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


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 91913
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




a rock has no intent..

moral=kill the murderer in self defence


Well, this is my first debate. So here it is, enjoy.

You say that being immoral is equivalent to being accused or performing murder or homicide, so, if I were to steal, in what way would that cause murder/homicide?
If I were to be moral, and to support morals, why do I have to choose the option of killing the murderer in self defence? Could I not take any other route, such as dialing 999 (or the police department's phone number) for help and to arrest him? I do not have to kill the murderer because I am moral.
Debate Round No. 1


stealing a ring isnt murder.. except murder of truth or if the ring keeps some one alive

lie=fear truth

sure.. you can call the cops, dosnt make it immoral to kill him in self defence


Ok, stealing a ring isn't murder, and your round two arguments are, again very confusing, you should improve your grammar because what you're saying is always very vague.
Anyways, according to your topic, morality is basically equivalent (skipping the steps of right + intent) power and control. Morality are a set of options you decide for yourself to choose and either act it out or not. Therefore, it does not make sense, that morality is equivalent to power and control, and you have given no such examples to support your theory. Since control has the same definition of authority in this debate, and power means to have reign over in here, morality is certainly not this. While I agree laws are, morality isn't.
Lying is not equivalent to be afraid of truth, people lie for their benefit and because they are afraid that other's may know the truth, and that they may use it against you.
I never said that stealing a ring is murder, but YOU, you were the one to say that being immoral was equivalent, and the same as, committing murder (as represented with the equal sign)! That doesn't make any sense at all, just because a person is being immoral, such as swearing or saying rude words towards another human, doesn't make him commit homicide, it makes him immoral. Therefore, if he is swearing, he is being immoral, while murder is part of being immoral, it is only a small part of it, there are many acts that can fall into the immoral category, hell, even if disrespecting parents can fall into that category! Additionally, you need to clarify yourself on the murder of truth.
It is moral to kill the murderer in self defense, but the act of killing will stain your life, and furthermore, that can all be prevented with calling the cops and placing him in prison, why don't you take the better decision and make life easier for both?

I look forward to a much more detailed reply, also study english more please.
Debate Round No. 2


eh.. yea i confused my self in round 2

morality is the most advanced equation that can exist..

wrong.. morality is about control of power.. i think the true form of it is bravery

you are con.. you tell me how morality exist without the existence of power or control.. if that is your disagreement

ok... but when lying is wrong, lie=fear truth

immorality=immorality=homicide=stealing a ring

you are right, the murderer will wait for the cops to come and arrest him.. why didnt i think of that.. lolol

study intelligence more


Morality is not an equation, neither is it advanced. It cannot be an equation because it neither falls under the branches and studies of science or math.
Definition of Morality, form Merriam - Webster:
Full Definition of morality
plural moralities
a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
: moral conduct :


In nowhere in the dictionary does it mention control of power, neither does it mention it is bravery.
Unless, if you believe and think that morality is control of power, what do you have to support that?

You said that morality is ON PAR and EQUAL with:
- Right
- Intent
- Power
- Control
You never said that it would exist WITH power or control, you said it was EQUIVALENT, not exist under it.

How does immorality become homicide, and homicide becoming into stealing a ring? You have not clarified yourself and have not explained thoroughly. You have only present brief arguments with no underlying reasons whatsoever.

"you are right, the murderer will wait for the cops to come and arrest him.. why didnt i think of that.. lolol"
I will assume that this is sarcasm. In this case, if you were to knew the murderer arriving to your house to murder you, but it takes the murderer 3 hours to reach your house, then you can effectively prevent killing the murderer with any weapon by calling the police.

Please present more information that support your argument.
Debate Round No. 3


morality=not murder

pro is defence not offense man.. but then immorality would equal power-control

so any example of immorality is an example of the lack of control of power, option, ability to do, need, gun(poorly educated)..

morality=(IS)power AND control

stealing a ring=immorality
homicide=immorality=stealing a ring



Let's say that morality is not murder and that morality is power and control and that stealing a ring=immorality and
homicide=immorality=stealing a ring.

You still haven't proven how or why morality is equal to right and intent and power and control, where is the evidence? Where is the reasoning? I don't want talk and stupid equations, I want sentences with rational and logical reasoning.
Debate Round No. 4


rocks have no intent... a rock has no power to do or no option to do based on lack of power to do.. if you get a rock in the head its not the rocks fault, if you get a rock in the head because you are banging your head into a wall and there was a stone on top its still not the rocks fault

stealing a ring=not homicide
stealing a ring=homicide=immorality

obviusly you cant argue with me.. i am only here to prove con wrong.. defending my case.. as my battleship is being bombarded by nutella jars from a little fishing boat...


How is having a rock with no intent, causing a victim to be injured, lead to the conclusion of Morality = right intent = power control?
You state that Morality is equivalent as to possessing the traits of being morally right and with intent, but a rock does not have intent to do so, therefore you are saying that a rock is immoral? Okay, so say that the rock is IMMORAL, because it has no intent, due to it's lack of consciousness. That may justify your reason that morality may have intent (as many things do), but, how can you justify that morals are right, and correct? Morals don't always have to be right.
Also, how does right and intent connect to, relate to, and transform into power and control?
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
no fist, lol
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
is that my fish you are wearing?
Posted by llaurenthellama 2 years ago
I don't get it either..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
is that the case
Posted by mall 2 years ago
Where is this debatable ? Unless this is for people that don't believe in morality and it's all subjective of the do's and dont's
No votes have been placed for this debate.