The Instigator
anglcks20
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RougeFox
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

killing for pleasure is wrong!

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,080 times Debate No: 15202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

anglcks20

Pro

i will allow my opponent to begin!!
RougeFox

Con

I thank my opponent.

I will set this debate up by saying that the burden is on the pro to do two things
One, to prove all cases because it does not specify with the words "on balance"
Two, to prove that it is impossible for killing for pleasure to be not wrong. If I can prove that there is a possibility of murder for pleasure being not wrong, then I win because pro needs to prove all cases.

We should adopt a utilitarian framework. When we examine utilitarian calculus, which takes into account happiness, it is easy to see that killing for pleasure is not wrong.

Contention 1: More happiness could be gained by the murder than lost
In a situation in which the murderer gains pleasure, which is what this resolution limits us to, we can see there is already a happiness gain. Then, if the victim is miserable, we can see that misery would be no longer in existence. This means that a positive is gained while minimizing the harm of misery. So, it is possible that the happiness gained and the victim being taken out of his/her misery outweighs other impacts

Contention 2: We can't know if it is wrong under a utilitarian framework
We can't quantify happiness. We don't know that the victim's loss is greater than the murderer's gain. So, we can't safely affirm so to speak.

Thus, you negate.

Debate Round No. 1
anglcks20

Pro

anglcks20 forfeited this round.
RougeFox

Con

Extend Framework.

Extend Contention 1.

Kick Contention 2.

Negate.

Debate Round No. 2
anglcks20

Pro

anglcks20 forfeited this round.
RougeFox

Con

I am sorry that my opponent was sick and could not debate. Perhaps another time we could debate this topic. However, I still urge a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by anglcks20 6 years ago
anglcks20
im so sorry i did not debate this topic with you! i have been very ill and was not able to! again i am extremely sorry!
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
But also, it is not that I don't believe in it, it is that it is possible for the murder's pleasure to outweigh the victim's displeasure so we can't really affirm because that is a possibility and pro can't prove that won't happen.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
I'm going to kick something, depending on the response.
Posted by KikoSanchez182 6 years ago
KikoSanchez182
Why use a framework in which you don't believe in? An argument against utilitarianism is that pain and pleasure can't be quantified. If you believe in this rebuttal, then why use the framework in the first place? It seems you are being internally inconsistent.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
I'll bite
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
anglcks20RougeFoxTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by FIGHTTHEPOWER29 5 years ago
FIGHTTHEPOWER29
anglcks20RougeFoxTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple FF loses conduct and arguments. Pro didn't capitalize the I in her 1st round argument so I can give Spelling and Grammar to RogueFox.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
anglcks20RougeFoxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited while Con made an argument
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
anglcks20RougeFoxTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. I didn't get Con's contentions, but I did understand that Pro has to prove that it is ALWAYS wrong to kill for pleasure. Of course Pro didn't do that. No sources used. Grammar goes to Con because of no capitals used by Pro. I always give conduct to the person who did not forfeit. I think it is misconduct to forfeit.