The Instigator
JesusFreakAshley97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HPWKA
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should Harry have just let Padfoot and Moony kill Peter Pettigrew?

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 1 vote the winner is...
HPWKA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2013 Category: Movies
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 39226
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

JesusFreakAshley97

Con

Okay so I'm doing debates on silly stuff because I'm not good enough with words to do stuff that can save lives like abortion, war, Jesus, death penalty, and euthanasia, and I need 3 debates to vote.

A short time ago I would have said, "Heck yeah!!!! Harry was an idiot for letting him live." I realized a little while ago though if Harry had let them kill him out of spite, none of them (him, Padfoot, or Moony) would have been any better than Death Eaters.

Harry was going to take him to Azkaban to get what he deserved. Justice would have been achieved and also would have kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.

If he had been killed it would have been pure revenge and left them with blood o their hands. Harry's mercy showed they were better than Death Eaters.
HPWKA

Pro

“I realized a little while ago though if Harry had let them kill him out of spite, none of them (him, Padfoot, or Moony) would have been any better than Death Eaters.”

The definition of spite per Merriam’s Dictionary is, “petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart”.

So, I think its incorrect to say that killing Pettigrew would have been “spite”. Pettigrew intentionally caused the death of James Potter (father), Lily Potter (mother), and nearly Harry himself, when he sent Voldemort after their family. He also then framed family friend Sirius Black for this atrocity, condemning him to a life of imprisonment and torture. Whether or not you think the killing of Pettigrew would be justified, I think we can all agree that such a killing wouldn’t be out of petty “spite” but a moral desire for vengeance.

Therefore, I don’t think such a killing would have equated Harry and his friends to Deatheaters. Deatheaters DO kill out of spite, out of an irrational loathing for impure “mudbloods” (Lily Potter), and all those “Blood-Traitors” who defend them (James Potter/Sirius Black). Whether you agree with their killings or not, I think we can agree that Deatheater killings are much different than the potential killings of Pettigrew.

“Harry was going to take him to Azkaban to get what he deserved. Justice would have been achieved and also would have kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.”

Assuming like above, that Harry’s killing of Pettigrew would not be on the level of the morally reprehensible Deatheaters, why would this not be what Pettigrew “deserved”?

Furthermore, killing Pettigrew would have also “kept all those innocent people killed after Voldemort's return alive.”

“If he had been killed it would have been pure revenge and left them with blood o their hands.”

Why is “pure revenge” a bad thing? Furthermore, how is allowing your friends to kill this piece of vermin (literally and figuratively) “blood on their hands”, but condemning him to a life of torture where he will then shortly die (based on accounts of Azkaban), not blood on their hands?

Furthermore, wouldn’t this “revenge” executed by Harry, not just be for his good, but for the general public’s well-being? Pettigrew is a proven murderer, who will kill even his closest friends if he thinks it will benefit him. Killing Pettigrew wouldn’t just be justice for his past crimes, but would likely be preventing future murders/atrocities.

Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Complex question. They would have been well within their rights, doubly so for Ron who suffered unspeakable humiliations at the hand of that perv.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Interesting debate. If Peter Pettigrew could not have been apprehended like he was, and if he posed an imminent threat to Harry, I think Padfoot and Moony would have been justified in killing him. But because they were able to apprehend him, NO, they would not have been right to kill Peter Pettigrew. Ethical people have a responsibility to uphold civic justice even over their own feelings of anger and revenge. Harry, Padfoot, and Moony would have acted unethically if they had just killed Peter Pettigrew on the spot, since he was already in their custody.

The only exception I can find with this argument is that the three of them would have been justified in subduing Peter, even if it meant harming him, when he fleed from their custody, which he did at the end of the third Harry Potter film.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mikicat10 3 years ago
mikicat10
JesusFreakAshley97HPWKATied
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 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: As Harry Potter fan, I support Con, but think that Pro had an edge on the arguments, and rebutted, even though Con didn't have the chance to rebut. Con did have a spelling mistake, but well done both of you