The Instigator
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,647 times Debate No: 9103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (13)

 

I-am-a-panda

Pro

Full Resolution: The Christian commandment, "Thou Shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life".

Sources: Any sources, particularly the Bible, are allowed.

==== Definitions ===

10 Commandments: http://en.wikipedia.org...

In this context, we will use the Lutheran and Catholic version as listed above.

Life: The animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual

The period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play

[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Preserve: To keep alive or in existence; make lasting

[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Kill: To deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of

[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

=== Difference ===

According to the definitions I have given, there is a key difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt preserve life".

"Thou shalt not kill" specifically implies you must not deprive something of life in any way under any circumstance

"Thou shalt preserve life" means that, to your fullest extent, you should save life by any means as long as it maximises the most life possible.

=== PRO ARGUMENT ===

#1: "Thou shalt preserve life" overall maximises the preservation of life more than "Thou shalt not kill"

Let's look at three moral dilemma's:

DILEMMA #1: Murderer

In this dilemma, you see a well known serial killer approach a house with a family of four in it. You outright know the serial killers means, to kill the family. Ergo, if you follow "Thou shalt preserve life", you can take down the serial killer and prevent the deaths of 4 people by killing one person. ]

The net gain of immediate life here, is ultimatley, 3 people. More people could have been killed by this person, but it is unknown, ergo, the net amount is 3 people.

If you followed "Thou shalt not kill", you would have to call the police. By the time they arrive, the serial killer will have killed the family inside. The serial killer may or may not be stopped, but ultimatley, the net loss is 4 people, and possibly more.

Ergo, "thou shalt preserve life" prevails

DILEMMA #2: Abortion

A mother is pregnant. However, the baby will kill her and subsequently, itself. Doctors can do nothing. If you follow "thou shalt preserve life", you can abort the child, and save the life of the woman, giving a balance of losing and gaining 1 life.

If you, however, follow "thou shalt not kill", you cannot morally abort the baby, as it is killing. Ergo, the mother and the child die with a net loss of 2 lives.

Therefore, if you follow "Thou shalt preserve life", you stop the death of 2 people and only cause the death of 1 to save the other.

DILEMMA #3: Train

In this dilemma, a train is heading towards a group of 5 men strapped to the rails with no means of escape. You do, however, have the ability to force the train to change tracks, and instead run over 1 person.

Should you follow Thou shalt preserve life, you lose 1 life but save 5 lives, giving a net benefit of 4 lives.

Should you follow thou shalt not kill, you cannot change the trains tracks as you would be murdering the one man. Even if you don't change the tracks, you are not responsible for the deaths of those 5 men. However, overall, you have lost 4 lives. Ergo, there is a net loss of 4 lives.

I wish good luck to whoever takes this.
mongeese

Con

Thank you, I-am-a-panda, for starting this debate.

I am going to argue that "Thou shalt not kill" should not be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life." It should be changed back to "Thou shalt not murder."

There is much debate as to whether or not the Sixth Commandment is "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder." However, it is quite apparent that the Bible supports the death penalty [1]. My source has an entire list of the crimes that deserved the death penalty. In context, it is obvious that "Thou shalt not kill" would contradict the rest of the Bible, while "Thou shalt not murder" would not.

Now, to define murder.

Murder: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]

In full, "Thou shalt not murder" means that you should not kill anybody else in a way that is against the law (which includes most methods of killing).

So, preaching not to murder is an extension of preaching to obey the law. Seems good.

DILEMMA #1: Murderer

Going by the list of non-criminal homicides [2], it would not be murder to kill the serial killer, as it would be in "Defence of Others." Therefore, "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt preserve life" would be tied.

However, let's say that the man with the gun was not going to kill anybody, but was instead going to shoot four innocent people, permanently disabling random organs and appendages, but still allowing the people to live, although painfully. "Thou shalt preserve life" would let this gunman go. However, "Thou shalt not murder" would still allow for the solution of defending the other four people by killing the gunman, which seems to be the more moral decision, as a guilty man deserves to die more than the other four men deserve to lose the use of their organs and suffer pain.

