The Instigator
YoungLawyer
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
younglaw
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

kill or rather get kill

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...
YoungLawyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 60291
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

YoungLawyer

Pro

Simple. Kill or rather get kill. For the sake of this "thou shall not kill" should not be use in this debate. Religion should not intervene in this. Also for the sake of this, there's no background, or whatsoever that happened that led to this. It just something that happen and weather if you'll kill or get kill. You nor I can really make a justification, but rather state why we should live and not that person, vice versa. List as many points as u want and defend them. Ex:

Good: Blah Blah Blah

Love: Blah Blah Blah

Kind: Blah Blah Blah

So do not put your argument in one sentence or clot all of them together. This is a one time debate. I will let my opponent go first and than I will present my side in the second round as I do not want to present it in explaining the rules of this debate.

No rebuttals at all. I will not rebuttals my opponent points. I will only present my points. My opponent should not reply in round 2 rather simply say "Good debate" or something that is not furthering his stand. He/She should make his stands in the first round, as it is his/her only chance. I simply extend this debate to two rounds because its where I want to make my points, not in the first round where I'm making the rules.

I will take the pro side of this and say I rather kill.
younglaw

Con

I accept this debate , i would like my opponent to understand my points fully.

It is going to be hard to make a point as there is no background/scenario explained because with a valid situation this debate would make a little more sense (do not take any offesnse) . Now, the reason as to why i would rather get killed is because "killing is bad". This might sound like an awfully dull point but I've said it in the most simple terms, it is bad, killing someone would mean Jail, depression and maybe guilt. Think about it yourself, that is why killing is against the law. And if you are a good person you wouldn't go against the law, you wouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly, you wouldn't demolish the biggest system in the whole world infact by breaking that law you would be destroying an ancient, timeless product that has been showing the human race the true path of righteousness. My words may sound very exaggerated but its all true, bitter but true. I am not a fan of dying so it would be difficult to face death (obviously) ,but it would mean that i would have died being a law-abiding, truthful samaritan of humanity and anyway we will all die someday so why not die being a good person rather than a guilt-ridden criminal which society rejects. Those are my biggest points yet.......but i personally feel that they are true because being a good human is the foundation of life, it's what basically everything depends on, it is the base of your existence.

Please take into account I'm only a 13 year old, please forgive me if I'm wrong at any points of my argument!
Debate Round No. 1
YoungLawyer

Pro

Well, my opponent has violated my rules using "I would like my opponent to understand my points fully." I made this only one round to present stands on killing or rather getting kill; if I wanted it to be a thorough debate, I would have extend it beyond 1 round. I just wanted to see why I should not kill this person, but rather they should kill me from my opponent. I will forgive my opponent in violating this rule and I will break my own rule that I said no rebuttals, and I admire my opponent being such a youth debater. I really admire that, and I certainly would forgive him for "wrong at any points of my argument." Sadly since this is not a long debate, as I did not want it to be, I want nor you would be able to present fully our points.

I will use "you" and "I" repeatedly to convey emotions and get an understanding of one being in such state.

Anyways, since the rule have been violated, I will rebuttal.

If you claim "killing is bad" than what makes it good for the person to kill you? Is it different from you killing him? Are you of less value to him?

"Killing someone would mean jail, depression, and maybe guilt."

"Jail":

- When I was making this debate, I knew the jail part would come up. I rather kill him, go to jail, spend a little time there, and than come out. As compare to him, he's gone, indefinite. Now if he kills me, he'll go to jail, spend a little time there, and than come out, and go about his normal business. Why should I have not done that? But instead I get shot, die, and gone forever.

"Depression":

- Well, if he kills me, I will be leaving families behind. With my passing, it will bring sorrows to my family, and with each passing day, they'll get depressed, as I am not here no longer. On the other hand, this guy who just kills me, can still see his family and enjoy what life has to offer for as long he may life. Just like the way I'm going to be depressed, that's the same way my killer will feel. So what makes his case different?

