murder is right

my opponent on his profile claims he can uphold any position even if its totally absurd or wrong. Lets see if he can prove this one right. put him to the test. he nust prove murder, is in some way, good.

"Lets see if he can prove this one right. put him to the test. he nust prove murder, is in some way, good."

Gladly.

Murder may seem like the ultimate evil to many, but it's effects are absolutely necessary in order to maintain human life on our planet. Environmentalist estimate that the earth will reach its maximum capacity when the population is within the range of 10-12 billion. For a better understanding, take into account my chart below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Population Chart:

1804: roughly 1 billion
1927 (123 years later) roughly 2 billion
1960 (33 years later) roughly 3 billion
1974 (13 years later)roughly 4 billion
1987 (12 years later) roughly 5 billion
1999 (12 years later)roughly 6 billion

The rest is what is pure estimation based off of the above increases:

2013: 7 billion
2028: 8 billion
2050: 10.7 (high) or 8.9 (middle) or 7.3 low) billion projected
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now what happens when the population overshoots the earth's carrying capacity? I'll tell you. Our resources diminish and mostly everyone ends up dying. Something needs to be done to keep the population at its current level and death through means other than old age is necessary. Murder is beneficial to keeping the population in check; it's good (gotta love Utilitarianism during these debates :D ) can be seen in the fact that it manages to help keep the world balanced.

Given that my only objective was demonstrate how murder is in "some way" good, I believe I have conclusively upheld my stance.

My opponent hasshown me that population is not good for the world, and i accept his argument. However i do not believe he has shown me that it is 'good' in any way. Sure our population needs a decrease badly, but i find no morality in having an innocent person die by the hands of another, and have it called 'good' just because the population decreased one more. This i still believe is very wrong. If your mother was killed tomarrow, would you say that it is 'good' because the population is a tad bit better? If were worried about population there is other ways of acheiving this goal.
1st, we can take a non-murderous but very communistic action and be like china banning more than a few children per person.
2nd, we can do what they do in the movies and live on mars.

Both these ways, though odd, are ways we can survive population problems without killing anybody at all.

In his R2, CON has claimed that he sees no problem with my analysis of murder but that I still haven't managed to demonstrate how it is good. However, ladies and gentleman, I've done just that. For you see, there is no single universal idea of "good." CON requested that I demonstrate that murder was in SOME WAY good and I gladly complied by demonstrating it through being good in a utilitarian paradigm (hence my line "you gotta love utilitarianism in these debates . . . which is actually a nod to my LD days, but that's besides the point :D ).

http://en.wikipedia.org...: Essentially, this form of ethics looks at the results of actions when identifying good/ethics. The results of murder contribute to decreasing overpopulation (which can and has caused the nigh-complete annihilation of many species). Thus, when taking this into consideration, this is quite literally a finished debate where I am already victorious. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall answer his responses provided in the previous round.

RE: "Sure our population needs a decrease badly, but i find no morality in having an innocent person die by the hands of another, and have it called 'good' just because the population decreased one more."

See my explanation on utilitarianism. In addition, good doesn't merely equate to morality. If we are to speak in terms good meaning sheer benefits/gains, then again, murder is in SOME WAY (again, these be the words of my opponent) beneficial as I've already explained.

RE: "If your mother was killed tomarrow, would you say that it is 'good' because the population is a tad bit better?"

In spite of my opponent employing an incredibly obvious appeal to emotion here, my answer to his question is YES. If we are to agree that murder helps combat overpopulation (which we both agree as bad), then my mother's death would be in SOME WAY good. This "some way" would be utilitarian good.

RE: "If were worried about population there is other ways of achieving this goal."

1) Red herring fallacy. Whether or not there are indeed other ways of combating overpopulation, this has nothing to do with whether or not murder is able to do this, hence be in SOME WAY good.
2) I never said insisted murder was the only way. My point was that it's beneficial and nothing more.

Thus, I really need not entertain my opponent's "counter plan" to combating overpopulation (as it is completely irrelevant). Nevertheless, to further pacify him as well as be as thorough as possible in this debate, I shall do so anyway.

RE: "1st, we can take a non-murderous but very communistic action and be like china banning more than a few children per person.
2nd, we can do what they do in the movies and live on mars."

1) Ignoring the fact that such a plan fringes on liberty, I'd have to point out that what my opponent has claimed is too idealistic. Just how are we going to get the entire world to cooperate with one another, much less give into this plan. No doubt would the mere attempt cause wars.

2) Although seemingly a good plan (when ignoring the fact that there are faults from this first plan which would be faults of this plan as well), I must point out that real life doesn't quite equate to "the movies." By current technological standards, we cannot live on mars. It's absolutely unfeasible at this point. And given the blows NASA is getting, I doubt we'll even be colonizing to mars during this CENTURY.

RE: "Both these ways, though odd, are ways we can survive population problems without killing anybody at all."

Both of my opponents methods are unrealistic at the moment, thus really shouldn't be looked to as means of solving the over population problem. Still, even if you are to buy into his methods, we've gotta remember that citing different methods of dealing with overpopulation has no bearing on my arguments or this debate. I could say that living in a mansion is better than living in apartment, but this doesn't disprove the fact that there are indeed benefits to living in an apartment. The scenario is the same here as the debate concerns whether or not there is any good that comes from murder.

CONCLUSION: I've complied to my opponent's terms and have shown how murder is in SOME WAY good in terms of a utilitarian understanding of good (again, not to repeat this 10 million times, but it's good stimulates from the fact that it contributes to decreasing overpopulation). Thus, for great justice, vote PRO.

Thanks for the debate. :D