However, what if there are two people planning to kill one other person who is tied up in a chair? You come across the three of them, but they don't notice you. If you kill one, the other guy is going to kill you, so it's clear that you either kill both or kill neither. Although killing both would not be allowed under "Thou shalt preserve life," killing both would be allowed under "Thou shalt not murder." The moral decision is to save the innocent and kill the guilty.

DILEMMA #2: Abortion

Seeing as abortion is currently legal, the abortion would not be murder, so "Thou shalt not murder" allows for the same thing as "Thou shalt preserve life."

DILEMMA #3: Train

Should you follow "Thou shalt not murder," "Defence of others" would allow you to avert the train without being a murderer. It also allows you to judge the lives of the six men. If the five men were the Joker's five henchmen who, and the one man was pre-explosion Harvey Dent, and the henchmen were the ones who tied down Harvey Dent, while the Joker (nowhere to be seen, by the way) was the one who tied down the five henchmen (possibly using even more henchmen), then you'd be allowed to make the moral choice of letting the five guilty henchmen get run over by the train to save the innocent Harvey Dent.

DILEMMA #4: Destruction

A man decides to burn down an entire town. There are no people currently in the town, as they all evacuated. You can either kill this man, saving the buildings of the town, or let the town burn, destroying nearby wildlife and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. "Thou shalt preserve life" does not allow you to shoot the man to save the town, while "Thou shalt not murder" does, under the clause of "Defence of Property."

DILEMMA #5: War

Another country declares war on and invades your country.

Under "Thou shalt preserve life," your country would surrender, and the other country would come in and establish an oppressive government, making the residents suffer. The other country also decides to destroy Christianity, and thus, "Thou shalt preserve life" is lost, along with the other nine Commandments.

Under "Thou shalt not murder," because war is not considered murder, your country can respond to the invasion, saving your country, and the country's culture, and "Thou shalt not murder."

Ultimately, in every situation brought up so far, there has either been a tie between "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt preserve life" or a victory for "Thou shalt not murder." So, why settle for the statement that restricts moral choices further than the other, and does not allow for the weighing of the values of lives?

This debate is going to be good. Good luck to you, as well.

1. http://web.telia.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for his swift response.

=== DILEMMA'S ===

#1: Murderer:

On the point about injuring people:

The person in hand has not killed or murdered anyone. Sure, he should be imprisoned, but he has not deprived anyone of life. I would like to, at this time ,ask my opponent under what circumstances murder would be acceptable.

Two people to kill someone tied in a chair:

Should you kill those 2 people, you have saved only 1 person. What could the motives of those people be. Perhaps they're brother stopping a serial murder who killed their families. We should disregard all moral choices made by the people in question, as we are trying to maximise life. if they will kill again, that is something to take into account, and innocent people should be valued over guilty people given a dilemma where the net amount of deaths either side are equal.

To answer the question, let the one person die, unless the people in hand will kill more people.

Dilemma #2: Abortion

We both have the same ground here.

However, my opponent points out here that murder is subject to the law and not the bible. Therefore in a state of anarchy, what is and isn't murder? There is no supreme law stating what is and what isn't.

Dilemma #3: Train

If you follow thou shalt not murder, you cannot change the tracks, as it is murder to directly kill one party, regardless of the maximisation of life. Remember, we are not taking the guiltiness of the people into account. The only other variable is if they would kill. If they would kill, more than you would save (they would have to kill 5 people), then not changing the tracks is justified.

Dilemma #4: Destruction

Under the defence of property, the person can be killed to save money. However, under thou shalt preserve life, the person would also be allowed to be shot. Your dilemma states he would kill nearby wildlife. Although human life is more important than wildlife, one person cannot be valued over the livelihood of hundreds of animals. We are dealing with Christian morals here, and we must remember we are taking into consideration that everything is made by God, and has a purpose regardless of significance.

Thou shalt preserve life does not necessarily regard human life. A hundred birds and deer are more valuable than one human. And a human that is prone to burning towns that could possibly harm others.

DILEMMA #5: War

Christianity encourages pacifism. However, let's consider everything. If the other country invades you, it is unknown how many people they will kill. Let's just say I have a nation of 250,000 people and an army of 10,000. The neighbouring country has double that, but only sends 12,000 soldiers. Obviously, I would only need to defeat 9,000 of their troops before they retreated in defeat. Now, the army would obviously pillage and burn cities, as they are establishing an oppressive. Should they ultimatley kill more than would be killed in the war, say, 15000 would be killed in the war. if the invaders kill more than 15000 the war would be justifiable.

