necessary action in society. Although innocent people are, unfortunately murdered on a daily basis, this gives society room to the improve. It'll make people stronger, it'll make places safer, and it is a learning experience that people need in order to strive through life. Going away from subjectivity and objectivity - murder is still something that needs to happen because, in order to live, we need fear in our lives.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
funwiththoughts

Pro

You accepted the definitions when you accepted my challenge. You do not need to give definitions except for things that I did not, regardless of whether or not my definitions are accurate.

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).

Arguments:

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.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

I want to go off on a tangent here for a moment and say that; it was not stated to me that your definitions were the ones that were supposed to be used. Also, the fact that you've, quite literally, stacked the deck in your favor by using non-dictionary definitions to enhance your point.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
funwiththoughts

Pro

In a debate on this site the definitions provided by the instigator are the ones used for the purposes of the debate. You have the burden of providing your own definitions only if the instigator fails to do so, regardless of whether or not you agree. Like I said, my challenge, my rules, including definitions. You don't seem to understand this. The challenge was for you to show that murder is not evil using the rules and definitions I had laid out, and if you can't do that, you can concede, or just say you didn't understand instead of throwing a hissy fit.

Rebuttals:

"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.

Arguments:

Extend all previous arguments, since they were not contested.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

I'm conceding.
Debate Round No. 4
funwiththoughts

Pro

Well I guess that's the end of this debate.
Solomon_Orlando

Con

Solomon_Orlando forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
It's alright. It is your first time, after all.
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 3 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
I conceded, don't even worry about it. It was a great debate, no hard feelings - I got annoyed because I was confused. I apologize.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
I didn't tell you definitions are objective and I didn't say they were. You still haven't explained how you could make a case using the dictionary definitions, but you have made a (weak) case using my definitions. You HAVEN'T shown that it was one-sided. You have only whined and whined about disagreeing with my definition even though your definition gives you even less of a chance than mine does. My challenge, my rules, like I said. I can't make rules in the middle, because then I'm no longer challenging someone and have already started. But when I make the challenge, I can make any rules I want (unless it violates Terms of Service, but it doesn't), and that includes saying what definitions will be used.
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 3 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
Let me clarify this to you, because YOU don't understand this. You stated:

"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."

I said, later on: "So, with that being said, you're proving that definitions are subjective if you are using YOUR definition over the definition of a dictionary."

To which you replied:

"Who said they weren't? Anyways, this was MY challenge, YOU accepted, so I make the rules-including the definitions (where needed)."

It was a one-sided argument from the very beginning - I have given proof to that fact. You cannot use definitions that are obviously subjective, then tell me that are objective to prove some type of point you had. This is stacked from the very beginning. I haven't addressed your point? I'm sorry if I'm having a hard time understand what type of definition I am to use, or what type of explanation I am to use considering that everything here must play by YOUR terms. Which is absolutely a crock of sh!t because it's biased towards me and it's a horrible argument if you use imaginary definitions to state a point that is clearly subjective.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
There is no concede button, you have to write that you conceded.

And your dictionary definitions gave you absolutely zero chance instead of the 0.0000000000000000000001% chance, because, like I said, I could just say "most people think murder is evil, so it is." You haven't addressed this.
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 3 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
Where is the concede button?

This argument was one sided. No, my dictionary definitions gave me more of a chance to win this argument, but you have proved to be an unequal opponent.
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 3 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
Okay, my apologies - I suppose I skipped over the "acceptance".
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
I meant the rules laid out in my first post. By "standard rules" I just mean no personal attacks and no forfeits ("forfeit" means putting up arguments later than due-if either of us have no argument we can still concede the debate.)
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 3 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
Could you send me a link to the rules? I'm a little confused, haha.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
It's cool. Everyone makes mistakes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
funwiththoughtsSolomon_OrlandoTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.