The Instigator
kiwi.krab
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Murder should stay illegal

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...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 68367
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

kiwi.krab

Pro

I decided to create this debate because I have heard/seen people say that murder should be legal which is Ridiculous. I decided to tell they why.

First round acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
kiwi.krab

Pro

Murder is the KILLING OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS. nothing about that seems right. The U.S. is devoted to the Christian/ Jewish God because " in God we trust". And if you think about it the Christians and Jews follow the Ten Commandments. One of these Ten Commandments states that you shall not murder. So there for murder is wrong in the U.S.

Second of all just imagine what it would be like if murder was legal. Everyone would run around killing whoever they please. There wound be an anarchy (practically). The crime levels would go up because let's say someone was stealing and the store owner is about to call the police the criminal would just kill the store owner. Everyone would be scared to live in this terrible world that would allow murder.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Contentions First

1) By legalizing murder we deplete it.

murder - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Murder is defined by the characteristic of being "unlawful". If we make murder legal, it will be lawful. At that point murder cannot exist because it is lawful, and murder is an unlawful act.

2) Money

This opens up billions of dollars in profit yearly and thousands of new jobs. Killing people for the F*k of it, would allow people to promote and take out contracts, open up business avenues, and basically shift in billions of dollars in the US economy. This would appeal to poor people that have no jobs, and basically employ half the people in the US that are unemployed already.

The cost of a kill can vary between 5 grand to 1 million dollars. [1]

This revenue would benefit the economy greatly.

3) population control

Now we are depleting murder, making money, and now the added benefit of keeping the population in check. The world is running our of resources. The ability to keep that in check is essentially for life to thrive. We need this to happen

[1] http://www.havocscope.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kiwi.krab

Pro

Even though everyone would be allowed to kill freely, there is the chance that the population would decrease dramatically.

Because murder would be legal, there is no way to stop someone from becoming the next Hitler of our age. You would not be able to stop terrorist attacks because terrorists would be allowed to kill freely.

Murder is wrong, no one should have to die innocent (in mass groups) because the law allows.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Rebuttal 1 ) We should obey the ten commandments

This is an assertion, that is false. The US is not based on christian faith because it has the word "In God we Trust". That is also not a reason to take the bible literally. No one with half a ounce of common sense reads the bible literally.

Rebuttal 2 ) People going around killing

Population control, this adds to my argument. Pro even admits it would reduce the population in the third round.

All my points are dropped, so extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
kiwi.krab

Pro

When you murder you are talking someone's life and future experiences. Murder is essentially worse than slavery because in slavery you still can love and make decisions. With murder you don't get to life or make any other decisions.

Think about this, if you ask someone if they would like to be murdered they will probably say no. To allow murder to be legal you would endanger friends, family, and even yourself. That's right. You could be killed too.

http://d2bb.org...

Voters: please note that my opponent dropped my argument of people becoming the next Hitler or terrorist.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

Rebuttal 1) If murder is legal someone would become hitler

I have no idea how to even respond to the invalidity of this because hitler became hitler when murder was illegal. It being legal would not stop dictators from rising, look around the world.

Rebuttal 2 ) Murder is worse than slavery

No it's not. Slaves were kept in cages, beaten, raped, had their eyes plucked out, dipped in hot oil, eaten alive by dogs, starved to death, and so many other inhumane things that I cannot even list. Death is a much better escape to slavery.

Extend arguments, as they are still dropped and I'm having to respond to rebuttals that are non sequiturs to the actual resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
kiwi.krab

Pro

1)
The government would not be able to stop the next Hitler so he would go to take over the world. And kill all the Jews. Legally.
No one would be safe if they upset this person.

2)
Slaves still had the chance to escape or be set free. And the punishments given to the slaves that you mentioned where only the worst.

Please vote pro, murder is wrong and inhumane. Case rested.
Valar_Dohaeris

Con

I'm just going to extend this as she has dropped every one of my points, and she is now trying to refute things that have nothing to do with the debate

Murder should be legal mainly because we get rid of it by legalizing it. If we make murder lawful, it cannot be unlawful and murder would not exist because it is required and defined as an unlawful killing. Vote con
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Wow...
Posted by Mr.Kal 2 years ago
Mr.Kal
Kiwi's last argument made no sense.
If murder was legal the government can't stop hitler?

Murder if murder was legal - the government can just walk up and shoot him without a second's thought.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Pro, when voting on this site, the common belief in the subject in question must be abandoned and a neutral stance must be taken. The role of each debater is to convince a neutral party (someone who can't decide either or) of their arguments. Even the most obvious topics (Murder should be illegal, Rape is wrong, Torture is wrong, etc) is up for debate and question. Sure, these are easy to argue for but some consider it a challenge to argue against.

Even if someone who argues for murder being legal wins a debate, it doesn't mean the vast majority of people actually want such a thing (although they might), it just means they are obligated to give credit to the person who debated the best, regardless of the actual meaning of their win.

Debating is a game and those who win are the most skilled players, not the ones who appeal to canon.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 2 years ago
Valar_Dohaeris
Arse, that ausie in you
Posted by kiwi.krab 2 years ago
kiwi.krab
I am female
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oh my GOD! MURDER SHOULD STAY ILLEGAL?! 0_0

Kick his arse, Valar
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Yeah...
Posted by clmcd42 2 years ago
clmcd42
You're going to have trouble finding anybody to be Con in this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
gannon260
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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: I don't know how pro lost this, but pro lost this. Con just hammered pro. Pro, you should've made that argument that murder is bad for the economy since it kills the labour force. Plus the fact that population control is inhumane, life,liverty, pursuit etc. Pro's hitler argument in general had no impact since if we were able to kill people, we could kill hitler easy. Con just won this debate since pro never defended nor gave a strong offense
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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: Legalizing murder would create jobs. lol.... ok then. Obviously this is a resolution that was pleading to be trolled, and that's what happened. And as is usually the case in a troll v. non-troll debate, troll wins.
Vote Placed by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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 argued for a generally accepted moral/legal code, making it hard for con to argue. Con, however, refuted pro's arguments successfully, thus con is the winner.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped almost all of con's points. Con's arguments were based on reason and the benefits of impacts of murder being legal. Pro regarded heavily on morality which was not a very strong argument. Religion in this case is irrelevant. Looking over the sources, It appears to be that con had better sources.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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: S&G to Con. Pro tried to appeal to the common belief that murder should stay illegal based on religious and moral decisions, which doesn't actually explain anything (I will explain this more in the comments). So Con wins this one for me. All else tied.
Vote Placed by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO makes a case for something which most people would agree with and made some obvious points as to why he/she is correct. Cons arguments weren't strong enough in my opinion. Grammar goes to con, and conduct goes to pro (bad language).
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Overall, I was edging toward Pro, but Con's argument about murder being defined as "unlawful killing" made it so that it would be essentially getting rid of "murder" allowed them to win.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
kiwi.krabValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A little spelling error by Pro. So S&G to Con. Arguments go to Con because Pro drops Con's points and Pro's case drops because she did not elaborate how people can become Hitler. Pro did not show that MAINLY US is based on Christian faith. Sources to Pro because he uses something which is relevant to his case. But, Pro did not elaborate her source. She just puts some reference there which has not been explained.