The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AbnerGrimm
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

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...
AbnerGrimm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 867 times Debate No: 33562
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

Undocumented democrats are illegal immigrents in the USA. Shot means to be killed. First round is for accept.
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thank you Pro for starting this debate. I will be arguing that Undocumented Democrats should not be shot(killed). My opponent has the burden of showing why Undocumented Democrats should be shot(killed). I assume the first round is for acceptance. I send it back to Pro and await their response.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally! They invaded. If someone comes into your home you shoot them! Someone invades the country (good ole USofA) they need to be shot, killed, skinned, hung! They have no right to be here! Ever since these Undocumented Democrats came to the USA crime rose. (1) The mexicans come here and do their crimes and litter all over the place. Illegals need to be shot deporting them dont do no good! Deporters always come back. THeir lifes are useless. They need to die.

(1) http://www.renewamerica.com...
AbnerGrimm

Con


Thank you Pro for your opening argument. I think I should offer the readers a little information about Undocumented Democrats. The term was coined to replace the term 'illegal immigrants'. In fact the term was used on the NBC’s Tonight Show, host Jay Leno said, "They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat’" http://newsbusters.org... The Associated Press announced it will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant." Rush Limbaugh was asked about the comment by Jay Leno, "Since AP is not gonna be calling 'em illegal immigrants anymore, we can call 'em undocumented Democrats." "Yeah, we invented that term back in 2010 here on the EIB Network." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com...


Me and my opponent can agree that undocumented democrats are here illegally and are criminals. This does not give us the right to kill anyone because of it. The rest of my opponents claims are irrelevant. All people have the right to life, it is guaranteed in all international and regional human rights instruments. There are some variations in formulation, but it is universally accepted that the individual has a right not to be arbitrarily or unlawfully killed by the state. http://www.essex.ac.uk...


Immigrants have human rights as anyone else. America even gives rights to immigrants and upholding the rights of immigrants is important to us all. The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. http://www.aclu.org...


Intentional killing as my opponent suggest equals to murder and we have laws against murder.


18 USC § 1111 - Murder


(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. http://www.law.cornell.edu...


If that is not enough we have the commandment from God to not kill. The sixth of the ten commandments reads, "Thou shall not kill." Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder." http://www.christianhomesite.com...


I think I have shown that killing illegal immigrants is wrong. It is against the law and against the rights of the immigrant. I think I have negated the resolution. I turn it back over to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. Humans have the right to life but humans can lose the right. If someone invades your home you can't just sit there. Just like illegals there taking our food jobs women turning white kids into white gangsters. There just like home take over robbers! We can shoot theves who are stealing our stuff. The
Undocumented Democrats have a right to life if their legal or in their country!
Undocumented Democrats don't have consititual rights because there not here legally! It would not be murder it would be justified. The illegals striked first in coming here expecting free everything. God lets people kill. The commandments ment not to unlawfully kill. Illegals are here illegaly and its lawful to kill em.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Kill Witches

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)

Kill Fortunetellers

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 )

Death for Hitting Dad

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)



You can kill it must be lawful!

Undocumented dumbocrats need to be shot i prove it.
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thank you Pro. Pro verifies that Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. He then says that humans lose the right to human life if they invades in someone's home. We do have laws that take the right of life away from some individuals but this is not for someone breaking and entering nor Undocumented Democrats. My opponent has not shown that Undocumented Democrats are taking jobs and turning white children into gangsters. My opponent must show that it is legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. I maintain that it is illegal to shoot someone who has broken into your house. My opponent mistakes the human right to live for the American constitution. All people have the human right to live. Pro has yet to provide justification for killing Undocumented Democrats. We cannot kill intruders, we contain them, we disport them. Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate. The state kills people for murder and other mandated violations of the law, like the Bible. Pro has not shown us that Undocumented Democrats are one of those violations.

Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Everyone knows illegals are taking jobs. Everyone! You just going to let someone steal from you? It is morally legal to shoot an invader. Everyone knows this. You will lose your rgihts if you infringe on the rights of others! Like the right to property and white kids.

'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate"

Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up!

I proved killing undocumented democris moral and should happen.
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thanks Pro. I do not know about everyone else but I feel like Pro failed in his burden. Pro never supports one of his statements. Then he fails to show that Undocumented Democrats are stealing more money than the government. I make the same claim, our government steals more of our money then anyone. It is not morally legal to shoot anyone unless it is in defence of your life. People do not lose their rights because they infringe on others rights. Pro has a twisted view of the world and his world view is unsupporteed as well.

'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate"

"Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up!"

I did but I explained what use the passages had and you simply showed us that God said to stone people. You never showed us why this supports your position. If any it supports mine as that God has specific reasons for people to be killed. You never showed that illegal immigrants were killed by God and the Hebrews.

Pro really showed us nothing but a desire to kill people and pass blame, from his government to Undocumented Democrats. I showed that it is illegal in America to kill people in any fashion. I showed that Undocumented Democrats have rights as anyone else, as well as human rights. I ask a vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by joseph.stracener 4 years ago
joseph.stracener
is this a troll debate? I was talking with someone irl who would just steamroll ahead without any evidence at all no matter how much I would bring up.

I find it infuriating, but in this case, hilarious.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
This debate is actually pretty funny.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by noprisu 4 years ago
noprisu
Anti-atheistAbnerGrimmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 hate to votebomb, but this was an one-sided fight. Con actually debated, while pro just reiterated already beaten points and used the Bible, a document which has no legal or moral authority in the "good ole USofA". Con had a mature and calm composure and did not insult Pro.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Anti-atheistAbnerGrimmTied
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: Troll.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Anti-atheistAbnerGrimmTied
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: Sources: Con offered several, pro only offered one or two (when using the bible, please include which edition). Argument: Con did a good job at countering (putting more work in I might add), even when it was not needed as pro had not reached his BoP by even proving that democrats are in fact invading peoples homes illegally. Spelling:Pro failed at spelling democrats several times during the debate. Conduct: HATE SPEECH (anyone who believes that is unwarranted, is welcome to counter).