"Guilt":

- Yes I will feel guilt. Same with my killer. But I rather feel guilt, than be dead and gone forever early. The guilt will go away, I have experience guilt before, but it has gone away. It's not like guilt is here to stay forever.

"That is why killing is against the law":

- So in this case, I can either kill, or 'he' kills me. So what will make him right, or why should he kill me, if one of us is suppose to kill the other. Despite the fact that killing is against the law, this question is simply asking, weather or not its against the law, would you kill or get kill? Knowing its against the law, and you both were in the situation, he should kill and than he goes to jail, comes out, and go about his life? Did he not just violate the law, but still lives?

- This isn't about going against the law or not. And even if it was going against the law, and the guy and I both holding gun to each other face, I rather kill him, than allowing him to kill me. What will make him "righteous" if I allow him to kill me? Same way I would not be "righteous" if I do kill him. But the matter of fact is, and if it comes down to this, I would rather kill him, weather I'm good or bad. I being a good person does not mean that I should take the bullet, or that I should be the 'good guy'. I'm no good nor bad if I kill him instead of letting him kill me.

"And if you are a good person you wouldn't go against the law, you wouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly,":

- And if 'he's' a good guy he wouldn't go against the law; or a bad guy, because bad guys know that violating the law has consequences, knowing that they are going against the law. A guy that is bad at heart, wouldn't even agree to let the other person kill them and walk away, nevertheless a good guy doing it. If I shouldn't break the rules that guide society fairly, I should allow this person whom about to kill me do so? So you're saying its fair that he should kill me, but it isn't fair for me to kill him? Huh. Think about it.

- Okay to counter my opponents last point. I'm happy to hear that my opponent is a law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity, I admire such person. As a person who's going to be studying political science, that is all we ask our citizens. It is only with law-abiding citizens, can we build a productive and civilized society. Now I'm not preaching the killing of people, I'm not. But what I'm saying here is that "would you rather kill or get kill?" weather or not you're a "law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity"? Once you death, you being "a law-abiding, truthful Samaritan of humanity" will someday go in vein if you not someone like MLK or Gandhi, but just a normal citizen. Now the last points I want to make: So what about your dreams. What about all the things you hope for? What about the dreams of traveling the world, or starting a family. The dreams of starting a business or serving humanism on the front-line as a doctor. What about all that? Remember, you only have this one life to live and before we or in this case I, should perish from this earth, I want to live my dream, maybe not forever, but until my days on earth is over, not when someone kills me. Now I know you may say what about that person dream? What about what they wanted? Not to sound selfish, but if 'he' had to kill me and I have to kill him, I want to see my dream. I want to see my children. I want to see the world. Instead I let someone throw it away, and who knows what than they would do for the rest of their lives. They might not even do something productive. So than was their killing of you worthy as compare to theirs, or I that wanted to do something? So if we all going to die than why can't I kill him, as you have pointed out that we all going to die. He'll die one day anyway. Same with me, if I kill him, I will die one day anyway. You insisting I or you go first? Society does not reject all criminals, not all person that does a crime are rejected. It's about how you turn you story into something passionate. Now If I had kill this guy and than don't do anything with my life later, than yes society should reject me, than yes I'm of no value than the person I kill. Take for Alfred Nobel story for example, though I may not create another peace prize, I will try do something good in life, than go about killing more people or causing more disruptions.

- I'm glad you're a good human, as I am too. But there's a time and a place for everything. In the event of my life or death, when my being and existence is at risk, I ought to something to ensure its survival. That is the foundation of true life and the foundation on which human have been built on for centuries. I will not dealt into history about that, as this is not a literature, and I'm sure you'll one day learn them.

To conclude though, I would like to say I love my opponent, such a young intelligent person. Your age is okay, weather or not you went somewhere wrong, as I may have went someone wrong. It's about what you bring to the table. Sadly this wasn't an extended debate into longer rounds, so the last statement you make will be the final.

Good short debate.
younglaw

Con

I am sorry for violating some of your rules!

