The Instigator
masterdrave
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Murder should be legalised

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...
judeifeanyi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 51123
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

masterdrave

Pro

Why is murder not legal? Our population reached a disastorous number long ago, and we need to keep it down. Lower it. Defeat the plague of evil and corruption that has swept over our world. Murder is the answer. You can get rid of whoever you want, free of charge, and lower the population of our world. Population growth is causing all of our major problems today. This needs to be done.
judeifeanyi

Con

I accept the challenge. It is left for my opponent to prove his claims while I act otherwise
Debate Round No. 1
masterdrave

Pro

So... are you actually going to argue? Or are you just going to do nothing? How pathetic.
judeifeanyi

Con

I will start by definition, rebuttals and then presentation of my argument. DEFINITIONS MURDER: mur""der - /"0"4m"0"5rd"0"5r/
noun
1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Murderis the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide(such as manslaughter.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder. the crime of deliberately killing a person. : something that is very difficult or unpleasant.www.merriam-webster.com/../murder.
LEGALIZE: le""gal""ize - /"0"4l""g"0"5"0"5l""z/
verb
1. make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalization.

REBUTTALS My adversary said, 'Why is murder not legal? Our population reached a disastorous number long ago, and we need to keep it down. Lower it. Defeat the plague of evil and corruption that has swept over our world'. My adversary has just conceded in this debate by giving weak argument. Let me ask, will killing unlawfully solve evil and corruption in our society? In murder should be legalized, it then means we are inviting autocratic rule and also autocratic within ourselves(citizens). Imagine a situation where murder is legalized, I can kill anybody of my choice, provided the person goes on my shoe. It seems like my adversary do not know the meaning of murder. Now my opponent also pointed out, that the 'population is high, so we should reduce the population'and he said, it can be done by murder. Readers, please my adversary is ignorant of the fact, that he might be a victim to that if it should be legalized. Don't you think that the population is even moderate in case we have war against the outer world. Moreover, there are ways to reduce the population which murder is not there. The following ways includes 1.re-orientation of youths. 2.abstain from sex in youthful day in other to avoid unwanted pregnancy. 3.there should be family planning and the parents should decide how many children they want to give birth to. This can reduce the population of the world if need be and not by killing some one. Imagine how horrorful it will look when my adversary watches when they are stagging knife in her mum's stomach. Ladies and gentlemen, murder should not be legalized. My opponent said, murder is the solution. You can get rid of anybody standing on your way. This alone, has shown how the world will look like if everybody should get rid of another who is on his shoes. So disasterous. MY OPPONENT'S WEAKNESSES My opponent, gave no definition which means, he will argue with my own definition. My opponent made claims which he gave no source. My opponent said, there is corruption and evil so murder can reduce it, but he didn't explain how. My opponent has ironically conceded. ARGUMENT 1.IT WILL CAUSE HAVOCS AND DISTURB THE PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE BETWEEN CITIZENS, AND STATES. Now if murder should be legalized, it will bring problem in our society. Our society is already facing some socio, political and economic development and if we are to legalize murder, it means we are equally bringing in more problems. Let me ask, how will we know that the population of the world has even reduced? Don't you think that trade centres will be closed? Because they will be afraid of doing something that will warrant them been murdered? And imagine the hunger strike that citizens will go into. 2. IT WILL REDUCE DEVELOPMENT. Legalization of murder will retard the pace of our socio-economic development. Now contractors and people in the field of economic and social development will have to rest their nerves because no one wants to get caught by the horror of murder. 3.IT WILL ENCOURAGE WORLD WAS THREE (3). A situation where by one gets rid of anybody standing on his shoes, don't you think America can decide to get rid of germany? Or even france if possible? Because murder is legalized. This will even encourage war. And you don't tell me that if somebody should kill ur siblings, or your parents that you won't fight back. MY STAND IN THIS DEBATE IS THIS: SINCE THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE POPULATION, WHICH I EARLIER EXPLAINED, THEN MURDER SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED.
IN CONCLUSION, I defined the basic terms, rebutted my adversaries weak argument and then stated my argument. Which shows am ahead of this debate
Debate Round No. 2
masterdrave