Of course, Jesus (Taking into account we are debating Christianity) would say to the other cheek. He never detested the Roman invaders. The invaders might destroy the christian documents, but it would live on through people and through worshipping it. .

Thanks, Panda.
mongeese

Con

Thank you for responding.

On the point about injuring people:

My opponent thinks that a person who severely injures four people (or a thousand people, for emphasis) should be imprisoned after the deed is done, when he can be killed before the deed is done, preventing the deed from ever being done.

Let's exaggerate the situation. A man ties up twenty people and is about to chop off all of their arms and limbs. If you call the doctor now, they'd be able to save everybody, although their lives would be extremely miserable, and the man with the axe will escape into the woods. He hops in a boat, rows down the river, and is in a foreign country by midnight, never to be found by the authorities.

If you shoot the man, he's dead (he deserved it, for what he was about to do) and you can untie everybody.

So, should the man die, or be allowed to completely ruin the lives of 20(+) people with no punishment?

The moral decision seems clear to kill the man, saving the 20 people from misery, and giving him the punishment he deserves.

"I would like to, at this time, ask my opponent under what circumstances murder would be acceptable."
Murder is never acceptable. That's why I'm saying, "Thou shalt not murder."

Two people to kill someone tied in a chair:

Two brothers stopping a serial killer wouldn't be preparing to kill him. They'd turn him over to the authorities. Also, you can easily overhear conversations. Now, let's say it's a little kid being kicked repeatedly by two gangsters. The situation is fairly obvious. Do you let the innocent kid be kicked to death, or do you kill the two gangsters?

Now, it seems that my opponent would value the lives of 1,000 criminals over the lives of 999 innocent people. Let's say that 1,000 criminals teamed up to try to ruin the town, and ended up in a situation where they are all trapped in a room that is getting gassed (whoops) and the 999 innocent people that they captured are in the other room being gassed as planned. The criminals are gassing themselves by accident, while the 999 people are being gassed by the people who are gassing themselves. Which group of people should be saved? Obviously, the 999 innocents.

"To answer the question, let the one person die, unless the people in hand will kill more people."
You can call the police, and have them lock up the other two for life, but if they were just going to be locked up for life, wouldn't it be better to kill them and save an innocent life? After all, there's not much point to a life in prison.

"Therefore in a state of anarchy, what is and isn't murder? There is no supreme law stating what is and what isn't."
Seeing as the law is supposed to be a reflection of morals, in anarchy, your set of morals is the set of laws. In a country with government, the people put together their morals to make the laws.

"If you follow thou shalt not murder, you cannot change the tracks, as it is murder to directly kill one party, regardless of the maximisation[sic] of life."
Wrong. You'd do it in "Defence of others," so you can change the tracks.

"Remember, we are not taking the guiltiness of the people into account."
But we should. We should protect the innocent from being killed at the hands of the guilty. If the guilty have to be killed to save the innocent, so be it. Remember, the guilty are the ones who start the mess in the first place.

New situation: two guys (A and B) tie up one person (C) to a railroad track, and then tie themselves on another railroad track. The train was originally going to hit A and B, but my opponent would have you redirect the train at C, even though A and B are in the middle of suicide, and C is an innocent victim. "Thou shalt not murder" allows you to use common sense and let the suiciders suicide, letting C live.

Dilemma #4: Destruction

Question: how many animal lives are worth one human life?

Remove the wildlife from the dilemma, and make the choice again.

My opponent's point about animals brings up a new situation:

One million ants are coming at you, prepared to eat you. You have a can of bug spray, and you can kill them all, saving yourself. Do you save yourself, or let yourself die? Preserving life requires you to let yourself die. Not murdering allows you to kill the ants in self-defense.

DILEMMA #5: War

Pacifism does no good, as you are being invaded.

Let's put in some new numbers. Another country has three million people, and they are invading your town of ten thousand. You can nuke the invading army of eleven thousand, eliminating them and deterring the invasion completely, or you can let the invading army kill every person in your town.

"Thou shalt preserve life" commands you to let your town of 10,000 innocents die in favor of an aggressive invading army of 11,000.