I would like to just say one thing before concluding, I would like to make a counterpoint. In your argument you state that "you only have one life" , I will accept defeat if you can prove that! that quote seems to be your opinion and not a fact, this opinion of yours may be shared with other people but all I would like to say is that there is no evidence that you only live once. The main point I see you making is that you want to live your life properly before dying because apparently you only have one shot at it, so basically your argument sort of lies on the fact that "you only live once" so since that is your belief, I respect it, but I would like you to prove it because evidence is key in everything. If you succeed in proving that life only comes round once then I shall accept defeat happily!

I am really happy to hear that you think fondly of me! so thanks for that.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by younglaw 2 years ago
younglaw
Your main counterpoint against me seems to be that you will be totally different in that new life, well the most common theory of re-incarnation is that the body dies but the internal soul lives on...it just transfers into a new form of body meaning you are the same type of person just with a new look, like water, water changes according to the object its put in like our soul....apparently. If god exists, then since he is the creator of all he will obviously be fair with all of us since we are his product, which means after death if we do go to a hell or a heaven or if we do come back to life then I don't think the mighty creator would care if we are religious to him....in his eyes we should be equal and so we will be treated equal. The stories I have heard of this 'God' show me that he is very merciful and loving therefore he will give us all the same treatment and give us all what we deserve and he will definitely forgive us because he is the one that has given us the gift of our own brain which means that he's given us the freedom of thought. Since we have this freedom, the lord would not blame us for our opinions because he is the one that's created them. That sais no matter what religion you are, no matter if you have a religion or not he will give you what you deserve.
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
I like that you pointed that out. So if "someone/something comes back but in a different form", than is it whom once was? No. The fact that you came in a different form means that it is no longer the person whom once live in that body, but something or someone completely different. Unless the actions of the new forms, are the same actions of the old form, than yes you only live more than once. But if your actions are different from those that was once yours, than you're not living once. By you being in a different form, living somewhere, you wouldn't be with the same families you once had, you wouldn't be with the same friends you once had, instead its new families and new friends, and a new life, and while you may think this person is living more than once, it is actually a new person who is living life for the first time.

You state "Re-incarnation is a possibility". I'm sure it ties with religion. So what about my religion, or what about those who do not have a religion, do they not live more than once because they do not believe in re-incarnation?

I like having these discussions, and theories. We do not need concrete evidence, we just need open minds and minds that want to explore the possibilities.

Lol. I do not mean to go harsh, as you are only 13. This is just about learning.
Posted by younglaw 2 years ago
younglaw
I understand that we haven't heard of them again, but Re-incarnation is a possibility....meaning that someone/something comes back but in a different form so maybe Gandhi's could be some normal Joe living somewhere.....I'm just saying its a possibility because there is no actual concrete evidence to support any of our theories
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
As much as I do not want to debate beyond the debating round, I would like to answer your question on weather or not we live only once. If we had to argue that you live only once, you and I will share the BOP for one have not experience death yet. Yet my argument will seem reasonable to say that we only live once, for all the people that have died centuries ago haven't been heard of that they're living somewhere. When I speak of life, I speak of the one we living here on earth. We have not heard of MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, living again. Once we die, we return to our state of ashes. We'll simply be souls, not living humans. I may be wrong, but that's my argument. Unless you can tell me that you have seen people whom have die living again, or that you have die and came back, than you got no valid argument or point in refuting what I'm saying.
Posted by younglaw 2 years ago
younglaw
good debate
Posted by YoungLawyer 2 years ago
YoungLawyer
Who's that?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
u better hope Ajabi doesn't accept this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
YoungLawyeryounglawTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con broke rules, spelled bad, and didn't manage to rebut enough of the contention
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
YoungLawyeryounglawTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Is this really a desision?
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
YoungLawyeryounglawTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con arguing in Round 2 when that round was suppose to be open by Con. Pro also gets S&G due to Con's grammatical errors of lack of capitalization. Pro also gets arguments due to his great run down of all the possible things that could be against the resolution.