The Instigator
philosphical
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

murder is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,531 times Debate No: 7839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

philosphical

Pro

i would very much like to debate this topic with some one.I will be either pro or con please post in the comment box whether or not you wish to debate me before accepting so i may have a chance to post up my case up in the neg or pro. thankyou
-philosophical
InfraRedEd

Con

Well the problem is that "murder" has a legal definition, whereas "wrong" has a moral definition. You are therefore asserting that all laws pertaining to murder are just. You might want to rethink that. But anyway. There must be no just murder, and all unjust killings must be murder. Is this even possible?

Murder is certainly on our minds. A google search for "murder" gives 124 000 000 hits. Six or seven times as many as Britney Spears.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death

Common law murder is defined as the:
unlawful
killing
of another human being
with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".
The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
Intent to kill,
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim.
Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.
--Wikipedia

So if you kill two human beings it is not murder. Murder is the killing of one human being. I don't know, it's your statement.

Examine issues of validity, scope and meaning of both the hytpothesis and your first argument, together with that of their individual words where appropriate. Some observations first.

The scope of the statement is intentionally vague.

"Murder" is a verb and someone must commit it within some context; moreover it is defined legally; "wrong" is defined morally.

Does it refer to acts by yourself, or myself, or by an individual, or by groups of individuals, or by the police or military, or a part of a death penalty administration, or other?

Who is being murdered? Is genocide murder?

Does it refer to a single act, or to the occurrance of multiple acts, and if the latter, does it refer to all such acts, and if not, to exactly which ones?

Does it refer to multiple killings?

"Wrong" generally denotes a problem needing a solution. Do you have one in mind?

Does it imply a duty to correct it, and if so is that the duty of the individual, or society, or both?
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Pro

ok first of all i would like to ask my opponent if they read the first round of this debate? i asked if whover takes up this debate would please post in the comment box before clicking accept, so as i could post up my first argument. unfortunatley this is not the case, and i did not get to post up an argument. So, i will have to make do and just start here.

ok i accept your definition of murder: 'unlawful killing of another human being with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".'

now i would like to focus on the two parts of this definition that are most important.
"unlawful killing"
"malice aforethought"

MY OPPONENT- "Well the problem is that "murder" has a legal definition, whereas "wrong" has a moral definition. You are therefore asserting that all laws pertaining to murder are just. You might want to rethink that. But anyway. There must be no just murder, and all unjust killings must be murder. Is this even possible?"

first of all the statement wasn'e what i was putting up as fact. it was a standing opinion on whether or not someone would choose that side. so when you say i "might want to re-think that" i am a little confused as to what you are trying to say seeing as i haven't even posted an argument for starters. the resolution in itself is not me stating a point, but putting forth a topic in which to debate.

MY OPPONENT- "So if you kill two human beings it is not murder. Murder is the killing of one human being. I don't know, it's your statement."

murder isn't just the killing of ONE individual, but the killing of ANY individual with a malciousious intent. killing a second person un-justly is the still therfor considered murder.

MY OPPONENT-"Examine issues of validity, scope and meaning of both the hytpothesis and your first argument, together with that of their individual words where appropriate. Some observations first."

hmm.. well seeing as i dont have a first argument, i am not sure i follow your logic.

MY OPPONENT-""Murder" is a verb and someone must commit it within some context; moreover it is defined legally; "wrong" is defined morally. Does it refer to acts by yourself, or myself, or by an individual or by groups of individuals, or by the police or military, or a part of a death penalty administration, or other?"

again, murder is the killing of any human being un-justly, no matter how large the group of people killing.

MY OPPONENT-
"Who is being murdered? Is genocide murder?
Does it refer to a single act, or to the occurrance of multiple acts, and if the latter, does it refer to all such acts, and if not, to exactly which ones?
Does it refer to multiple killings?"

yes genocide and anything to do with the killing of another human being is considered murder.... Now that we've established what murder IS, i think we should move to the actual topic of the debate, on whether it is right or wrong.

MY OPPONENT-""Wrong" generally denotes a problem needing a solution. Do you have one in mind?
Does it imply a duty to correct it, and if so is that the duty of the individual, or society, or both?"

any problem generally works.
example: man sees other man look at him funny, so he shoots him. This is a murder, and it is un-just. plain and simple. was it wrong or right? did the man deserve to die because he looked at the other man wrong? that is what we are trying to establish in this debate. In this case the mans actions can be considered murder, because
1. his action was unlawful
2. he murdered with malicious intent

I argue that murder is wrong because the killing of another human being with unlawful and malicous intent cannot be seen to be beneficial to the common goal of society in any way shape or form. Self defence killing is another issue and cannot be considered murder. The victim was the one causing the harm, while the defender was protecting his/her life with no un-lawful or malicious intent what-so-ever.

