The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

A killing in the act of war is murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
How_Could_Th1s_Bee has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 113941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




America. The land of the free and the home of the brave. The ones who are willing to be the protectors and mediators who can not supply this need for themselves. But the ones who are providing this service of protection for not only our country, but others have been said to be murderers. The ones that protect us like a mother protects her child have been said to be murderers. The ones that risk their life for ours have been said to be murderers. These people are not only risking their lives for their families and friends but the stranger in a state across the country, the regular Joe who lives half way around the globe. These people are not murderers they are protectors.


In order to classify killing as murder it needs to violate certain rules of law. While the US may excuse war as an exception to its own law. The people being killed may not view the invading US soldiers as exempt to their own laws. Heck the country being invaded may not even agree on the declaration of war by the US.

To illustrate. If an armed assailant breaks into your home what might you do? In the US you have the right to defend your home and you might attempt to do so. But, what happens if the armed assailant prevails over you and kills you? That person could be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree at least since they did come armed and this could constitute an intent to kill. Now the assailant could say he came in to protect your family, but how would your grieving family respond? They would pursue a conviction of murder on the assailant and the maximum punishment.

The US may declare war and invade another country under the guise of protection, but how do those in the other country feel? US law may permit it the killing as legal under an act of war, but to the people in the other country their laws should still apply and what they see is an uninvited armed assailant breaking into their home and killing the people potentially trying to protect them.

Often times US soldiers kill the people they are supposed to be protecting or liberating. How does that look to those people. Think of the perspectives of both people. The only way you can justify the killing is if you refuse to listen to the voices of the people under attack. In the broader perspective of morality, might does not equal right; killing in war is murder and you can't simply declare otherwise and expect everyone to accept your sense of morality just because you carry the bigger stick, or even win the war.
Debate Round No. 1


This is a fair argument but you also must realize that many times when the USA is going in to war in another country they are a large majority of the time being called in by this country. They are being brought in to protect a certain smaller nation from being bullied by another state, they are coming in to renew a state of peace within a country that has been put into war by contradicting view points. But with the definition of with the definition of murder being the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another and with this definition we are able to see that what these men and women are doing is not murder but rather homicide. If by chance someone that was supposed to be unharmed in conflict is killed it is not murder for it was not premeditated by the soldier committing this action.


The definition of 2nd degree murder is unlawful killing of a person with intent to kill without premeditation. In the case of war soldiers are sent in prepared to kill people; the intent to kill. Countries and and soldiers enter war and combat with the clear intent to kill how much deliberation that goes into it depends on those in charge of the intelligence and information. Death in war is no happenstance.

There are also many cases when larger more powerful nations enter into wars they have no business interfering in. They do it to protect and promote their own agendas. Vietnam was having problems; America and China should not have interfered. The war escalated due to outside interference and that war saw plenty of soldiers being ordered to, or acting on their own accord and laying waste to civilians they suspected of being enemies. The Korean war is another example. You don't go into a country and point guns at everyone and say there is no intent to take lives. You don't drop a bomb on an area and hope that explosion only kills your enemy. That would be ridiculously naive. War is waged to with the intent to kill.

Those who die don't want to die, soldier or not so, when do we start throwing law out the window? When should one peoples laws matter less than another's? Which laws count for anything? Which brings up my next argument.

Religious law. Now if you are a godless person whose only concern is the law of secular mankind then by all means go to war and kill away without fear of committing murder because the US is giving you a free pass to kill, kill, kill. But if you are religious then you are subject to the laws of your holy text. If you are a Christian, which is statistically high for Americans, then you should heed the words Hebrews 10:30, and Matthew 26:52 because the Bible says you should not be involved in killing in wars at all. There are plenty of religions each with their own laws against the killing/murdering that takes place in war. Muhammad Ali is one such person who's religious convictions prevented him from partaking in the murders of the Vietnam War. If one country invades another there's a good chance some group of peoples religious laws are being broken. And to many religious law is just as relevant as secular.

I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate; I'm only trying to highlight the various laws in existence regarding killing another person.

You can't have a war without at least the intent to kill and without violating some kind of Law
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by unknown777 3 years ago
Yes for the citizens they are a protector but for those rebels, they are a killer which is also true. Military intend to protect but they're procedure is killing. Murder isn't the exact term for soldiers since they have the government's consent but killers . The military and the rebel are both in their ways and both uses violence but the only difference is their intention and what/who they value. Rebels may value religion, vengeance without caring about other people's lives while military protect innocents and nationalism without caring about the rebel's lives.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.