Pro

Oh good, another essay for me to read. If you truly want to debate, keep it concise, I'm sick of these responses simply copied and pasted from a wiki page; very original. Think of it this way: do you want your children/grandchildren to live in a suitable environment? Just a few years of killing should do the trick. No ramifications. Just a clear, bright future for us all to enjoy. Oh yes, you're completely ahead in this debate. I couldn't even be bothered reading past the first website reference. I know what murder means you imbecile, I wrote it in my initial proposition. What is this? Did you just get "Being an Attorney for Dummies" at the bookstore, and rip out a couple of pages? It's just that age old debate, of one man or an entire race. Do you want your relatives now to die, so that millions, even billions can live later on? Perhaps not, but simple minds think alike, and I'm starting to get tired.
judeifeanyi

Con

REBUTTALS my opponent said. Oh good, another essay for me to read. If you truly want to debate, keep it concise, I'm sick of these responses simply copied and pasted from a wiki page; very original. But then, I must say, my opponent is a novice. The wiki I pasted was the definition of terms. And if I paste anything, thats is my source of information. The pasting I did, was the definition of terms. And for my opponent to say his getting bored, it means he has conceded. I must say, that my opponent using harsh words on me, is a real form childish debate. I hate debating with people who insult me. This website is for arguing not insulting. If this is how u argue, then I bet, anybody will agree to debate with you again. My opponent before calling me an imbecile said'Think of it this way: do you want your children/grandchildren to live in a suitable environment? Just a few years of killing should do the trick. No ramifications. Just a clear, bright future for us all to enjoy. Oh yes, you're completely ahead in this debate. I couldn't even be bothered reading past the first website reference. I know what murder means you imbecile, I wrote it in my initial proposition. What is this? Did you just get "Being an Attorney for Dummies" at the bookstore, and rip out a couple of pages? It's just that age old debate, of one man or an entire race. Do you want your relatives now to die, so that millions, even billions can live later on? Perhaps not, but simple minds think alike, and I'm starting to get tired. Now the children you mentioned, what if they were been killed? Or what if your generation is been killed? How will they then survive? Now if murder should be legalized, and the children should suffer for some time, just as you claimed,do you think that after that period, that evil and corruption will stop? Possibly no. So no matter how you said it, murder should not be legalized
Debate Round No. 3
masterdrave

Pro

Oh, you're right, I do concede. All hail the master, with his oh so intellectually appealing sentence structure and incredibly diverse way of informing. I swoon every time! Ugh. Good night.
judeifeanyi

Con

Since this is my last round, and my opponent did not rebut or present any new argument, I have won.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
It's legali Z ed, guys
Posted by Auxo 3 years ago
Auxo
Both parties made no objective, strong points. Pro simply put down Con, whereas Con tried to appeal to Pro's self preservation and morals, rather than to use logic to show that Pro's points were inaccurate or unfounded.

Stabbing at one's sentence structure is not debate, it is more articulate playground arguments. Attacks on one's character constitute the lowest form of argument or debate.

Disregard this debate, reader, and please do not let it form your opinions.
Posted by ambivalentsoul 3 years ago
ambivalentsoul
Wow. Pro is an a-hole.
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
Maybe abortion should be legalized too if murder should be legalized
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
I hate debating with someone who don't even understand the motion.
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
My opponent is a real novice. His using abusive words.
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
For most of you supporting it, maybe it will be good if you people will serve as example
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
Do you know the look in a mothers face when she cannot feed her only children? Imagine when such children are been killed? How sorrowful
Posted by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
As in, do you people know that if murder is been legalized, that we can't stand the tears in people's eyes
Posted by lightingbolt50 3 years ago
lightingbolt50
I hate the idea of this, but if i did support it, i would want it like this: Have the government do it humanely and indiscriminately. Many people die in pain and agony when murdered, have it just be a painless death. If it's left to the public to do it then it will be like that movie "The Purge".
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
masterdravejudeifeanyiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
masterdravejudeifeanyiTied
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: Honestly, Pro didn't know the first thing about debating etiquette. Completely rude, backed up his arguments with his own opinions. Attacked Con multiple times and refused to debate the topic which he provided. Grammar goes to Con also since Pro misspelled the word Legalized in the topic as well.
Vote Placed by Cermank 3 years ago
Cermank
masterdravejudeifeanyiTied
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: Self explanatory. Con made the only arguments, Pro conceded, and Pro had horrible conduct.