Murder has become a common thing in our country and others, and is only spreading more and more. I argue that murder in itself is wrong in very essence, seeing as people don't deserve to die unless, justice serves them, or they have caused major un-needed harm to any living being who has every right to live as they do.

now a goal as a society to prevent this is another story, however, this would be a good idea for future reference. thankyou, opponent.

-philosophical
InfraRedEd

Con

The shift key is the large one at each end of the bottom row. I just noticed: "Category: Entertainment."

You assert therefore that Cain did not commit murder since there were no (earthly) laws. A better solution would be to remove the qualification "unlawful" from our definition of murder.

Murder laws vary from state to state and country to country. Morality does not suddenly change
when you cross a man-made boundary. While I do not wish to immediately claim a forfeit, it does appear worth noting that therefore there seems to exists a meaning of the predicate "is" which when applied to your statement causes your statement to be false.

Another problem is that of determining state of mind. There shouldn't be any laws about what you are thinking.

And one cannot ignore our insane punishment mentality. The people we seek to punish are the ones who can tell us how to solve the problem. But no, they must be punished.

Our discussion, ostensibly about murder, is raising such questions about other things that rather than let a computer decide what we can talk about, and since we have already trashed the debate format anyway lets use this opportunity to see if we can't improve our debating and communication techniques, especially since so many murders are simply a result of worldview collision and lack of communication anyway. We need first of all a forum for discussing these issues, a more precise language for framing issues, and a better evaluation system. Not a landed gentry system where only those with brainless phones can vote. When we are finished people will still say that murder is wrong. This cannot be good for me. But how shall we communicate while we are discussing comminication?

http://www.finitesite.com...

or worldview collision

http://www.finitesite.com...

We have created, and I hate the word blogosphere, let's call it cyberland, where we are all novices. Nobody has any idea what is going on and if they did yesterday that was yesterday. They are all saying, and gooble this if you don't believe me, that Twitter is the new magic fairy dust. I mean gooble "Twitter," not "magic fairy dust." Twitter is great for entrepreneurs to sell each other marketing schemes and so it is experiencing growth right now but try and use it for communicating, in 140-character gasps that appear and then go their different ways.

Yahoo! groups is probably most people's first experience with onlne communities. But the entire community of Yahoo! groups consists of a lot of little groups with little means of communicating among them. As with Twitter, there is no global community that embraces everyone. Facebook has good connectivity within the community. And so it goes. Every system has strengths and weaknesses. The mathematics of computer networks is being used to study people networks but people are not computers. Each person has many interests and may use a combination of online communities for each one. But someone else will use a different selection.

I am in a debating community because it seems to address the global connectivity issue, that is connentivity within the community; but there are other issues that arise within a debating community that cannot best be solved by debating.

Apparently in seeking a discussion of the issue you instead signed a contract to defend the idea that murder is wrong.

In a "debate," as defined at debate.org, two participants take opposing views and attempt to defend them. A "winner" is picked. What you want is a forum for discussion of old times etc such as a Yahoo! group where any number of people can participate and you don't have to prove anything if you don't want to.

When you issue the debate challenge you also frame the question, pick which side you will take and post your opening argument. I did not manipulate these factors to your disadvantage and in fact had nothing to do with their formulation. My action in this matter consisted entirely in accepting the challenge and posting an argument that your contention that "murder is wrong" is ambiguous, vague or meaningless, and in order to make sense it would have to be clear as to exactly what it was saying, based on the supposition that it is your responsibility to clear up these matters. This would require an examination of the words "murder," "is," and "wrong". My examination of the meanings of the word "murder" to that end apparently vexed you since you wanted to talk about something else. Well then talk about it.

The debate moderator, a computer program, believes that you are defending the supposition that murder is wrong in other words (and I am paraphrasing) that the legal definition of murder coincides exactly with our morality, and that I am defending a conflicting point of view, the object being to pick a winner between these two based on the arguments presented, and that we are concerned with the issue, for example, that laws vary from state to state.