"Thou shalt not murder" allows you to kill the 11,000 invaders in defense of your town, saving your culture.

Obviously, you should have a sense duty to your town. The invaders were kind of just asking to get nuked. So why hold off saving your entire town just because the invading army has more people? My opponent is basically arguing that the larger army should get to kill off the smaller army without struggle for having more people, and the smaller army should just surrender and die. Well, that's hardly a wise decision.

"The invaders might destroy the [C]hristian documents, but it would live on through people and through worshipping it."
Not if they want to kill every man, woman, and child in your town.

Now, I'm going to see if my opponent is willing to change his answers if he is placed in the situation.

I-am-a-panda, let's say that you are walking down the street, with nobody else there, when two thugs suddenly appear with guns pointed at you, with the obvious intent of killing you immediately. You are quick, and you can kill both of them to save yourself, or you can let yourself die. I ask you, what would you seriously do? Kill two people that are trying to kill you, or let yourself die? Is the fact that there is an extra thug really going to make you let yourself die?

And now, a situation similar to the one above. You're driving through a desert, miles away from civilization. You run out of gas, so you get out, preparing to walk. A tough thug pulls up in a motorcycle, and demands that you hand over the keys to your car, along with your wallet. You have a gun in your pocket.

If you hand over your keys, the thug will knock you unconscious, then empty the gas from his bike to the car, and load the bike onto the car, and drive off, using your driver's license to get to your house and rob it with your house keys. He then lives the rest of his life at a bar in Mexico. You'd wake up hours later, and spent two torturous days wandering through the desert until you arrive at a town, without your car, your wallet (which contained your credit card and debit card, and therefore, your life savings are gone by the time you get back to town), and your house keys, and therefore, everything that was in your house.

If you resist, but don't shoot, the thug snaps your neck.

If you shoot the thug, he dies, and you get to take the gas from his bike and continue on your merry way, knowing that there's one less criminal in the world.

So, the obvious decision here is to shoot the thug, because the thug doesn't deserve to steal your life's work, and by trying to rob you, he's just asking to be shot. So why are you resisting killing him just because it would lead to the maximization of life? The thug is going to steal your life, which he doesn't deserve. He deserves to be shot in this situation.

In conclusion, there are obviously times in which the maximization of total lives is not a priority, and therefore, there are cases in which it is necessary to kill (not murder), because it is the right thing to do.

Back to you, I-am-a-panda.
Debate Round No. 2
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.

"Let's exaggerate the situation. A man ties up twenty people and is about to chop off all of their arms and limbs. If you call the doctor now, they'd be able to save everybody, although their lives would be extremely miserable, and the man with the axe will escape into the woods. He hops in a boat, rows down the river, and is in a foreign country by midnight, never to be found by the authorities."

>> Of course, if the commandment said thou shalt preserve life, then you cannot kill him. However, god will ultimatley judge him and throw him into hell.

I could, however, disable the person in hand and he could not attack them. I would have preserved the most life possible.

"Two brothers stopping a serial killer wouldn't be preparing to kill him. They'd turn him over to the authorities. Also, you can easily overhear conversations. Now, let's say it's a little kid being kicked repeatedly by two gangsters. The situation is fairly obvious. Do you let the innocent kid be kicked to death, or do you kill the two gangsters?"

>> Again, if the gangster will kill again, killing them there and then is justified. The gangsters will ultimatley be judged by god.

"Now, it seems that my opponent would value the lives of 1,000 criminals over the lives of 999 innocent people. Let's say that 1,000 criminals teamed up to try to ruin the town, and ended up in a situation where they are all trapped in a room that is getting gassed (whoops) and the 999 innocent people that they captured are in the other room being gassed as planned. The criminals are gassing themselves by accident, while the 999 people are being gassed by the people who are gassing themselves. Which group of people should be saved? Obviously, the 999 innocents."

>> As I have previously stated, god will ultimatley judge the criminals for their actions. In the meanwhile, I would attempt to maximise the most life possible. Let the 1,000 people live. The 10 commandments does not give preference to a specific group with specific morals.

"You can call the police, and have them lock up the other two for life, but if they were just going to be locked up for life, wouldn't it be better to kill them and save an innocent life? After all, there's not much point to a life in prison."

