The Instigator
Spotchman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Murder of adults is morally permissible

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 8 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 28439
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

Spotchman

Pro

This resolution has nothing to do with the recent tragedy that just happened; I have been thinking about doing a debate like this for a while. For this debate, murder will be defined as the act of killing another person and an adult will be defined as someone who was born 18 or more years ago. My opponent has the burden of proof, obviously. Because of this, he should make an argument as to why killing adults is morally impermissible during the first round.
RationalMadman

Con

Murder of adults is morally impermissible because murder of adults is immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
Spotchman

Pro

I thank Con for his awful first round, but killing adult's isn't immoral because killing adults can be justified morally.
RationalMadman

Con

I'm afraid you are incorrect because You fail to not be incorrect.
Debate Round No. 2
Spotchman

Pro

Well, you're stupid and gay and probly 12 years old.
RationalMadman

Con

Loss of conduct point - insult
Loss of spelling point - "Probly"

Inability to refute my points = concession
Debate Round No. 3
Spotchman

Pro

Con must first prove that the Universe exists, that Debate.org exists, and that this debate exists before taking away points for erroneous things such as spelling and insults. Also, probly is definitely a word, just lile lemme and wasup [1]. And my contention about Con being stupid and gay and probly 12 years old is relevant because he has a skewed viewpoint. Also, not to bee too picky but his points were technically an indirect form of begging the question, but I'll let it go because it's not really relevant. To conclude, it's okay to kill adults because they probably deserved it and because Con might have killed adults before.

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org...;
RationalMadman

Con

If the universe and DDO don't exist we wouldn't be having this debate so this debate is evidence of that. Also if they don't exist there are no adults or morality to begin with.

Loss of spelling point of pro - "lile" instead of "like"

Pro has utterly failed to prove murde rof adults to be morally permissible because the act is in and of itself immoral to begin with. Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Im not taking this because I refuse to debate with idiots, sick monsters, and gays. Spotch is a sick monster and an idiot.
Posted by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
Pro has the burden of proof, not con
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
if pro would have atleast provided some examples i would have taken this.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
I must say this. Morality is different for different people. I believe revenge is never justified even if someone burned and tortured my family. Other humans veiw revenge as a duty and honor and see it as moral. I do disagree with this resolution. But the structure of this debate is a bit awkward though.
Posted by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
"My opponent has the burden of proof, obviously"

How don't you have the BoP..... I'm pretty sure if you're advocating that killing people is alright, you should have the burdon of proof.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill BOP.
Vote Placed by PhantomJedi759 4 years ago
PhantomJedi759
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a terrible debate. I wish both participants would become a bit more serious in the future. Con won because of Pro's hate speech.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled the debate, as he often does. I'd like to see him banned. I was ready to give Pro the full seven points for trolling, until he said this: "Well, you're stupid and gay and probly 12 years old." I'll call it a draw.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's insults and misspellings earned him a loss of conduct and S&G points. Neither party made convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This was horrible.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll debate. No arguments, only assertions. Failure to debate the esolution is a conduct violation.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro calling Con "stupid and gay and probly 12 years old" doesn't help him with either the conduct or spelling points...
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
SpotchmanRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used insults and had bad spelling. The arguments sucked. Wtf debate