The fact is, however, that the situation is quite different. We are desperately trying to communicate with one another and with the computer program that moderates that communication, and not haveing much luck. Well there are humans around somewhere aren't there? Whatever happened to "Contact Us?"

"The only question, girls, boys and neuters:
Are we compos mentis enough for computers?"

--Brian Aldiss in "The Eighty Minute Hour"
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Pro

MY OPPONENT:
"You assert therefore that Cain did not commit murder since there were no (earthly) laws. A better solution would be to remove the qualification "unlawful" from our definition of murder."

unlawful meaning, unjust. unless you mean to debate against the foundation of the constitution? and the uprooting of everything this country is based on?

MY OPPONENT:
"Morality does not suddenly change when you cross a man-made boundary. While I do not wish to immediately claim a forfeit, it does appear worth noting that therefore there seems to exists a meaning of the predicate "is" which when applied to your statement causes your statement to be false."

Morality means right or wrong. unless you can justify murder, it is still wrong.

MY OPPONENT: "Another problem is that of determining state of mind. There shouldn't be any laws about what you are thinking."

oh yeah? so if i thinks its alright to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, there should be no law against it?

MY OPPONENT: "The people we seek to punish are the ones who can tell us how to solve the problem. But no, they must be punished."

no, they are the ones who are the problem, thus the cause of the punishing.

MY OPPONENT: "We need first of all a forum for discussing these issues, a more precise language for framing issues, and a better evaluation system. Not a landed gentry system where only those with brainless phones can vote. When we are finished people will still say that murder is wrong. This cannot be good for me. But how shall we communicate while we are discussing comminication?"

Is that supposed to be an argument? well people will say that murder is wrong, but they wouldn't say that if it wasn't true. so far i have not been informed of a hard evidential mean to see as to why it isn't.

MY OPPONENT: "I am in a debating community because it seems to address the global connectivity issue, that is connentivity within the community; but there are other issues that arise within a debating community that cannot best be solved by debating."

well i am debating on how murder is wrong. i don't recall the title of this debate being 'global connectivity'...

MY OPPONENT:
"My examination of the meanings of the word "murder" to that end apparently vexed you since you wanted to talk about something else. Well then talk about it."

well at first i didn't think i understood what you are talking about.. and i doubt anyone reading this does either... and now i am starting to think maybe you don'tt either. everything you have said has been completely random and doesn't make sense. I am soory but i issued this debate challenge out in hopes that some one would take it serious. I understand you have views, but right now we are debating the issue "murder is wrong" and you accepted knowing that. then you proceed to debate me with all this stuff about communication and global connectivity which litteraly gives me nothing to argue against seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic! then you proceed to accuse me of saying things i am sure i have never said or implied...

MY OPPONENT:
" the supposition that murder is wrong in other words (and I am paraphrasing) that the legal definition of murder coincides exactly with our morality, and that I am defending a conflicting point of view"

hmm... *re-reads all of opponents arguments* nope. i dont re-call seeing that anywhere. in fact i was the one defending morality if memory serves me right.

OK so now you have all read the debate, i would like to ask you if you understand my opponents position?
so far we have been shown all this evidence about communication, but what does that have to do with murder being right or wrong?

I am arguing that murder is wrong when it is done with malice thought and unlawful intent, which murder usually is based on, else it wouldn't be defined as murder.

murder is wrong, and should not be used.

thankyou

-philosophical
InfraRedEd

Con

My many questions about the meaning of this ridiculous assertion were cross-examination. It is up to the Pro to define the proposition or else nobody will and it will remain meaningless. ""Murder Is Wrong" Is Wrong." I say. It is up to me to prove that my criteria and values are superior to yours if that is the language you want to use. In any case to insist that your interpretation, or even you paradigm is correct or even valid simply because it is the proposition we are debating is false. It is precisely LD format that has the flexibility to propose alternate criteria and values. If I feel that it would be of greater value, according to my criteria, to discuss the sun and the moon and the tides than to discuss this abstraction, and that my criteria and values are superior to yours, then it is spurious to cry "irrelevant" when it is very relevant.

Quoting now from

http://wiki.idebate.org...

The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.

My opponent has taken the position that Murder Is Wrong, ie that
The unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) is wrong.
I take a position contrary to that, namely
Any killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought) is wrong.
Based on the criteria of uniformity, truth, goodness, morality, honesty, universality, common sense and forthrightness.
These have value greater than the unstated value used in declaring that Murder is Wrong, namely to win a debate.
It's not like he couldn't see this coming.