>> All life, according to the bible, is sacred, regardless of how it is lived.

"Seeing as the law is supposed to be a reflection of morals, in anarchy, your set of morals is the set of laws. In a country with government, the people put together their morals to make the laws."

>> So, in anarchy everyone must interpret the 10 commandments and bible differently? Some content of the bible is contradictory to other parts.

"Wrong. You'd do it in "Defence of others," so you can change the tracks."

>> Your stance states thou shalt not murder. Killing one person instead of two is murder, regardless of he persons morals.

"But we should. We should protect the innocent from being killed at the hands of the guilty. If the guilty have to be killed to save the innocent, so be it. Remember, the guilty are the ones who start the mess in the first place."

>> So, under that ideology, 1,000 guilty people should be killed to save one innocent?

And what of people with split personalities? Say one side of someone's personality wants to kill a gangster on probation, and the other side is a pacifist? We can't kill of one half of the person, and the person is both guilty and innocent? You would bee killing an innocent person as much as a guilty person.

Under your stance, it would be justified to let the person with the split personality to kill the gangster, as it allows a guilty person to die rather than a guilty and innocent person.

"two guys (A and B) tie up one person (C) to a railroad track, and then tie themselves on another railroad track. The train was originally going to hit A and B, but my opponent would have you redirect the train at C, even though A and B are in the middle of suicide, and C is an innocent victim. "Thou shalt not murder" allows you to use common sense and let the suiciders suicide, letting C live."

>> So, in this scenario, you propose to let people commit suicide and commit euthanasia, even when the bible states in is wrong? The obvious choice would be to divert the train tracks and institutionalise the suicidal people.

"Remove the wildlife from the dilemma, and make the choice again."

>> Well, the arsonist isn't harming an lives directly. But what of the knock on effect? Would any reallocated people die? Would any people die due to tax hikes? If the answer is no, then the arsonist has hurt no one and does not deserve death. If he will indirectly hurt someone, or kill someone through arson, he deserves to be killed.

"One million ants are coming at you, prepared to eat you. You have a can of bug spray, and you can kill them all, saving yourself. Do you save yourself, or let yourself die? Preserving life requires you to let yourself die. Not murdering allows you to kill the ants in self-defense."

>> The bible prohibits suicide, though it is not committing suicide. The bible states, in Genesis, that humans have rule over the animals. In the case of the arsonist, he was killing animals who weren't doing anything. In this case, you should be allowed to defend yourself, though it is unlikely you could kill a million ants with one can of bug spray :).

"Let's put in some new numbers. Another country has three million people, and they are invading your town of ten thousand. You can nuke the invading army of eleven thousand, eliminating them and deterring the invasion completely, or you can let the invading army kill every person in your town."

>> Again, God will judge the invading army. If the army will kill more people, then you should be allowed to defend yourself.

"I-am-a-panda, let's say that you are walking down the street, with nobody else there, when two thugs suddenly appear with guns pointed at you, with the obvious intent of killing you immediately. You are quick, and you can kill both of them to save yourself, or you can let yourself die. I ask you, what would you seriously do? Kill two people that are trying to kill you, or let yourself die? Is the fact that there is an extra thug really going to make you let yourself die?"

>> Under the teachings of Jesus, he would allow the two thugs kill him.

"You're driving through a desert, miles away from civilization. You run out of gas, so you get out, preparing to walk. A tough thug pulls up in a motorcycle, and demands that you hand over the keys to your car, along with your wallet. You have a gun in your pocket.

If you hand over your keys, the thug will knock you unconscious, then empty the gas from his bike to the car, and load the bike onto the car, and drive off, using your driver's license to get to your house and rob it with your house keys. He then lives the rest of his life at a bar in Mexico. You'd wake up hours later, and spent two torturous days wandering through the desert until you arrive at a town, without your car, your wallet (which contained your credit card and debit card, and therefore, your life savings are gone by the time you get back to town), and your house keys, and therefore, everything that was in your house."

>> Again, Jesus would tell you that material items are nothing and that violence is not acceptable. But, you have posed the question in that it is one on one, and in that situation, the person with the worse morals should be disposed of. It is only in a situation where there is a greater number on one side we shoudl consider the side of pacifism.

