CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"Murder", is a legal determination. As such, it can mean many things.. It's an extremely malleable term. Can a jury find someone guilty of "murder" WITHOUT a body? Sure. Does being found not guilty of murder, body or not, mean an accused didn't actually kill somebody? Nahh..
So, here's my answer.. Even IF there's no body, a murder COULD have happened.. Even if there WAS a body, a murder might NOT have happened..
If someone was murdered then of course there was a murder, with or without a body.
Proving the case against the suspected guilty party will always force the prosecution to work harder.
There have been cases where suspects, such as Nat Fraser and Lindy Chamberlain have been convicted of murder without the body of the victim being discovered.
But if there is no body then you can't prove they've been murdered you stupid imbecile.
You do not need proof of something for it to have occurred. I can't believe this needs to be explained. If someone assaults you, and you can't prove it, you were still assaulted.
Furthermore, if someone committed a murder at sea in front of witnesses and they dump the body never to be seen again, but then they confess, then you have no body and a murder with a conviction.
Furthermore, if someone committed a murder at sea in front of witnesses and they dump the body never to be seen again, but then they confess, then you have no body and a murder with a conviction.
Equally, if someone doesn't commit a murder at sea in front of witnesses and they don't dump the body never to be seen again, but then they confess, then you have the same outcome. But there was no murder. Hence, your analogy is stupid and pointless. Hearsay is not the same thing as proof. I could pay ten people tonight to say you raped a squirrel.
In my scenario and in yours there is the same evidence. But in one scenario there is an actual murder and in the other there isn't. That's because whether or not there is an actual murder does not depend on your ability to prove it. Proved my point, as usual.
In my scenario and in yours there is the same evidence.
Stop babbling Amarel. You were asked a question. Was there a murder? You cannot answer that question until you have several pieces of key evidence, including a body.
Whether or not it happened does not depend on whether or not you can prove it, let alone say it. In the real world, perception does not in fact create objective reality.
Whether or not it happened does not depend on whether or not you can prove it
Nobody is arguing otherwise you complete dolt. The question, "was there a murder" can only be answered if you know whether or not there was a murder. Is that clear enough for your limited brain to grasp? Without a body there is just as much chance that there was not a murder.
Your argument against "If someone was murdered then of course there was a murder, with or without a body"...
I said stop babbling and read the fucking title of the thread you are posting in, you spectacularly stupid, persistent halfwit. Was there a murder? Without a body we do not know, do we? Welcome to common sense. It probably seems alien, but that's just because you are not used to it.
The question is "was there a murder?". Not can we say there was a murder or can we prove there was a murder, but was there a murder! Now I'm comprehending simple questions for you!
As is arguing with a man who lacks sufficient common sense to read the title of the argument.
The question is "was there a murder?"
I just told you that. Yes.
Not can we say there was a murder or can we prove there was a murder, but was there a murder!
Yes, and we cannot know whether there was a murder if there is no body. Hence, the answer to his question is: I don't know. How many different ways do you need me to explain this to you? You cannot conclude that a murder has occurred if you do not have proof that a murder has occurred. Hence, you cannot conclude the answer to his question to be yes.
As have I, for your debilitating mental health problems. That is why I don't mind when you waste fifteen minutes at a time meticulously copying out my posts and changing every pronoun in them like a twelve year old child.
As you again correctly observed I continue to have debilitating Mental health problems
Yes , you’re stating the obvious again
That is why I don't mind when I spend fifteen minutes at a time meticulously copying out your posts and changing every pronoun in them like a twelve year old child.
Slight correction , you actually sound like a mentally challenged 3 year old , would you agree that’s a fair assessment?
Modest suggestion that you come up with insults that aren't mentalist.
Modest suggestion that you take your ridiculously stupid nose out of the online thesaurus and learn how to use basic words before you move onto the more advanced stuff. Clearly you haven't ever heard of the adage: learn to walk before you try to run.
Lol. What now? If through stupidity you use the wrong word and I point it out, that's "semantic authoritarianism", is it?
That isn't called semantic authoritarianism. That's called being a stupid bitch who thinks the online thesaurus is going to add on some extra IQ points.
I'd prefer you take your idiot nose out of the online thesaurus like I said thirty minutes ago. It isn't making you smarter. It's making you more stupid.
Is there a weapon covered in blood.Is there blood on the floor.Is there bullets on the floor holes in the walls a floors.Rope on the ground.This is a stupid discussion.I just described a few murder scenarios.But there is no body so it can't be proved by the cops.The cops need a body to prove that it is a mud er or suicide.
Often times, cops find this to be a difficult challenge to determine whether an individual was killed or not. But yes, it's possible. Serial killers can sometimes get rid of the body by burning it, chopping it up into pieces like Dexter or some other way. Those who deny someone has died though will often be seen as blindly ignorant, unaware citizens or co-operatives aka fellow assailants with the main serial killer. Man or woman. Anyone can seemingly be involved. Bodies go missing all the time in cases of organized crime that has a grudge to settle with anyone they deem "a loose end". In no way is it ever an isolated circumstance because there are events that lead up to things like this. From a simple kidnapping to a complete disappearance of any innocent individual. Here are a couple of examples of what usually can cause bodies to disappear; Drug cartels or Arms dealer gangs want a rat snuffed out. They bring him or her in for "ratting them out" to the cops and then they kill them, then they throw them either into the sea or use some brutal method to make them disappear forever without a trace. Yet cops will not believe that nothing has happened once they have found every trace and have talked to every witness that knew the victim or sometimes, formerly, knows the assailants themselves.
Cops and detectives have to find every possibility of what did happen according to witnesses or from thoughts, theories etc, what could've happened and what really happened aka (the truth) vs all the things that are to be left out. Think, analyze, resolve the problem. Sometimes evidence can be fabricated. Sometimes people do fake their deaths in order to "stage" a diversion while the real criminal action occurs somewhere else. Trust me, it happens. Gangs can use it if they wanted to.
If the body is not found then too it can be a murder case. Why can't it be?
In movies and even in real-life too the investigating team often faces such cases where the murder has have happened but the body couldn't be found.
It is so obvious that the murderer to hide his/her crime could have possibly hidden the body somewhere or burned it or disposed of the body parts at different isolated places where you possibly can't even imagine.
So yes, I believe that even if there's no body found, a murder can be suspected.