Any disagreement with "Murder is wrong" then supports my view. I don't have to take the position that "Murder is right" since these do not exhaust all possibilities, especially without proving or stipulating the Law of the Excluded Middle

http://en.wikipedia.org...

which states that either a proposotion or its negation is true.
My opponent is pretending to not understand the basic difference between "unlawful" and "unjust."
MY OPPONENT:
"You assert therefore that Cain did not commit murder since there were no (earthly) laws. A better solution would be to remove the qualification "unlawful" from our definition of murder."

unlawful meaning, unjust. unless you mean to debate against the foundation of the constitution? and the uprooting of everything this country is based on?

My opponent is pretending to not understand the rules of debate:
ok i accept your definition of murder: 'unlawful killing of another human being with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought".'

It's not "my" definition. It is the responsibility of the person proposing the debate to define the proposition.

first of all the statement wasn'e what i was putting up as fact. it was a standing opinion on whether or not someone would choose that side. so when you say i "might want to re-think that" i am a little confused as to what you are trying to say seeing as i haven't even posted an argument for starters. the resolution in itself is not me stating a point, but putting forth a topic in which to debate.

You certainly are confused.

Referring to debating rules with which I am wholly unfamiliar. The debate format does not support such a procedure. I have already explained the debating rules. You are using some other rules. In a real world debate, it is as if my opponent, in his opening argument, asked me to meet him backstage to discuss switching roles. When you click "Start This Debate" the terms of the debate are set, and lo and behold the "Edit your debate" screen comes up.
This must have been added as an afterthought. When I accepted your challenge I quite rightly ignored your suggestion to arrange things in the back room. The debate should all be up front. If you are not sure then start two debates.

Why debate with someone who pretends not to be able to comprehend the basic issues?

This seems to be a contest of debating styles

I'm like, let's talk about murder and some of its causes and philosphical (sic) is like no no no you can't do that communication and worldviews are not relevant to me winning this debate without actually discussing the issues.

Are we here to win debates or to discuss issues? Is the whole purpose of debating to pick unlosable topics so you don't have to do anything but keep repeating the same thing without adding any new insights?

If that is true then vote for philosphical (sic). If you want real discussion, conversely, then vote for the kind of debate you want.

It's time to decide what kind of debates we want, and what kind of a debating community we want. There should be voting after each round. You shouldn't have to have a brainless phone to vote. There should be forums for discussing these issues.

Ignore the first two items on the ballot about who you agree with.and vote for the kind of debate you want to see in the future.

Remember I'm doing this for fun and not as part of my argument.

If everyone would commit murder once in a while the world would be a better place.

Politicians would be more careful since one negative vote would really be a bummer.

Don't worry about aforethought anyway.

"Just do it" would take on a whole new meaning.

It would provide lots of good entertainment and we wouldn't have to watch those terrible violent TV shows.

Returning veterans would be right at home and wouldn't have such problems adjusting.

It would provide good training for military and law enforcement.

It would sharpen our survival skills. I think there's someone following you right now.

It would get rid of a lot of people who deserve to die anyway.

Do your part to end the overpopulation problem.

People would be a whole lot more polite.

Think of the commercial possibilities.

Imagine the satisfaction.

We break all the other laws with no problem.

Unemployment will drop.

Dead people vote anyway so you will still have that.

Country and Western songs will have a new theme

Live murders on confrontation TV shows.

Court system backlog will be eased.

Long lines no longer a problem.

Now hiring law enforcement and Body Removal Providers.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
i'm sorry but that is just sick and wrong..

"It would get rid of a lot of people who deserve to die anyway"

who are you to say who deserves to die and who doesn't?

and as far as the 'debating style' there is no debating style. you just debate, unless someone requests another way of doing it. you said something about 'me going in the backroom' to discuss how we will debate. No, i was asking you whether you wanted to affirm or negate the res. and then tell me so i could put up an opening case.

the relevance part is self explanatory.
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
oooh.... thanks for letting me post an argument :/ oh well
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
What a topic! It speaks to http://www.finitesite.com... civilization itself.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
The resolution sucks. It should have read "Murder is ALWAYS wrong" or something :|
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by trickish_knave 6 years ago
trickish_knave
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
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: It seems philosophical doesn't now how to properly debate and cannot follow the Contender's line of rational thought.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
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 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
philosphicalInfraRedEdTied
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