Thanks, Panda.
mongeese

Con

">> Of course, if the commandment said thou shalt preserve life, then you cannot kill him. However, [G]od will ultimatley[sic] judge him and throw him into hell."
My opponent is now only saying that his new commandment would restrict one from saving twenty people from a lifetime of misery by killing one person. Just because God will judge him eventually, doesn't mean we shouldn't ship his life off to God right now, sparing twenty from torture.

My opponent is basically going by the idea that life trumps all, and the life count is the only thing that matters, ignoring pain, guilt, responsibility, and the sense of survival. Morally, that just doesn't make sense.

"I could, however, disable the person in hand and he could not attack them. I would have preserved the most life possible."
No, I gave you this one situation. If you shoot him, he dies, or the shot isn't enough to deter him from his goal. My scenario, my options. You can't just create another option.

">> Again, if the gangster will kill again, killing them there and then is justified. The gangsters will ultimatley[sic] be judged by god."
According to my opponent, the fact that the gangster brought a friend with him spares his life. He'd let an innocent child die to spare the lives of two gangsters that wanted the child dead. What kind of law enforcement policy would that be?

">> As I have previously stated, god will ultimatley[sic] judge the criminals for their actions. In the meanwhile, I would attempt to maximise[sic] the most life possible. Let the 1,000 people live. The 10 commandments does not give preference to a specific group with specific morals."
So, my opponent would also have you save the 1,000 criminals from the death that they were about to bring about themselves rather than save the 999 innocent townspeople that the criminals wanted dead. In effect, that decision would make the criminals successful in their venture to kill the townspeople. Had they not accidentally locked themselves up, the 999 could have been saved, but no, apparently, one extra criminal means that they should be saved, even though it's their own fault that all of this happened. That's not moral at all.

">> All life, according to the bible, is sacred, regardless of how it is lived."
Also, while all lives are sacred, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are all equally sacred. And again, this is just encouraging gangs to have more numbers.

">> So, in anarchy everyone must interpret the 10 commandments and bible differently? Some content of the bible is contradictory to other parts."
Source? Also, there isn't really much of an option under anarchy. Everybody would define murder for himself or herself and then live without performing murder. Hopefully, they'd make the moral decision, but hey, it's anarchy.

">> Your stance states thou shalt not murder. Killing one person instead of two is murder, regardless of he persons morals."
No, because "Defence of others" allows you to kill one person in defense of the other two.

"And what of people with split personalities? Say one side of someone's personality wants to kill a gangster on probation, and the other side is a pacifist? We can't kill of one half of the person, and the person is both guilty and innocent? You would bee killing an innocent person as much as a guilty person."
Obviously, we don't know this until he pulls a gun on the gangster. In that case, because the split-personality guy is the one who is guilty right now, we kill him. The gangster isn't doing anything wrong right now.

">> So, under that ideology, 1,000 guilty people should be killed to save one innocent?"
Only if the 1,000 guilty people are all trying to kill this innocent person in this situation, and all 1,000 guilty people need to die to save the innocent person, and no policemen would die trying to kill the 1,000.

"Under your stance, it would be justified to let the person with the split personality to kill the gangster, as it allows a guilty person to die rather than a guilty and innocent person."
Wrong. In this specific situation, the gangster is perfectly innocent, while Mr. Split just pulled a gun on someone. Guilt and innocence is by situation.

">> So, in this scenario, you propose to let people commit suicide and commit euthanasia, even when the bible states in is wrong? The obvious choice would be to divert the train tracks and institutionalise[sic] the suicidal people."
We either let them commit suicide or let them commit murder. Murder is much worse, as it takes away the life of somebody that wants to live. My opponent would want to save two people that want to die in favor of one person that wants to live. If the two suiciders could be saved without killing anybody else, then we do that, but the fact that we can't means that we shouldn't. My opponent would have three people unhappy rather than three people happy.

">> Well, the arsonist isn't harming an lives directly. But what of the knock on effect? Would any reallocated people die? Would any people die due to tax hikes? If the answer is no, then the arsonist has hurt no one and does not deserve death. If he will indirectly hurt someone, or kill someone through arson, he deserves to be killed."
How are we supposed to know how many people will indirectly be killed? Again, my opponent values one life over the entire town (minus the people) when the arsonist is very, very guilty here. Letting the arsonist succeed wouldn't really put a stop to arson.

