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.
Ever hear of the castle doctrine? Not every state has it. It's sad that in some states you're a criminal for protecting you family, in your own home. The police can't protect you. Only you can. Reminds me of something someone wrote. When SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away.
The castle doctrine does not necessarily mean that it is ok to kill an intruder; rather, it removes the possibility of retreat from the considerations.
If you were to be assaulted on the street, for example, and you injured or killed your aggressor while standing your ground, the prosecution can sometimes make a case that retreat was a better option, and convict you of the appropriate violent crime as a result.
This does not apply to cases in your home where a castle doctrine is in place. Many states have this kind of doctrine, though not all allow lethal force, and those who do generally only allow it under specific circumstances.
it depends on the situation. if you have to defend your own life or of the loved ones then you got nothing to worry about. but if plan to execute someone for his riches and stuff, i think thats when you crossed the line of humanity.
I'm saying that just because someone kills, doesn't mean they are all-bad-all-the-time. Conversely, just because someone is nice and decent, does not mean they are incapable of horrific acts.
but what if you had to take everything about them into account?
That wouldn't be possible. Even the person in question doesn't know everything about themselves.
But it is best to try and get as complete a picture as possible. A person who lost their calm and killed in an act of passion should perhaps not be punished as harshly as a person who planned and executed a murder to get the money from a life insurance policy, but might be in more need of therapy or medication.
Abortion is legal where I live, therefore abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal killing.
Anyway, I support the notion that a woman should have freedom over her body, not the government.
I also talked one of my best female friends who was a single mother into keeping the child instead of aborting. Its a decision she is very happy with today.
For myself and any offspring I might father, I am pro-life.
Yes. Is it possible to have killed and still be a nice/ decent person. So long as it was clearly in defense of loved ones. You can justify it ,thinking along the lines of " if I could have managed to protect my loved one's without killing, I would have, I felt forced by the situation"
People are killed by others as a result of unintentional acts such as in car accidents or collateral damage of a military action.
People who intentionally kill others can do so as an act of defense or a result of being forced, such as a police officer, a military member or lethal injection technician.
People who intentionally kill others as a result of a mental disorder are often times reported as being extremely nice and decent by their peers.
This is not an exhaustive list, just some examples.
Sorry, I believe I did not present my answer clearly, what I mean is in the eyes of society and indeed of the most notorious cases of children having taken a life: Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They are still seen in the public's eye as utterly evil and don't intend to change my view on that either. But just for argument's sake; assume I meant nice/ decent on the inside, not on how they are deemed by society. Apart from a brief bout of madness; do you think contract killers are nice/ decent? They may be to their families, but wouldn't think twice about slaughtering a whole family.
Sorry, I believe I did not present my answer clearly, what I mean is in the eyes of society and indeed of the most notorious cases of children having taken a life: Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They are still seen in the public's eye as utterly evil and don't intend to change my view on that either. But just for argument's sake; assume I meant nice/ decent on the inside, not on how they are deemed by society. Apart from a brief bout of madness; do you think contract killers are nice/ decent? They may be to their families, but wouldn't think twice about slaughtering a whole family. From the contract killer's perspective he could believe he was doing an honourable thing. Is this because he is psychotic/ mentally ill or it it that he has different values?
assume I meant nice/ decent on the inside, not on how they are deemed by society.
If a killer were to be genuinely nice/ decent on the inside regardless of public opinion, then they would be nice/decent people.
If they were a victim of mental disorder, then I would assume they truly believed they were nice/ decent but their actions might prove otherwise. That is where public opinion would come into play, or more preferably clinical evaluation.
do you think contract killers are nice/ decent? They may be to their families, but wouldn't think twice about slaughtering a whole family.
I won’t assert a broad generalization but I will say that I think a number of them can be nice/ decent people.
How is it that someone could kill a person without care yet still be able to exhibit kindness and decency?
I don’t know personally, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
As stated previously, soldiers and police officers kill but that doesn't mean that they cannot be nice people. What about those who have accidentally killed? It is an extreme example, yes, but an accident is an accident; just a rather unfortunate one.
If you end up killing someone it will change you forever. You can't go back to the way you were. Sure it is possible that you won't ever do anything bad the rest of your life, but you still have to live with yourself. Even if the act of killing was justified it will take away some of your spirit. You can still appear to be nice and decent, but you won't actually be fully nice and decent.
I agree with that; I'm pretty certain that a person would necessarily take a hit to their niceness and decency after having to kill, regardless of the reasoning. If it didn't harm you mentally, you probably weren't nice and decent to begin with!
I object to the idea of mutual exclusivity, and the idea that a person with such experience is no longer nice or decent at all; merely less than they used to be.
If it didn't harm you mentally, you probably weren't nice and decent to begin with!
Yeah, I was thinking that too. I was waiting to use it on someone. Darn. If it doesn't phase you you are a sociopath and how decent can you be?
I object to the idea of mutual exclusivity, and the idea that a person with such experience is no longer nice or decent at all; merely less than they used to be.
Agreed, but it fits better on this side and I am not a conformist.
I HAVE killed someone. He deserved it, and I'll never shed a tear for him. When I shot him, I saved an innocent life. I have no problem living with myself. I did the right thing, and I'd do it again. It hasn't changed me.
Well, we know you aren't a good person, so it proves my point. But, if you can take a human life without any remorse you are not a good person also. It may have been the right thing, but it should bother you that it was necessary in the first place.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you know for definite that it hasn't changed you at all? Some little things, (which that definitely isn't) have impacts on a person.
