The Instigator
LADYBUG36
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mfuss
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Should we legalize murder by kids under ten years old?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mfuss
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 557 times Debate No: 79793
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

LADYBUG36

Pro

Think its crazy?
It could be, but it could also be a benifit to our society.
Mfuss

Con

I thank the Pro for allowing me the opportunity to debate. I would like to establish general definitions for the debate before continuing.

Legalize (verb): to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law. (1)

Murder (noun): the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Seeing as the definition of murder literally is inclusive of illegal actions we will have to make a hybrid definition that deems murder simply "killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Otherwise the argument cannot continue as there is immediate contradiction in definition.

I am on the opposition and resolve that 'we should not legalize murder by children under ten years old. First and foremost I refer you to Kohlberg's stages of childhood development: "oriented toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake..." (3) The fact that a child, not fully developed in terms of reasoning, morality and rationalization, is giving the ability to "play god", as many serial killers would attest, and then that legal protection being revoked would yield very negative consequences.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

(3) http://info.psu.edu.sa...
Debate Round No. 1
LADYBUG36

Pro

Basiclly, I do understand that murder is illegal, and that a child is just not a good subject matter to bring near these kinds of topics, but i say that each child gets a limit of 1 adult ( ages 18+) to kill and that the only reason to kill that adult should fall under one or more of these catagories:
-sexual violations to children
-harmful bodily injury
-etc..

This society is also too over-populated so this case would also help with getting it back to order, not only will you decrease in nuumbers but also bad numbers.
I chose a child for this because if we pick teens and adults then the whole world would die because of jelousy, anger, or just plain hate.

http://www.crimemuseum.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
Mfuss

Con

R1: The pro posed in the topic "Should we legalize murder for children under 10 years old?" Then clarified that the legalized murder should happen only under only certain circumstances. This not only goes against the topic of debate, but begs to question what should be legalized murder. There are a number of forms being referred to by the pro, many of which are justifiable self defense. (1)

R2: The children under age 10 have not fully developed rational & critical thought. The majority of children under age 10 are still driven by the "Me ego", in that the child wants only what they want and do not apply rational thought to their decisions. (2)

R3: The pro states that the world is overpopulated, and offers the solution of justifiable murder to those causing bodily injury to children 10 or younger. In 2011 for the United States 41 of every 1,000 children were subject to investigative reports, of these 41 a mere 32 yielded sufficient evidence of mistreatment. (3) So in 2011 a mere .032% of children could have legally murdered. Let us say that each child murdered the aggressor, in the United States the population in 2011 was 311,700,000 people. (4) So this would mean our solution to overcrowding would be the murder of 311,700,000 x .032% which comes to a whopping total of 99,744 people. In 2011 there were over 3 million births for women aged 15-44. (5)

The legalization of murder for children in these instances noted would be good (possibly) morally however they would not make a dent in terms of population control for the United States or world moreover.

(1) http://criminal.findlaw.com...

(2) http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...

(3) http://datacenter.kidscount.org...

(4) https://www.google.com...

(5) http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
LADYBUG36

Pro

My post says ' Should we legalize murder by kids under 10 years old' and basically I'm suppose to give my arguments why. I feel that murder by kids should be legalized because of _____, _______, and _______. I feel that it should only be done under these circumstances: _____ and _____. So technically, it is still related to my question.

Although, unlike older people who already have a more developed train of thought, kids don't ( but that's the point). Unlike teens and adults who commit murders (mostly out of jealousy, hatred, or anger), kids are more self centered and will do stuff to benefit them, but, they have better morals than we do.

Either way, people die everyday yet more are being born at a faster rate. It might not make a dent but it will help a little. And a little is good enough.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I know that it seems a bit strange to have this sort of thing legalized and I also know that some of you (hopefully most lol) agree in some ways with my proposition. And Con, thank you for debating with me.

http://www.bing.com...

http://www.ecology.com...

http://www.bing.com...
Mfuss

Con

R1: Pro stated "I feel that murder by kids should be legalized because of _____, _______, and _______." Yet pro gave one reason for the rationalization of murder, (as a whole- not by her demographic of children aged 10 and younger) the reasoning was as a measure of population control. Please reference the measurements showing that this would not be a viable option as a measure for population control under said demographic and demographic constraints.

R2: Pro stated "Unlike teens and adults who commit murders (mostly out of jealousy, hatred, or anger), kids are more self centered and will do stuff to benefit them, but, they have better morals than we do." Under the constraints that children under 10 can only legally murder when "sexually/physically or emotionally abused" makes this comment null and void, as the murder would be out of a vengeful malicious behavior.

The world's overpopulation is a problem but this is not the answer that will solve that crisis. The legalized murder of people is not a solution to overpopulation only a short-sided quick fix that will indefinitely lead to more problems long term.

I would like to thank the Pro for allowing me the opportunity to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
RFD

Sources were clearly set out by Con and incorporated into their argument (numbers were used to show where they were used). I found arguments to be equal although there was a major problem with Pro's argument. They stated that the world is overpopulated and the world is the opposite of overpopulated. Although, this was not acknowledged by Con - providing incorrect facts means that Con's arguments are more reliable. The world isn't overpopulated, it is just badly managed. Everyone in the world could fit into Texas! I found nothing wrong with Con's argument and his rebuttals were valid. Since Pro's arguments have been proven false this makes it difficult to trust the rest of his arguments and therefore Con's were more realistic and believable. Conduct goes to Con for unreliable sources and false arguments - as stated before. Spelling and grammar is tied since there were no major spelling and grammar mistakes made by both Pro and Con. Pro was unable to fulfill his burden. Pro failed to provide any valid arguments - other than the overpopulation issue (which wasn't even a valid arguments in itself). Con provided facts. Pro provided their argument with blanks that made it even more difficult to read and understand. Pro's arguments were successfully refuted whilst Pro persisted to ramble on about false arguments.
Posted by LADYBUG36 1 year ago
LADYBUG36
Your funny Mnotter. I don't actually think of legalizing it. Sometimes when your a senior in high school with nothing else to do, Debate.org it is for me lol. I'm also not as smart as others so its hard for me to come up with interesting topics. You seem pretty creative though:)
Posted by Mnotter 1 year ago
Mnotter
I just noticed how distrubing the original poster is, how about instead of killing people for your ideal of perfect society, how about just planning on correcting those behaviors; you know, like a normal human being?
Posted by Mnotter 1 year ago
Mnotter
How about instead of just saving the fertile eggs, we should start saving the unfertile eggs and all of our sperm, since sperm and eggs make the baby we should not murder those by leaving them to die on a tampon or some tissue paper. Kicking someone in the balls would even then be technically murder because you are killing thousands of sperm.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diirez 1 year ago
Diirez
LADYBUG36MfussTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro struggled to come up with arguments.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
LADYBUG36MfussTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.