">> Again, God will judge the invading army. If the army will kill more people, then you should be allowed to defend yourself."
God can judge the invading army even quicker if we nuke them.
And no, the army will not kill more people. They just want to take over the town.
Also, this decision just led to the death of Christianity, as I mentioned earlier. That's just great.

">> Under the teachings of Jesus, he would allow the two thugs kill him."
My opponent refers to himself in the third person. This question was to him, not to some hypothetical person. By specifying an un-sourced teaching of Jesus that would supposedly require him to die, he's basically saying that Christians should let themselves die, but he should get to live. He's trying to change morals without even being willing to follow them. Now, I, personally, would shoot the two thugs in self-defense. I'd like to see any sane person willing to die in this situation.

">> Again, Jesus would tell you that material items are nothing and that violence is not acceptable. But, you have posed the question in that it is one on one, and in that situation, the person with the worse morals should be disposed of. It is only in a situation where there is a greater number on one side we shoudl[sic] consider the side of pacifism."
My opponent again cites Jesus' teachings without a source, not even a verse. Material items are not nothing, as they are necessary for subsistence. Unnecessary violence may be unacceptable, but self-defense certainly is. My opponent is not answering my question himself, which is strange.

In conclusion, "Thou shalt not murder" would be a better commandment than "Thou shalt preserve life" because it allows for the innocent to more consistently be saved in any given situation. By my opponent's proposition, the guilty men walk alive while the innocent man dies. He's advocating a strength in numbers, which only encourages trying to add more people to your side. My opponent's ideology even requires one to value suiciders over a man that wants to live, even though all three could be happy, and "Thou shalt preserve life" makes them all unhappy. In addition, my opponent doesn't even sound as if he'd be willing to follow his own proposition, which he thinks that all Christians should follow. All in all, "Thou shalt not murder" makes more sense, because it allows for moral decisions to be made to know who doesn't deserve to die, and who does.

Thanks. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Where'd the five votes come from all of a sudden?
Posted by Urisma_Ska-Kharib 7 years ago
Urisma_Ska-Kharib
Purist note: Thou shalt not kill is not a commandment. It is something that Moses told to the people BEFORE he was issues the 10 commandments on mount Sinai. Read exodus 34. That has the real 10 commandments.
Posted by iamaphoenix 7 years ago
iamaphoenix
Your English.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
But God commanded Himself that murderers and rapists be put to death...
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
"no worldly savior..." Deary me! I meant human savior.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
"GodSands, have you read the book of Leviticus?" Levitcus 18 I have, and maybe some more. But like I mentioned the Isrolites were the ancestors of Yeshua. If the Isrolites were killed off, Jesus would not have been born and therefore no worldly savior, the Bibles does not support the death penalty, but it contains the death penalty. Like when God commanded Joshua to bring down the walls of Babylon, many died because of that, but these people were wicked and would have wipped out the Isrolites, since God promised them the promise land of milk and honey.

You really need to study the Bible and it's books and not just look at the Bible with vain thoughts. You place the Bible within the box of, "It is all wrong and scientifically incorrect." I would say, "Slow down and read it with care and passion to know it."

I think people just hate it because it claims to be true. I hate when people applaude others when they are searching for the truth, but hate it when people say they have found it.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Now, was that because of my English, or was it because of your reading comprehension?
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
"writing was easy to read"

They were both easy to read. You took that "proper" clause out of context. If they're equally easy to read, but one guy spelled one word incorrectly, tie the effing category.

If I gave tribefan011 a point for better English, it was because I specifically had to look back at things you had said to try and make sense of them.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
How am I being hypocritical? I said he had better English. He was much easier to understand.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
But iamadragon misunderstands. According to the article, the S/G vote DOES go to the person who bothered to correct mistakes, either by typing carefully or by using Microsoft Word. The point is, one or two typos is okay, but repeated errors lose the vote.

And this is the only debate of discussion right now. A debate needs to be mentioned to be added to the discussion.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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: Counter vote bomb i really hate those that vote bomb cause i been votebomb before and in a war before about this and i despise it
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Urisma_Ska-Kharib 7 years ago
Urisma_Ska-Kharib
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
I-am-a-pandamongeeseTied
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