All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

# killing for pleasure is wrong!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
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)

 Pro i will allow my opponent to begin!!Report this Argument 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. Report this Argument Pro anglcks20 forfeited this round. Con Extend Framework. Extend Contention 1. Kick Contention 2. Negate. Report this Argument Pro anglcks20 forfeited this round. 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.Report this Argument
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by anglcks20 6 years ago
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
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
I'm going to kick something, depending on the response.
Posted by KikoSanchez182 6 years ago
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
I'll bite
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.